151215234904-candidates-podium-republican-debate-exlarge-169The New York Times is appalling.  Ooops. No, I mean appalled, appalled. How do I know? Because they said so in a 12-17-15 editorial titled “An Appalling Silence on Gun Control.” About whom are they appalled? Why, Republicans, of course!

It was remarkable that the Republican presidential candidates’ debate this week, supposedly focused on keeping Americans safe, was devoid of questions and comments about the public health issue of gun violence.

Actually, the debate was about national security issues, not “keeping Americans safe,” and the candidates responded to the questions from CNN, none of which so much as suggested gun control. And I hate to repeat myself, but this isn’t a public health issue at all. The Times and other progressive media outlets—pretty much all of them—have been wailing in dismay that the Centers For Disease Control have been prevented by law from anti-gun activism for many years, and President Obama is trying to resurrect that insanitybut the Second Amendment has nothing to do with public health, unless one recognizes its primary role of preventing totalitarian government from torturing and killing citizens.

Instead, the nine Republican rivals spent much of their time dwelling darkly on potential threats from Islamic State terrorists. And when they brought up the mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., this month, carried out by a couple found to be inspired by Islamic State violence, the discussion never veered to the easy gun access that enabled those killers — and many others — to commit swift and horrific slaughter of innocent people.

“Dwelling darkly?” So terrorist threats are a happy, uplifting thing? Fairy dust and rainbows? By the way, the “they” to which the Times refers are not the Republican candidates, but the CNN questioners. Does The Times Editorial Board really believe that terrorist murders will obey the law, that the kind of gun laws they favor will stop Islamist killers intent on slaughtering Americans?

The Time’s editorial infers that all Republican candidates—just like their Democrat/Socialist counterparts—should be ignoring the oath of office they all hope to take. The one about “upholding and defending the Constitution?” Of The United States of America? That one? They should be advocating the destruction of the Second Amendment. They should be as obsessed over this issue as Democrats, and should “veer” to it even if it wasn’t a topic under discussion, as it was not.

That would have complicated their pitch, and more important, would mean thinking about gun violence in ways that would displease the gun industry and its political lobby. Those forces demand unquestioning allegiance from politicians fearful for their careers — outspoken candidates who retreat into shameful timidity when serious ideas on gun safety are needed. Strangely, the debate moderators didn’t care to touch the gun issue either, thereby burying a public health challenge that is a lethal, daily threat.

Notice that it is only in the third paragraph that The Times admits that CNN didn’t raise gun control at all. And again with the “public health challenge.” I’m worried about public health, and far more people die in car accidents then by gunfire. I won’t, however, hold my breath waiting for The Times to characterize that as a public health issue and demand the abolishment of motor vehicles. And talk about begging the question. The Times assumes its position is the only rational, correct one and excoriates the Republicans for not seeing things their way. And surely no Democrat politician would ever do anything to please their political supporters?

Far from offering any ideas, their statements on the campaign trail are a national embarrassment.

‘I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away,’ Dr. Ben Carson declared in October.

Imagine that: a politician actually recognizing a fundamental, unalienable principle instead of embracing a sound bite.

You get rid of the bad guys by using our guns,’ Senator Ted Cruz passionately declared early this month. He likes to make light of the issue, too: ‘We define gun control real simple — that’s hitting what you aim at.

And how does The Times propose to stop terrorist killers? With soaring rhetoric and promises of hope and change? I wonder if they’d hold on to that thought as terrorists ran rampant through their offices as they did at the officers of Charlie Hebdo? Sen. Cruz wasn’t making light of the issue, but of simple-minded pundits like The Times.

Gun laws fail everywhere they’re tried,’ Senator Marco Rubio flatly insisted last month. That claim is plain wrong, contradicted by major studies as well as experience in other countries where politicians have enacted sensible controls that helped to reduce rates of gun deaths.

The Times finally provides an idea of which ‘sensible controls’ they embrace. The other countries to which they refer have enacted virtual total bans. It is The Times’ claim of foreign gun control success that is wrong, and easily proved, but they take such things on faith. There is no question that American gun control utopias like Chicago, Detroit and other Democrat-controlled political reservations have outrageous rates of crime committed with the use of guns, while every state that has adopted shall-issue concealed carry has experienced a decrease in violent crimes.

This week, the sound of the guns from San Bernardino, Colorado Springs and a dozen earlier scenes of American carnage never penetrated the debate.

And why was that again? Oh yes: because it wasn’t the topic of the debate, and because even CNN didn’t consider it a national security issue, to say nothing of a public health issue.