by Jacqueline Stoughton
The New York Times made history last week when they made the bold decision to run an editorial criticizing politicians for how they’ve been handling gun violence, or lack thereof with their inability to create any revised gun laws, on the front page.
Following this monumental move by the Times, something they haven’t done in almost a century, Republican presidential candidates including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Donald Trump have denounced The New York Times’ editorial. Further proving why gun control will never be improved in this country without the cooperation and compromise by Republicans, or the use of executive order.
“Let me tell the editors of the Times something: you don’t stop the bad guys by taking away our guns. You stop the bad guys by using our guns,” said Cruz to a crowd in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
In a direct statement to POLITICO, Christie admitted, he “didn’t read” the editorial, but described it as a “liberal clap-trap.”
“The fact is that what happened in San Bernardino had nothing to do with gun control and they know it and they just want to try and exploit it for their point of view,” said Christie. “That’s their right as a newspaper.”
During his campaign rally in Spencer, Iowa, POLITICO asked Donald Trump his opinion of the remarks made in the Times editorial. “If you look at what happened in California, they didn’t have guns, they were slaughtered. They could’ve protected themselves if they had guns.”
He continued to express his strong belief that people everywhere should own a gun for their own personal protection.
I thought The New York Times perfectly explained what exactly needs to be done if we wish to see a decline in gun violence in this country. I said similar statements in past columns, that the only way to see change would be if we revise the Second Amendment and create more solid gun control laws. But the strong, ignorant, disagreements made by Republicans and those who are pro-guns are making this compromise seem like an impossible task.
What gun supporters need to realize is, we don’t want to take away your Second Amendment rights. That isn’t the goal or even the focus. But a change needs to be made in who gets access to guns, the process of applying for ownership and what types of guns an average citizen should be allowed to have in their home and how many.
No one needs multiple guns in their home. No one needs assault weapons in their home that are designed to be used in combat. A simple handgun will suffice. If we have to have a gun then that’s all you need. There’s only so much we can do, because if someone wants to kill and get a hold of a weapon, they’ll find a way. But, drastic changes such as what The New York Times and myself have suggested will be a significant step towards change.