The New York Times, in its first front-page editorial in nearly a century, called for outlawing the kinds of rifles used in the California shooting massacre this week that left 14 people dead.
The newspaper's editorial comes three days after Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, a married couple, carried out the mass shooting in San Bernardino with legally-purchased, .223 caliber assault-style rifles. FBI officials have said they are investigating the shooting as an "act of terrorism."
The couple also had semi-automatic pistols, and U.S. officials have said Malik is believed to have pledged allegiance to a leader of the militant group Islamic State.
"Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership," the New York Times editorial said.
The editorial went on to argue that an act to outlaw such weapons would "require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens."
The piece made brief mention of other US mass shootings. "Let's be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism," it said.
Republican presidential candidates dismissive
Republican presidential candidates dismissed the editorial, with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie calling it "typical liberal claptrap."
In excerpts from an interview with CBS' "Face the Nation," airing on Sunday, Christie said more should be done to institutionalise the mentally ill.
Republican front-runner Donald Trump - asked by reporters in Iowa where he was campaigning about the editorial - cited the shootings in Paris and California, saying the victims "could have protected themselves if they had guns."
‘A statement of frustration, anguish’
Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. said the editorial was placed on the front page "to deliver a strong and visible statement of frustration and anguish about our country’s inability to come to terms with the scourge of guns."
President Barack Obama has called for legislation making it harder for criminals to get guns. He has noted mass shootings do not happen as frequently in other advanced countries and said the United States should address the problem.
Republicans in Congress have mounted heavy opposition to gun-control measures.
‘Brilliant’
Social media users were quick to deliver their verdicts, with a number applauding the editorial as brilliant.
‘Wasted space’
Other social media users questioned the value of the editorial and the potential impact.
The debate over gun control has long been one of the most contentious political issues in the United States, with the right to gun ownership enshrined in the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment.
In a post on the website of the libertarian magazine Reason, senior editor Brian Doherty criticised the editorial, and in particular the call for citizens to eventually give up certain rifles.
"What the Times is calling for is, beyond its countable costs in money and effort and the likely further erosion of civil liberties, also (as they surely know) calling for a massive political civil war the likes of which we haven't seen in a long time," Doherty wrote.
One conservative blogger shot holes through the paper to convey his thoughts.
Editor-in-chief at the right-wing blog RedState, Eric Erickson, used the newspaper as target practice.
He posted a photo of the result on his Twitter and Instagram, urging his followers to post similar photos.
The call out garnered some support, but also attracted criticism.
