San Bernardino

You're smart enough to know what's going on. You know it's not a coincidence the NYT is doing this immediately after a terrorist attack. You also know that the risk of Islamic terrorism is a worldwide concern that is only going to be exacerbated when the United States purposely ignores it. Gun violence AND Islamic terrorism are two issues we shouldn't be playing politics with -- much less pitting one against the other. That the NYT is playing along is an embarrassment to journalism.

 

What was the last one about?

 

Warren G. Harding, I believe

 

I disagree. I think it's just that the gun debate has ratcheted up each time something has happened and a lot of people are fed up. One of my local papers ran essentially the same editorial this morning, though not on the cover. I have said I'm not sure why THIS case has ramped up the gun control talk, but it sure seems that it has. And we CAN do two things at once.

 

Sunshine loses his shit at any mention of gun control after a mass shooting. We had a guy with a bunch of capital letters in his name do that after Sandy Hook. To my knowledge Adam Lanza was not an Islamic terrorist, so was it OK for the media to talk about gun control then?

When is exactly the time to talk about gun control?

 

If you think hard enough, you'll know why. What was the difference in this mass shooting? Why not editorialize after Newtown? Or Charleston? Why now?

 

Never. You'll have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

 

I guess the NYT didn't think the deaths of 26 children was important enough to prompt such an editorial. You're being purposefully ignorant.

 

You sure they didn't?

www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/kristof-looking-for-lessons-in-newtown.html

 

The New York Times didn't editorialize after Newtown or Charleston?

 

I must have missed the front-page editorial.