Boston Globe front page editorial today

‘Make It Stop:’ Boston Globe makes big push for gun control in front page cover

Is it wrong for them to take a side on this issue?

Frankly, I don't see the problem.

 

We can argue about the recent push to put editorials out front -- eventually it will lose its luster -- but side-taking is what editorials are for.

 

I liked their pressure cooker editorial, following the Boston Marathon bombing, better. That one was deserving of A1. This one is just a rehash.

Better art for this one though.

 

Did they send someone to Philadelphia to buy the AR-15 for the cover photo?

 

Agreed, but I was surprised by how superficial this one was, given its prominence.
Focusing on the expired assault weapons ban, which even most proponents admit was utterly ineffective, was just plain weird. The Globe made it seem like we've been under this barrage of violence in the years since the ban expired when in reality crime has been at historic lows and has gone down dramatically since the ban expired.

 

Of course, using a pic of an AR-15 was appropriate because an AR-15 was NOT used in the Orlando shooting.
Sure, the story about the front page editorial mentioned the rifle used in the shooting was an "AR-15-type assault-style rifle" and that "(s)imilar weapons were also used in the mass shootings that took place at an elementary school in Newton, Conn.; a movie theater in Aurora; and workplace party in San Bernardino, Calif."
But the Orlando shooter had a Sig Sauer MCX and a Glock 17 pistol.
Meanwhile, CNN reported:
* The Newton shooter used a Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S.
* Citing police, the Aurora shooter did use an AR-15 rifle, along with a 12-gauge shotgun and at least one of two .40-caliber handguns police recovered at the scene.
* The San Bernardino shooters had a .223-caliber DPMS Model A-15, a Smith & Wesson M&P15, and two 9 mm handguns (one by Llama, one by Springfield Armory).
So, to recap, just one of the mass shootings referenced actually involved an AR-15.
But let's just call every rifle an AR-15.
Details, shme-tails.

 

Getting rid of lightweight, short, low recoil, extremely powerful at short distance, rifles which accommodate multiple 30 round magazines which can be replaced in literally one second would be a good first step, regardless of brand name.

 

Part of the issue is that you have media writing about guns who don't have the first clue about guns. It's not as easy as saying "ban assault weapons." First you have to define what an assault weapon is. To do that, you have to define it precisely. And because of that, very slight modifications can be made to get around the ban (which is what happened during the decade or so the so-called assault weapons ban was in effect).
Frankly, what people usually want is "ban scary-looking weapons." Some of the most vilified weapons have the exact same function and firepower as a traditional-looking hunting rifle. They just are designed to look "military-style" and thus seem more frightening.

 

What he said.

 

This is a problem, conflating weapons that are quite dissimilar. I don't think it's assuming too much to say that most mainstream journalists -- particularly outside the toy department -- do not own guns and cannot talk about them with accuracy and expertise.

 

Previously, I thought exactly like y'all.

I am a former gun collector and I know where you are coming from.

1. Mandatory background checks for all purchases, including gun shows.

2. Banning non-citizen immigrants from handgun ownership.