The bad guys, AKA terrorists, love the New York Times editorial

I do not own a gun, but I reserve the right to buy one. And I do not wish this right to be challenged by a front page editorial opinion in the New York Times that infers that my claim to this right makes me immoral and complicit in any killings by crazy, radicalized people.  People that I know are rapidly losing faith in newspapers because the line between opinion and honest reporting is fading away. The Times editorial erased this important line completely. Ask people under 30 if you doubt this claim.

Most Times readers will not understand that editorials are matters of pure opinion. That is precisely why newspapers publish editorials on the editorial pages and not on the front page where factual news should be placed. Many readers of the Times will believe that the editorial is factual. It is not. 

A casual reading illustrates that the Times editorial is laced with conjecture and speculation with little evidence to support the editorial.  Typically, that is acceptable for an editorial displayed on the editorial page where pure opinions are supposed to be. 

I asked an AP editor about editorials. He explained that most honest newspapers print editorials representing both sides of the issue so a reader can make up his/her own mind. But it is unlikely that the Times will print an editorial adverse to the one they printed, which suggested that it is a moral outrage that we do not have tougher gun control laws, while at the same time the editorial summarily dismissed the belief, that bad guys can always get guns, as not relevant. The editorial characterized this belief as not relevant in the first two sentences of the editorial, then proceeded to describe legislation, in broad atmospheric language, that would place further barriers on future gun purchases. 

I know that I will have people recite to me portions of the Times editorial as factual investigative reporting. And that is the most annoying point. I can only hope that Trump calls the editorial for what it is and uses it as another example where the media uses the power of print to persuade on emotion rather than common sense. 

If I am ever attacked by a person with a gun, I would rather defend myself with my gun rather than throw the Times article at them and shout moral outrage.