Guns smoke and mirrors
Guns, Smoke and Mirrors
By Charles M. Blow, The New York Times
December 21, 2012
Seriously, what was the National Rifle Association performing on Friday? I thought it was going to be a press conference. It wasn’t. I really don’t know how to describe it. A soliloquy of propaganda? A carnival of canards? A herding of scapegoats?
Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.’s executive vice president, blamed gun violence in general, and mass shootings in schools in particular, on everything except for the proliferation of brutally efficient, high-capacity guns and his organization’s efforts to resist virtually any restriction on people’s access to those weapons.
It was an appalling display of deflection and deception. So much smoke and so many mirrors.
He blamed American culture, and the media, and video games and even natural disasters. But not a society saturated with guns that spray bullets the way that Super Soakers spray water and have made us the embarrassment of the developed world.
He blamed “every insane killer,” “monsters and the predators,” and “people that are so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can ever possibly comprehend them.” It is true that America has those types of people, but so do other countries. The difference here is that help can be too hard — and guns too easy — to come by.
The simple truth is that more guns equal more death.
An analysis this year from the Violence Policy Center found that “states with low gun ownership rates and strong gun laws have the lowest rates of gun death.” The report continued, “by contrast, states with weak gun laws and higher rates of gun ownership had far higher rates of firearm-related death.” According to the analysis, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut had the lowest per capita gun death rates. Each of those states had “strong gun laws and low gun ownership rates. On the other hand, “ranking first in the nation for gun death was Louisiana, followed by Wyoming, Alabama, Montana, and Mississippi.” Those states had “weak gun laws and higher rates of gun ownership.”
What’s more, deaths may be a misleading statistic that minimizes the true breadth of gun violence. Another report this year by the Violence Policy Center, using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that while gun deaths remained relatively flat from 2000 to 2008, the total number of people shot went up nearly 20 percent since 2001. Why the difference between rates of shootings and deaths? “Advances in emergency services — including the 911 system and establishment of trauma centers — as well as better surgical techniques,” the report said.
Just because more people aren’t dying doesn’t mean that more aren’t being shot. And the report points out that survivors’ injuries are “often chronic and disabling.”
LaPierre didn’t talk much about the broad societal implications of all this. Instead, he kept his “solutions” (if you want to call them that) to school safety. His big thought: Put armed guards in school. As LaPierre said: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
That seems to be quite an apocalyptic gun policy, especially since lax gun regulations pump an ever-increasing number of guns into our country, thereby increasing the chances that “bad guys” will get them.
How about taking the opposite approach and better regulating guns? How about not giving up on so many children that we label “bad boys” so that they grow up without hope or options and become “bad men?”
As the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association said in a joint statement on Thursday:
“Guns have no place in our schools. Period. We must do everything we can to reduce the possibility of any gunfire in schools, and concentrate on ways to keep all guns off school property and ensure the safety of children and school employees.”
The statement continued:
“But this is not just about guns. Long-term and sustainable school safety also requires a commitment to preventive measures. We must continue to do more to prevent bullying in our schools. And we must dramatically expand our investment in mental health services. Proper diagnosis can and often starts in our schools, yet we continue to cut funding for school counselors, school social workers, and school psychologists. States have cut at least $4.35 billion in public mental health spending from 2009 to 2012, according to the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors. It is well past time to reverse this trend and ensure that these services are available and accessible to those who need our support.”
It’s time to call out the N.R.A.’s sidewinding and get serious about new set of sensible gun regulations.
***
I invite you to join me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter, or e-mail me at chblow@.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on December 22, 2012, on page A25 of the New York edition with the headline: Guns, Smoke and Mirrors.
ALLREADER PICKS NYT PICKS:
Comments Closed
Kenneth BergmanAshland, ORNYT Pick
President Obama said that he is committed to increasing the regulation of firearms in the U.S. But he's likely to be opposed by those in Congress, especially Republicans but also some Democrats, who are in thrall to the gun lobby and the NRA. I'm not optimistic that sensible national gun control legislation will be able to get through Congress next year. The NRA thinks the solution is to put armed guards in schools and, by implication, in other public places so that the good guys can shoot it out with the bad guys. That would further the NRA's goal of selling more firearms!
As Charles Blow points out, the statistics speak for themselves. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths and injuries; those with lax regulation have more gun casulties. What could be clearer? Also, compare the U.S. with other leading countries such as Canada or European nations that have stricter gun laws. As a result, fewer people own guns in those countries, and the number of gun-related fatalities is much smaller. About 30,000 people are killed by firearms each year in the U.S.; over half of them are apparent suicides. Just having a gun at one's disposal allows people to carry out rash acts that they would be less likely to do otherwise.
