In a Friday morning press conference in Washington, the National Rifle Association broke its weeklong silence following the shooting of 26 people at a school in Newtown, Connecticut, and called for a surge of gun-carrying "good guys" around American schools.
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre called for a new kind of American domestic security revolving around armed civilians, arguing that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
"We care about our president, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents," LaPierre said. "Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by Capitol Police officers. Yet, when it comes to our most beloved, innocent, and vulnerable members of the American family, our children, we as a society leave them every day utterly defenseless, and the monsters and the predators of the world know it, and exploit it."
LaPierre's speech was a call to supporters to mobilize around a new vision of American domestic security, at a time when voices for gun control are steadily rising. On Friday morning before the press conference, President Obama released a video (above) citing a petition by hundreds of Americans calling for swift action.
Mt. Diablo Unified School District board member Brian Lawrence disagreed with LaPierre's suggestion.
"My reaction is, we need to stop bad guys from having guns, especially military style assault rifles," Lawrence said in an email to Patch.
Lynne Dennler, another member of the MDUSD board, said the NRA recommendation was disappointing.
"Sadly, the NRA continues to place their personal interest in guns over the good of the whole. What thinking person would suggest the answer to our problems with weapons, be more weapons?," Dennler said in an email to Patch. "Who is able to possess guns today, if not 'the good guys?' This seems to indicate that it is fine with NRA present thinking, that some guns are in the hands of those who should not possess them. It is disheartening that the NRA can't come to terms with the truth that not everyone should own a gun, especially a semiautomatic weapon, that has no use other than to kill people."
Denise Elsken, a member of the Martinez Unified School District board, said having armed guards sends the wrong message to children.
"Of all of the memories of your childhood and school, were any of them walking past an armed, uniformed guard?," Elsken asked in an email to Patch. "Having traveled in numerous countries where we have seen 'armed guards,' I can tell you that it does not make you feel very safe. In fact, it would be a reminder to children five days a week of the fact that they could be shot and killed at school that day. Is this beneficial to our children?"
She called the NRA statement and "selfish and unwarranted position that assault rifles should be legal."
She added she is not against banning all firearms, saying hunters should be able to own rifles and other weapons and homeowners should be able to protect their property with a firearm.
"However, I do not believe anyone but trained soldiers and police officers should have rapid fire assault weapons," she said.
In Connecticut, Newtown United, a group of Newtown neighbors, are working to address major issues related to the tragedy, including gun control, violent media, mental health and legislation.
Newtown locals responded to the NRA press conference. Suzy DeYoung, a Newtown parent, coach and resident for nine years who has three children, said LaPierre's speech was playing to people’s fears.
“People are much smarter than this,” DeYoung said. “He is saying we need to be protected from guns by more guns. This lack of logic speaks for itself, and I truly believe the response you are abut to see from parents all around the world will offer better commentary than I ever could."
Joanna Zachos, a mother in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, said that while she supports an increase in gun control and personally does not believe in guns at all, that the larger problem goes "way beyond that."
"The problem we have is our immunity to violence as a society as a whole," she said. "Violent video games, violent movies, addiction to horror films. We've developed immunity to violence and violent images."
LaPierre also lamented violence in video games, music videos and "blood-soaked" films. But his central solution seemed to be a great mobilization of gun-carrying "good guys," a term he used repeatedly but did not define, who might be more present and respond more quickly than police.
"If we truly cherish our kids, more than our money, more than our celebrities, more than our sports stadiums, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible," LaPierre said. "And that security is only available with properly trained, armed 'good guys'."
LaPierre, who was interrupted twice by protesters who held signs in front of TV cameras, made a direct call for local action.
"I call on every parent. I call on every teacher. I call on every school administrator, every law enforcement officer in this country, to join with us and help create a national schools shield safety program to protect our children with the only positive line of defense that’s tested and proven to work," he said.
LaPierre did not take questions from reporters and did not acknowledge the protesters.
