The shock and grief of the murderous rampage at a Connecticut elementary school that killed 20 little students and six teachers resulted in three PG editorials in one week on the topics of gun violence and gun control policy. I have to ask, though: Where was your editorial outrage months ago during the scandal over the "Fast and Furious" program when an agency of our federal government let 2,000 weapons, "assault weapons" of the type you would reflexively ban, be distributed to criminal gangs, weapons that may have been responsible for hundreds of murders in Mexico, and then lied about it, repeatedly?
It is instructive that the prospect of hundreds of dead Mexican citizens with weapons provided by the U.S. government couldn't rouse you to action, but a murder spree in a Connecticut elementary school can. While double standards are nothing new at the PG, it's hard to escape the conclusion you are politicizing events for your own ends. How else to explain the selective outrage? Simple.
The "Fast and Furious" gun scandal was politically damaging to President Barack Obama, your endorsed candidate in 2012, so no story here. The Connecticut shooting, on the other hand, presents a golden opportunity, not only to advance a gun control agenda, but also to punish (as President Obama might say) your political opponents (manufacturers, the National Rifle Association, Republicans). Your Dec. 20 editorial "Pulling the Trigger" is highly revealing, where you propose mobilizing a campaign of divestment, a political act, targeting gun manufacturers. No arguments are presented of why this is good policy or how this will make schools safer. The PG's only rationale is that it will hurt.
Stooping to political opportunism is nothing new for the PG. The fact that you're willing to step over the bodies of first-graders to do so, however, represents a new low.