The other point that Blow makes is the sorry state of mental health facilities in this country. Many facilities have been closed; others have had their budgets cut. We're often not giving our mentally ill citizens proper care.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:23 a.m.RECOMMENDED80
Perrin LamSan FranciscoNYT Pick
The schools I went to were a city block square. The security guard, or Superman, would of course be able to travel at hyperspeed to each entry point, fence post, corner, gate and building during school hours instantaneously. Fortunately, being Superman, he wouldn't have to worry about the shooter firing armor-piercing bullets so readily available now, since bullets bounce off Superman. Wayne La Pierre lives in a fantasy world of superheroes. He has no understanding of the logistical impossibilities of mortal security guards and their lack of psychic abilities to pre-determine when, where and what weaponry a shooter comes with. In short, Wayne La Pierre demonstrates a total lack of an adult thought process in thinking through a problem and its solution to its logical conclusion. Did the presence of a security guard at a bank stop robberies or bystander deaths in the commission of a robbery? After all, a bank is a much smaller building than a school and most importantly, a bank has one entrance for the security guard to concentrate on...and that still didn't work, did it? Does Wayne La Pierre think that if he doesn't think about what he suggests for a solution, nobody else will and accept his proposal?
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:25 a.m.RECOMMENDED147
wysiwygUSANYT Pick
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
It seems to me that Mr. La Pierre's statement proves that he is actually living in the violent fantasy world of film and video games that he decries so loudly. Only on the screens at theater and computers do the "good guys" overcome the "bad guys" through force of assault weapons and evasion of socially approved "enforcers." Rather than place the blame on the guns themselves, he prefers to find the media, along with parents, unarmed teachers, and anyone not allied with his delusional thinking responsible for the daily carnage that occurs in this nation.
At a time of year when the darkness is overcome by a celebration of the light of love and sense of the brotherhood of man, Mr. LaPierre's words stand as a stark contrast and reminder that the dark forces of man's fear, suspicion, and personal insecurity remain the basis for the power that the NRA exerts.
It is time for us to recognize that it is indeed "guns that kill people" and not simply the "bad people" wielding them that is the overriding threat to our civilization. We must stop the sale of assault weapons immediately as an initial step to stopping the madness of a gun-crazy society. Then we can begin to place other much-needed restrictions on the sales of remaining guns to those who would only use them sanely, carefully, and appropriately.
If we truly want to stop this madness, then let's vote out anyone with an "A" rating from the NRA!
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:26 a.m.RECOMMENDED175
Rob ZBoylston, MANYT Pick
This is one of the most ineffective and ill-considered proposals in reaction to Newtown. Our schools should not become a wild-west, gun-toting, free for all. We have to consider why schools have become a locus for violence. Bullying is one factor. There are many others to be considered. However, this failed PR and shaky political ploy that blames everything on earth but the guns themselves should be summarily dismissed for what it is; The desperate voice of a failing lobbyist.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:27 a.m.RECOMMENDED96
East EndEast Hampton, NYNYT Pick
Wayne LaPierre is the poster boy for all the gun crazies. Really? Is this the man before whom all our elected representatives cower? This is the face of irreversible power? This is the character who should over-rule all common-sense approaches to the "well-regulated militia" called for by our founding fathers? Please.
After hearing him I would have to conclude that he is a bad guy with a gun. So, by his logic, the only way to stop him is for a good guy with a gun to get him. While the cynical side of my thoughts entertain the irony of Wayne LaPierre meeting his end with the same form of wanton carnage that he and his band of thugs would have all of us embrace as a way of life, the better angels of my nature can only pity him and the untold sorrow that his brand of universal gun play for all has already visited upon our woeful nation.
There comes a time when people reach their limit of tolerance for certain things. I believe that the massacre of children in Connecticut recently is that time for this nation to rise up and resolve itself to setting this right. We the people are more powerful than the delusional freaks running the gun lobby. We must make it our duty to cause politicians to quiver in their shoes more so than can the NRA. Our collective anger is the ammunition our members of Congress need more than bullets or the money of gun manufacturers.