I think instant background checks are fine-- even at gun shows. I think waiting periods are OK for your first gun of a given type, but silly for your third pistol or fourth rifle. Linda: maybe consider solid logic instead of compound appeal to authority with a straw man twist in your arguments. I know a guy with a Ph.D who is a member of the Brady anti-gun group who thinks we should ban images of guns in movies and video games, so we shouldn't take seriously anything they say.
I took offense when then candidate Obama was caught in a candid moment talking about middle American's clinging to their guns and religion but after watching the way comments devolve at the mere mention of gun control, I am finding myself agreeing with at least part of that statement.
I guess I would just suggest that if you want to reduce someone else's freedom for irrational and emotional reasons, you might at least point your (metaphorical) shotgun in the direction of the "center mass" of the problem and not the skinny tip of the beast's long tail. Translation: to reduce gun deaths, you ought to focus (in this order) on (i) suicide intervention/prevention, (ii) factors that cause young black men to murder each other with simple handguns, (iii) better background checks and (iv) mental health issues. If you care about the safety of your children, efforts to outlaw so-called assault rifles will have the same impact as placing garlic cloves under the bed to repel boogeymen.
I was that softly spoken "no" last time out of sheer hopelessness, not now, not this time. As for (iii) take that up with LaPierre, apparently he's not much of a fan... http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/nra_a_lobby_for_criminals/ NRA: A lobby for criminals "We’ve read the sickening script before. Following virtually every mass shooting in the United States, the news media focuses briefly on the question of whether anything can be done to prevent such incidents in the future. Soon, a softly spoken “no” infiltrates the coverage, either out of sheer hopelessness or the certain knowledge that our elected officials are so firmly in the thrall of the gun lobby that they quiver in fear at the mere thought of contemplating even tepid measures advanced by gun control advocates in the wake of the latest atrocity. If the aftermath of Aurora (12 dead, 58 wounded) plays out as others of recent or fading memory — Tuscaloosa, two weeks ago (18 wounded), Tucson in 2011 (six dead, 14 wounded), Binghamton in 2009 (13 dead, four wounded), Ft. Hood also in 2009 (13 dead, 29 wounded), Virginia Tech in 2007 (32 dead, 17 wounded), Northern Illinois University in 2008 (five dead, 21 wounded), Columbine in 1999 (12 dead, 21 wounded), etc. — the role of the National Rifle Association will be lightly brushed over, then dismissed."
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-checking-nra-press-conference-185542748.html "The proposals and opinions offered by the National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre at a press conference Friday have been roundly criticized by gun control opponents already, but is he also wrong about the bare facts? While many of the gun lobby's latest claims about armed security are debatable, and LaPierre's pop-culture references — Mortal Kombat? American Psycho? — are out-of-date enough to be easily debunked, there were a handful of actual factual assertions in his speech today that we decided to double check just to see if the NRA's talking points match up with reality. Here's what we found on some of key statements."
Why the obsession with attacking the straw man of the NRA?
Of course this will deter potential mass shooters so we had better do the same thing for: day care centers little league games swimming competitions YMCAs JJCs churches synagogues movie theaters shopping malls 4th of July parades any place where people gather!
day care centers little league games swim meets churches synagogues YMCAs JCCs shopping centers movies theaters And any other place where kids congregate. Barbed wire and marksmen!!!
For home defense, you have a better point (but still not vis-a-vis bear spray). Many people keep a 12 Gauge "rubber bullet" as the first round loaded. If bad guy seems unarmed but potentially violent, he first gets a 12 Gauge rubber bullet to the gut, which will hopefully chill him out. If he appears armed, then rubber round gets ejected on the floor unfired with a quick pump and he gets #00 buck (or .45 ACP JHP).
I heard all of the rationales then. Then as the Salon story indicated it would, the storyline dimmed in peoples minds and we went about our daily lives. Why speak out against the NRA? Because until the 74% (according to pollster Frank Luntz) of the membership that actually believes in increased gun safety laws and common sense restrictions stands up and is counted instead of allowing LaPierre to continue his feckless obstructionist tactics, then the body is culpable and needs to be accountable.