I probably shouldn’t be surprised, but I still am. The New York Times unsigned editorial opposing the Supreme Court decision overturning the Chicago gun ban is one of the most poorly reasoned editorials I’ve ever read. Two excerpts:
Once again, the court’s conservative majority imposed its selective reading of American history, citing the country’s violent separation from Britain and the battles over slavery as proof that the authors of the Constitution and its later amendments considered gun ownership a fundamental right. The court’s members ignored the present-day reality of Chicago, where 258 public school students were shot last school year — 32 fatally.
Mayors and state lawmakers will have to use all of that room and keep adopting the most restrictive possible gun laws — to protect the lives of Americans and aid the work of law enforcement officials. [emphasis added]
Really? Are liberals still arguing that because the U.S. has a lot of gun violence, gun bans work? How about one shred of peer-reviewed social science showing that any of the myriad state and local regulations of firearms have actually had a robust negative influence on violent crime rates? Is the NYT stuck in a 1994 time warp?