The pen is mightier than the sword. And a tsunami of public opinion is mightier than the gun.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED166
Beverlee JobrackCenterburg, OhioNYT Pick
For those who think that an armed principal or guard at a school would have made a difference at Sandy Hook, just imagine the scene for a second. School morning in a safe school. Kids are settling in. The guard never has anything to do so he or she is talking to the office admins. If and when the shooting started, instead of brandishing a weapon, the guard's intention would have been just to find out what is happening. These events are not choreographed movies where everyone knows who the bad guys are and what their intention is. How could anyone have predicted that someone would break into an elementary school and kill first graders for no reason? No one was expecting an assault. Nor should they since it is incredibly rare. It's confusing. You wouldn't shoot first especially in a public place. The guard would have gone out to see what was going on and like the principal and school psychologist would have been shot, too. Then what would the answer be? More guards? More guns? No, the answer has to be limited access to assault weapons. It wouldn't have happened if these weapons weren't readily available to the shooter.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:57 a.m.RECOMMENDED109
JP HickeyWareham, MANYT Pick
LaPierre's comments don't even make logical sense. Where does it end? What sort of firepower would be required for armed guards at each school to ward off a modern terrorist arsenal? Why stop at the schools, why not hospitals, libraries, town halls, parks, beaches, churches and places of worship, malls, movie theaters, gyms, sport complexes, etc, wherever groups of people congregate whether organized or not. To suggest an armed response without examining its real causes and broader solutions would escalate the problem and not help solve it. What also of the collateral damage to be considered by LaPierre's proposal. I believe in second amendment rights, but not at the risk of creating a militaristic Gotham City.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED57
IshmaSaratoga Springs, NYNYT Pick
Let's see. As a teacher, when there might be a gun emergency situation in my school, I am supposed to gather my young students to safety, remain with them to calm them, find my gun (which has to be secured), leave my students, face down the crazy intruder, shoot to disable (I cannot imagine ever killing anyone, much less in school where there are children), all this while controlling an adrenaline crescendo? Insanity. Training in handling a gun? Don't want it. Oops, missed. Now I live the rest of my life having made a fatal mistake? I can't believe this is even a conversation.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED128
agarose2000LANYT Pick
If my child came to me as a father and told me that the only way to be a safer society is to mandate guns in school because "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" I would consider myself to have profoundly failed as a father, role model, and educator.
The fact that it comes from an adult leader of a powerful organization is far worse.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:50 a.m.RECOMMENDED114
thomas burkeclearwater, flNYT Pick
We had an armed, trained, school officer at Columbine high school named Neil Gardner. He took 4 shoots at one of the killers,Eric Harris, from his .45 hand gun and missed all 4 shots (this is described in detail on the internet). Yet over a dozen high school students lost their lives and a similar amount were shot, even with a 15 year deputy firing back. So the approach by NRA was a massive failure in this case and would likely not solve this horiffic problem in the future. Mr LaPierre`s solution was to completely ignore the issue of the easy availabilty of firearms -----rather amazing and disingenuous in my view.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED167
JimmyJDCNYT Pick
I think the NRA response was more politics than anything. The media has jumped on the anti-gun rant with a passion and it is to the point where they will let anyone speak about the issue on air even those that have no knowledge about the issue but just want a soap box to stand on. Nothing worse than unintelligent debate.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:55 a.m.RECOMMENDED19
Pete TBernardsvilleNYT Pick
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” Mr. LaPierre said.
If the bad guy has a semiautomatic AR-15, then the good guy needs one also.
With self-defense, you always want to be better armed than your assailant. That translates into having a Glock gun a few years ago.
But now, this means having a semiautomatic rifle, an AR-15. If the killer at Newtown was able to get and use one, then in the light of the right of self-defense, all law-abiding citizens should be able to get one.
This is the ante upping of gun self-defense. (Note, I'm not sure how this affects law enforcement, guards at schools, etc. Will they have to upgrade their weaponry?) I think it is be the unspoken logical reason why the NRA and its supporters favor not banning automatic and semiautomatic weapons.
As an aside, if you know your Supreme Court history on the Second Amendment, there was the case of United States v Miller in 1939. This case pertained to the 1934 National Firearms Act, which was a result of the public outcry over the 1929 Thompson submachine gun killings, the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre. The law banned "gangster" weapons. (Interestingly, I just read that they originally were going to include pistols and revolvers).
Gangster weapons back then; assault weapons now. But the public outcry over the modern assault weapons is not loud enough to succeed.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED31
RKLong Island, NYNYT Pick
If, after 9/11, someone had said that we should equip every tall building in the U.S. with radars, anti-aircraft missiles or "good" guys with shoulder firing missiles, that would have been considered crazy. LaPierre's call for putting armed guards in every school is no less crazy. The man has gone completely bonkers.
The nation should condemn and dismiss NRA's attempt to make the 3 rs (reading, 'riting and 'rithmatic) of primary school education into 4 rs (reading, 'riting, 'rithmatic and rifle).
Guns don't protect people. Gun control does. That should be the slogan of the country until sensible gun control legislation is passed by Congress.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED51
A CentristNew York, NYNYT Pick
It's time we change the litmus paper in this game. It's time we, the people, make our voices and our power known on this issue. It's time we ask every politician in every election "Are you now or have you ever been a member of or affiliated with the NRA?" Then we can make our decisions.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:45 a.m.RECOMMENDED30
Elizabeth friaufTexasNYT Pick
Lapierre thinks demons drive people to kill. If that is so, wouldn't the solution be an exorcist in every school?
