When the Alexandria attack led to call for Congress to pass national reciprocity so citizens can protect themselves, the New York Times responded by suggesting no one wants to live in society where everyone is armed for self-defense.
The NYT said the desire to arm up for self-defense is “an entirely reasonable reflex” after such an attack, but the editorial board believes actually doing it is a step too far.
According to NYT, “The reaction of some [the Alexandria attack] was that the only solution is yet more guns. Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama, who was among those who came under fire on Wednesday, said, ‘It’s not easy to take when you see people around you being shot and you don’t have a weapon yourself.’”
The newspaper admitted that “all people in that situation, unarmed and under fire, would want long to be able to protect themselves and their friends,” but quickly hedged in the admission by positing:
Yet consider the society Americans would have to live in–the choices they would have to make–to enable that kind of defense. Every member of Congress, and every other American of whatever age, would have to go to baseball practice, or to school, or to work, or to the post office, or to the health clinic–or to any other place mass shootings now take place–with a gun on their hip.
Note to NYT–this is already how Americans lives their lives in their home states. You usually do not see the guns, for that reason it is called ‘concealed carry.’ It is legal in all 50 states and every day, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, business owners and business patrons, carry handguns for self-defense as they go about their day in their respective home states.
And the “mass shootings” are not occurring where Americans carry guns daily. Rather, they are occurring in the gun-free zones which the left and anti-gun business owners established in society. In those places, law-abiding Americans must give up their hope of self-defense and, sadly, often become sitting ducks for criminals who ignore gun-free signs.