Showing an utter lack of self-awareness the Times editors assure their readership that, contra Trump and one bad year of crime statistics, crime is NOT out of control and the long term trends have been very good since the 1990's.
Of course, the next time there is a mass shooting and Obama is tearing up on television this will all be forgotten. As will this, from their editorial:
The surge in killings was fueled by street violence in a handful of major cities. While murder rates rose significantly in 25 of the 100 largest cities in 2015, an analysis by The Times found that half of the increase in killings in big cities came from just seven — Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Houston, Milwaukee, Nashville and Washington — where most of the victims were young African-American males. Guns were used in nearly three-quarters of the 15,696 homicides in 2015.
So basically, young black men in a few big cities are shooting each other, so therefore we should restrict access to firearms across the nation. Because Black Lives Matter.
As to what we shouldn't do:
Unfortunately, the debate over how best to fight crime is always a combustible one, so even relatively small changes in crime rates can lead to big and often destructive changes in law and policy, like mandatory-minimum prison sentences or stop-and-frisk policing. In the name of greater public safety, policies like these have done immense damage to minority communities around the country, and particularly to the young black and Latino men who have borne their brunt, even as evidence shows that they do little if anything to reduce crime.
Hmm - here I thought I just read that crime had been falling since the 90's, yet now I am being told that aggressive policing didn't have anything to do with it. In New York City crime fell during the Giuliani Gulag and the Bloomberg oppression, but their policies had nothing to do with it. Whatever.