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:45 a.m.RECOMMENDED47
BarbwisconsinNYT Pick
It is true, a good guy with a gun could indeed stop a bad buy with a gun.
But that's not the whole story. In to many homes where there is a good guy with a gun, there is also heartbreak. Those who live in a household with a gun are 11 times more likely to be shot. Locally I can rattle of at least 4 instances of fatalities because of accidents or errors by a good guy with a gun. What could happen if there were indeed more guns in schools? How would they be kept from students? How could they be accessed in an emergency? Why did they not work out in Columbine and other schools?
Is it time for gun owners to ask just who does the NRA advocate for, them or the profits of gun manufacturers which fund the NRA?
In the mean time if indeed we need more good guys with guns in schools, let the gun manufacturers pay for them.
mark, wi.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:46 a.m.RECOMMENDED24
Constance WarnerSilver Spring, MDNYT Pick
Perhaps the saddest part of the whole story is that the victims of gun violence vanish from public view, unless they are part of a notorious crime. A few years ago, a serial killer shot a man with a Bushmaster, in a park I sometimes visit. You probably won't remember the case, but you've read about it, because the New York Times covered the story. This past week, a man was shot in the same park; and two days earlier, a man was murdered--with a gun--three or four blocks away. Don't even try to look up the stories; you have to know your way around obscure local media outlets to find out about these crimes.
And that's just the problem: most gun crimes are invisible. I don't know if people think it will never happen to them, in their neighborhood; or if people are so used to gun crimes that they don't even notice any more; or that they never hear about gun crimes, because they're not reported.
I know that these obscure crimes would not weigh heavily on the conscience of Wayne LaPierre. But if the rest of us knew about them--were constantly reminded about them--didn't allow ourselves to forget about them--would the politics of gun control be different, do you think?
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:48 a.m.RECOMMENDED43
Bob HChinaNYT Pick
For twenty years I was a member of the National Guard, that “well-regulated militia” that has the indisputable right to bear arms according to the Second Amendment. I was trained to fire a gun (“weapon” in military parlance) and earned an Expert Badge, the US Army’s highest shooting qualification badge.
Did that mean the National Guard would let me take my gun (sorry, weapon) home with me, or carry on the street or to church or in a shopping mall or in a school? No way. My weapon was locked in a rack inside a guarded and secure vault deep in the bowels of a National Guard armory or on an Air National Guard base.
Even if I could have gotten it out I couldn’t have used it because the firing mechanism was stored in a separate secured area, and the ammunition was stored in yet a third secure place. The only time I ever used it was when my Army Guard unit went to the rifle range once a year; in the Air Guard we didn’t even do that. I think I saw it once in the 10 years I was in the Air Guard.
That’s how the military handles guns. Did the National Guard violate my Second Amendment rights? Not at all. They were just exercising common sense.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:50 a.m.RECOMMENDED85
ScarlettUnited StatesNYT Pick
Best suggestion is from my nephew....let the NRA put a teacher in every gun store and give the money it spends on lobbyists to the victims of gun violence.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 10:11 a.m.RECOMMENDED41
Richard LuettgenNew JerseyNYT Pick
Your piece is as one-sided as LaPierre's "press conference".
So he was over-the-top. You expected him perhaps to be ON his meds? He represents the nation's largest gun rights activist organization, but he doesn't represent gun OWNERS: a lot of them are quite willing to talk about sensible limits, if only you'd stop demonizing them as hicks and the source of all evil, and telling them you want to confiscate all their guns. And if you're agitating for a repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, you might try Congress: that's where amendments start. Good luck.
I don't know if I buy LaPierre's solution about good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns -- that sounds like a recipe for a lot of collateral damage to people caught between the two; but I know that what the public education unions said about the matter ("Guns have no place in our schools. Period.") is nonsense: at Columbine and now at Sandy Hook, someone deranged with guns wasn't listening to them. And I understand that a groundswell is building among the public for armed security officers in schools, for the same reason we put armed air marshals on planes. Basically, the teachers unions don't know what they're talking about, about ANYTHING.
This frontal assault on guns in America is simply poisoning the atmosphere for discussion about rational safeguards and limits. But I guess rational in an opinion piece doesn't sell newspapers. But it doesn't limit gun excess, either.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 10:13 a.m.RECOMMENDED8
READERS’PICKS:
Janice Badger NelsonUSA
Verified
When I was a young nurse in the ER, decades ago, I helped to take care of a 2 year old shot by her young 5 year old brother who found a loaded gun under the couch and shot her through the neck. I can still picture the whole scene to this day. She died. It was awful. I have hated guns since that day. There are few good outcomes when guns and people collide. Actually I have witnessed none.
