The New York Times, clearly fed up with America’s tragic and embarrassing gun problem, ran a front page story that blasted lawmakers for doing nothing and called out gun nuts for ignoring all sensible facts in favor of clutching their guns.
Titled simply “End the Gun Epidemic in America,” the New York Times editorial board wrote:
All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.
But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.
It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.
It was a refreshing change of pace for the an American media that oftentimes appears too content to simply waffle between the “both sides” middle ground. However, it’s clear-eyed look at America’s unquestionable gun problem was not greeted with similarly level-headed responses from America’s right-wing movement. They lost their minds.
Erick Erickson, a conservative pundit and purveyor of terrible ideas, had a unique response to the lengthy, fact-filled editorial on gun violence: He took a gun and unloaded on it.
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) December 5, 2015
And while Erickson was clearly very pleased with himself for shooting a newspaper full of bullets, he only managed to prove the paper’s central thesis: America has a major gun problem. Each year tens of thousands of people are needlessly dying because of it, and a large swath of the conservative movement in this country has no real plan to address. Their arguments are silly, immature, and emotional. They’d rather shoot a newspaper than talk about solving gun violence.
Erickson reinforced this idea with a written piece explaining why he shot up the New York Times. It reads as if written by a toddler throwing a tantrum.
This is what I think of the New York Times editorial today. The United States suffered its worst terrorist attacks since September 11 and the New York Times’ response is that all law-abiding citizens need their guns taken away. Screw them. The New York Times wants you to be sitting ducks for a bunch of arms jihadists who the New York Times thinks no doubt got that way because of the United States.
I hope everyone will join me in posting pictures of bulletholes in the New York Times editorial. Send them your response. Put them on Instagram and use the hashtag for my radio show and I may give you a shoutout. #EERS
So here we are. A debate between adults and children about an issue that costs the lives of nearly 40,000 people every year. Discourse has been replaced by literal bullet holes. And nothing gets accomplished.
Feature image via Twitter