As for the NRA who want to place guns in everyone's hands I say to them that they should all be forced to witness and help victims of gun violence. They need to see the outcomes of the policies they implore our politicians to uphold. And why are our politicians pándering to them? I just simply do not get why the vocal minority wins all the time.
Dec. 21, 2012 at 9:37 p.m.RECOMMENDED426
Mary ScottNY
Verified
I went Christmas shopping tonight at a crowded mall. I imagined everyone armed with a gun. Everyone. That's what the NRA is really advocating. Guns in schools, in churches, in hospitals, everywhere because "good" people, properly armed, will keep us safe according to Mr. LaPierre.
People who advocate such lunacy in the name of public safety damage the opportunity to live in a civil society. This has to stop now.
Dec. 21, 2012 at 9:38 p.m.RECOMMENDED358
LindaOklahoma
Verified
Oklahoma couldn't wait. The legislature was given a bill today that would require all adult staff at public schools to carry guns, from the principal to the janitor. Since mental health is the topic of discussion all over America, the first question should be, "What the devil is wrong with the politicians in Oklahoma and the people who elect them?" I'm speaking as a person who lives here, but didn't elect any of the whackos we have in the legislature.
Dec. 21, 2012 at 9:09 p.m.RECOMMENDED315
Kevin RothsteinNew York
Verified
It is truly a sad time to be an American. Why are we held hostage by the far right? Why do we allow ourselves to brainwashed into thinking we the people have any control of our government? When will we take money out of politics? When will we enact term limits? When will we get rid of all lobbyists?
When will we stop thinking that happiness is a warm gun?
Dec. 21, 2012 at 8:23 p.m.RECOMMENDED301
Allan MarksBelize
Verified
The N.R.A. has decided that from now on, whenever there is another school mass shooting, the N.R.A. will blame all who opposed their guns everywhere solution. This pattern is disturbingly similar to the Republicans working so hard to crash the economy so they can blame Obama for the crashed economy because he did not adopt their solutions.
America may be in for a very ugly time if all the rabid ferrets, vampires, and zombies existing in the land continue their attack on the fabric of civilized society.
Dec. 21, 2012 at 9:19 p.m.RECOMMENDED255
Winning ProgressivePhiladelphia, PA
Verified
Wayne LaPierre's black-and-white view of the world - that there are good guys with guns and bad guys with guns - is quite similar to George W. Bush's statement after 9/11 that you are either with us or against us. It is a view that ignores gray areas, dismisses reaching common ground, and inherently leads to conflict and violence.
In the case of Bush, the results were disastrous. An unnecessary war in Iraq, launched on false pretenses, that led to the death of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the wasting of nearly $1 trillion, and the frittering away of our international leadership role. And the dismantling of civil liberties here at home (that, unfortunately, has continued under President Obama) under the theory that suspects in a diffuse "war on terror" are not entitled to basic protections of the Bill of Rights.
This world view as espoused by Mr. LaPierre is similarly disastrous. It has led our nation unable to act in the face of an epidemic of gun violence that claims more than 11,000 lives every year, and that regularly erupts in mass tragedies such as the one at Sandy Hook.
What LaPierre's speech revealed is a movement trapped in an echo chamber that common sense cannot penetrate. We should ignore the NRA, and focus on a common sense balancing of the right to bear arms with the responsibilities that should accompany such right.
Dec. 21, 2012 at 8:24 p.m.RECOMMENDED231
Bill AppledorfBritish Columbia
Verified
In San Francisco in the neighborhood I lived in a few madman "patriots" paranoid about "one world government," the UN, "tyranny," and "peril" owned guns, undoubtedly assault weapons among them.
These people are crazy.
The people who own assault weapons to defend America against tin-foil-hat delusions are insane.
These are the people who buy assault weapons.
Hunters and homeowners afraid of home invasion don't.
Banning assault weapons and high-capacity clips are opposed by gun-nut "patriots" who are crazy.
Everyone else supports it.
Dec. 21, 2012 at 9:27 p.m.RECOMMENDED208
Rima RegasMission Viejo, CA
Verified
That the national conversation has been reduced to the discussion of the finer points of who else we can inconvenience so long as the NRA and its gun manufacturer Robber Barons are happy, is surreal.
We know what bullets do as they enter the body. They tear apart every organ in their trajectory. That we now have the surgical techniques to effect some repairs is now the basis for keeping these bullets?
The discussion on the right about what to do started early in the week with such people as Louis Gohmert of Texas and various hosts at Fox News not on how to prevent more shootings, but with arming teachers. It's interesting that Mr. La Pierre didn't bring that up at his press speech. Even his polling must have told him that America isn't buying gun-toting teachers in their classrooms.
We need to focus on what's in Senator Feinstein's gun control legislation. It should leave people only with the ability to purchase hand guns, some quantity of bullets, and hunting rifles. Everything else should be banned. Gun owners should prove they can be responsible with their weapons. Gun owners should be insured, just like those who own cars. Then, let's ban the NRA out of existence. Think for a moment. Would you give Wayne La Pierre a gun license after today's speech?
As Charles pointed out on Thursday, there are mentally-ill people in every nation on this planet. No other nation on this planet has as many guns.
Mr. La Pierre was right. There is no need for talking. It's time to act.
Dec. 21, 2012 at 8:03 p.m.RECOMMENDED194
Stu FreemanBrooklyn, N.Y.
Verified
If we're relying on the NRA to make a meaningful contribution to the debate on gun violence we might just as well solicit ideas from the head capos of the Five Families as well as the crew chiefs of the Crips and Bloods.
Dec. 21, 2012 at 10:22 p.m.RECOMMENDED180
wysiwygUSANYT Pick
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
It seems to me that Mr. La Pierre's statement proves that he is actually living in the violent fantasy world of film and video games that he decries so loudly. Only on the screens at theater and computers do the "good guys" overcome the "bad guys" through force of assault weapons and evasion of socially approved "enforcers." Rather than place the blame on the guns themselves, he prefers to find the media, along with parents, unarmed teachers, and anyone not allied with his delusional thinking responsible for the daily carnage that occurs in this nation.
At a time of year when the darkness is overcome by a celebration of the light of love and sense of the brotherhood of man, Mr. LaPierre's words stand as a stark contrast and reminder that the dark forces of man's fear, suspicion, and personal insecurity remain the basis for the power that the NRA exerts.
It is time for us to recognize that it is indeed "guns that kill people" and not simply the "bad people" wielding them that is the overriding threat to our civilization. We must stop the sale of assault weapons immediately as an initial step to stopping the madness of a gun-crazy society. Then we can begin to place other much-needed restrictions on the sales of remaining guns to those who would only use them sanely, carefully, and appropriately.
If we truly want to stop this madness, then let's vote out anyone with an "A" rating from the NRA!
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:26 a.m.RECOMMENDED175
Tim BSeattle
Verified
If I understand the 'rationale' of LaPierre's statements, the idea is to sell limitless amounts of guns with ever more devastating firepower, with magazines which hold enough bullets to kill many people. And his solution, arm teachers and guards at schools and other vulnerable places, in a desperate hope that maybe someone with cold steel nerves and uncanny aim will perhaps be able to take out the gunman.
He neglects to mention the enormous contributions to his organization from gun sellers, the influence on our own politicians who cower in fear of the NRA, and the huge and unending profits to gun peddlers of every variety.
This horrific recent tragedy at Sandy Hook shows how far our nation has strayed from protection of the innocent, to the enrichment of the deluded and greedy.
Dec. 21, 2012 at 8:42 p.m.RECOMMENDED168
thomas burkeclearwater, flNYT Pick
We had an armed, trained, school officer at Columbine high school named Neil Gardner. He took 4 shoots at one of the killers,Eric Harris, from his .45 hand gun and missed all 4 shots (this is described in detail on the internet). Yet over a dozen high school students lost their lives and a similar amount were shot, even with a 15 year deputy firing back. So the approach by NRA was a massive failure in this case and would likely not solve this horiffic problem in the future. Mr LaPierre`s solution was to completely ignore the issue of the easy availabilty of firearms -----rather amazing and disingenuous in my view.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED167
East EndEast Hampton, NYNYT Pick
Wayne LaPierre is the poster boy for all the gun crazies. Really? Is this the man before whom all our elected representatives cower? This is the face of irreversible power? This is the character who should over-rule all common-sense approaches to the "well-regulated militia" called for by our founding fathers? Please.
After hearing him I would have to conclude that he is a bad guy with a gun. So, by his logic, the only way to stop him is for a good guy with a gun to get him. While the cynical side of my thoughts entertain the irony of Wayne LaPierre meeting his end with the same form of wanton carnage that he and his band of thugs would have all of us embrace as a way of life, the better angels of my nature can only pity him and the untold sorrow that his brand of universal gun play for all has already visited upon our woeful nation.
There comes a time when people reach their limit of tolerance for certain things. I believe that the massacre of children in Connecticut recently is that time for this nation to rise up and resolve itself to setting this right. We the people are more powerful than the delusional freaks running the gun lobby. We must make it our duty to cause politicians to quiver in their shoes more so than can the NRA. Our collective anger is the ammunition our members of Congress need more than bullets or the money of gun manufacturers.
The pen is mightier than the sword. And a tsunami of public opinion is mightier than the gun.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED166
Rima RegasMission Viejo, CA
Verified
“But this is not just about guns. Long-term and sustainable school safety also requires a commitment to preventive measures. We must continue to do more to prevent bullying in our schools. And we must dramatically expand our investment in mental health services. Proper diagnosis can and often starts in our schools, yet we continue to cut funding for school counselors, school social workers, and school psychologists. States have cut at least $4.35 billion in public mental health spending from 2009 to 2012, according to the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors. It is well past time to reverse this trend and ensure that these services are available and accessible to those who need our support.”
As the mom of a teen with Autism, I only know this too well. But I also know that the vast majority of gun deaths are due to a mentally-ill shooter. While I support fully funding special education and the services that come with it, I would like to point out that all the other factors in this mess are probably much more relevant. I am in favor of more, and better quality, mental health services because it's the right thing to do - not because I think it will prevent the next mass shooting.
Since last week's massacre, 100 more people have died in gun related violence, according to the Huffington Post. While Wayne La Pierre was pontificating at his press event, three state troopers were injured in a gun fight in which four people died.
The guns just need to go.
Dec. 21, 2012 at 8:53 p.m.RECOMMENDED154
Bill AppledorfBritish Columbia
Verified
P.S. Guns in people's homes for "protection" are far more likely to be used for suicide, to kill one's spouse, or to accidentally kill a child playing with it than to be used against an intruder; and on the exceedingly remote occasion when it is pulled on an intruder, the most likely outcome is that it will be taken away and used to kill the gun's owner.
In reply to Bill AppledorfDec. 21, 2012 at 11:01 p.m.RECOMMENDED153
Perrin LamSan FranciscoNYT Pick
The schools I went to were a city block square. The security guard, or Superman, would of course be able to travel at hyperspeed to each entry point, fence post, corner, gate and building during school hours instantaneously. Fortunately, being Superman, he wouldn't have to worry about the shooter firing armor-piercing bullets so readily available now, since bullets bounce off Superman. Wayne La Pierre lives in a fantasy world of superheroes. He has no understanding of the logistical impossibilities of mortal security guards and their lack of psychic abilities to pre-determine when, where and what weaponry a shooter comes with. In short, Wayne La Pierre demonstrates a total lack of an adult thought process in thinking through a problem and its solution to its logical conclusion. Did the presence of a security guard at a bank stop robberies or bystander deaths in the commission of a robbery? After all, a bank is a much smaller building than a school and most importantly, a bank has one entrance for the security guard to concentrate on...and that still didn't work, did it? Does Wayne La Pierre think that if he doesn't think about what he suggests for a solution, nobody else will and accept his proposal?
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:25 a.m.RECOMMENDED147
IshmaSaratoga Springs, NYNYT Pick
Let's see. As a teacher, when there might be a gun emergency situation in my school, I am supposed to gather my young students to safety, remain with them to calm them, find my gun (which has to be secured), leave my students, face down the crazy intruder, shoot to disable (I cannot imagine ever killing anyone, much less in school where there are children), all this while controlling an adrenaline crescendo? Insanity. Training in handling a gun? Don't want it. Oops, missed. Now I live the rest of my life having made a fatal mistake? I can't believe this is even a conversation.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED128
Stu FreemanBrooklyn, N.Y.
Verified
Give Wayne LaPierre a gun license? I wouldn't trust him with a knife and fork.
In reply to Rima RegasDec. 21, 2012 at 10:16 p.m.RECOMMENDED123
Ozark HomesteaderArkansas
Verified
Excellent summation of La Pierre's insane idea.
Does the NRA want to post armed guards at every movie theater, every shopping mall, and every work place too? Our children, mothers, sisters, fathers and brothers have died in those places too. I was reading that a $31k annual tax on every gun in the nation would pay for the $8-billion-dollar stupid idea from La Pierre. If you want to arm those places too, how about if we tax the owners of assault weapons to put gun-toting guards on every street corner, at every amusement park, in every single place where someone might shoot--oh, wait, that could be anywhere.
Body-armor piercing bullets, 30-round clips: these are not civilian toys. Ban them. Let people keep their civilian guns. Get rid of the rest.
Dec. 21, 2012 at 9:30 p.m.RECOMMENDED120
agarose2000LANYT Pick
If my child came to me as a father and told me that the only way to be a safer society is to mandate guns in school because "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" I would consider myself to have profoundly failed as a father, role model, and educator.
The fact that it comes from an adult leader of a powerful organization is far worse.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:50 a.m.RECOMMENDED114
EdinburgherEdinburgh Scotland
I know many Americans having lived in your country for a while and know that you are just the like the rest of us inhabiting this planet. You mostly want to live good lives and do the right thing. What astonishes me is how the extreme right wing has been able to capture so much of the political discourse that your national conversation has become dysfunctional - from the failure to acknowledge that government is essential, to health care, to safe infrastructure and the need for taxes to pay for a civilised society. The free availability of military hardware is though the most unnerving circumstance. I love to come to your country on vacation for its scenery and wide open spaces and its largely friendly, welcoming people. However I seriously doubt that I will ever return. I no longer think it is a safe place to be and given the gridlock in the federal government, the cynical lobbying industry and worst of all the worship of money by the ruling elite it is going to be extremely difficult to turn the tide. Perhaps the silent majority needs to take to the streets in peaceful protest across the country and shame the politicians into doing the right thing. As long though as individuals as delusional and cynical as LaPierre have the national stage little will change.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED111
Matthew CarnicelliBrooklyn, New York
Verified
Many years ago, in a classic episode of "All in the Family", Norman Lear had Archie Bunker, the show's lead character, offer a solution to the 1970s epidemic of airline hijacking that was roughly similar to the one that Wayne LaPierre offered yesterday.
In the episode, Archie appeared in an "equal time" rebuttal to a network TV editorial, the kind of rebuttal that was common during the "Fairness Doctrine" era.
Archie's solution? Arm all the passengers as they board the airplane. That way, if a hijacker pulled out a weapon, the other passengers would be able pull out their handgun and have him covered. Of course, Archie didn't address what would happen if there was an actual exchange of shots on a crowded airplane, or if one or two of the bullets happened to pierce the airliner's fuselage while it was in mid-air...
Most of America that night laughed hysterically at Archie's ludicrous suggestion, in the just the way that most of America is laughing at Wayne LaPierre's suggestion of yesterday.
If only Mr. LaPierre had been attempting comedy or satire...
Dec. 22, 2012 at 3:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED109
Beverlee JobrackCenterburg, OhioNYT Pick
For those who think that an armed principal or guard at a school would have made a difference at Sandy Hook, just imagine the scene for a second. School morning in a safe school. Kids are settling in. The guard never has anything to do so he or she is talking to the office admins. If and when the shooting started, instead of brandishing a weapon, the guard's intention would have been just to find out what is happening. These events are not choreographed movies where everyone knows who the bad guys are and what their intention is. How could anyone have predicted that someone would break into an elementary school and kill first graders for no reason? No one was expecting an assault. Nor should they since it is incredibly rare. It's confusing. You wouldn't shoot first especially in a public place. The guard would have gone out to see what was going on and like the principal and school psychologist would have been shot, too. Then what would the answer be? More guards? More guns? No, the answer has to be limited access to assault weapons. It wouldn't have happened if these weapons weren't readily available to the shooter.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:57 a.m.RECOMMENDED109
Rob ZBoylston, MANYT Pick
This is one of the most ineffective and ill-considered proposals in reaction to Newtown. Our schools should not become a wild-west, gun-toting, free for all. We have to consider why schools have become a locus for violence. Bullying is one factor. There are many others to be considered. However, this failed PR and shaky political ploy that blames everything on earth but the guns themselves should be summarily dismissed for what it is; The desperate voice of a failing lobbyist.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:27 a.m.RECOMMENDED96
Bob HChinaNYT Pick
For twenty years I was a member of the National Guard, that “well-regulated militia” that has the indisputable right to bear arms according to the Second Amendment. I was trained to fire a gun (“weapon” in military parlance) and earned an Expert Badge, the US Army’s highest shooting qualification badge.
Did that mean the National Guard would let me take my gun (sorry, weapon) home with me, or carry on the street or to church or in a shopping mall or in a school? No way. My weapon was locked in a rack inside a guarded and secure vault deep in the bowels of a National Guard armory or on an Air National Guard base.
Even if I could have gotten it out I couldn’t have used it because the firing mechanism was stored in a separate secured area, and the ammunition was stored in yet a third secure place. The only time I ever used it was when my Army Guard unit went to the rifle range once a year; in the Air Guard we didn’t even do that. I think I saw it once in the 10 years I was in the Air Guard.
That’s how the military handles guns. Did the National Guard violate my Second Amendment rights? Not at all. They were just exercising common sense.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:50 a.m.
walterrhettCharleston, SC
Verified
African societies have historians called griots who look at a society for its contradictions rather than as cause and effect. Ironically, Wayne LaPierre's view is exactly the same as a bullet's; no thought or feeling as to its impact, only a blinding unerring aim at its target, a one way view. LaPierre and others view guns as a tool in dystopian society, with a straight line cause and effect. They want us all to be ready to pull the trigger. They have a blind confidence about their addiction to fire arms.
LaPierre and others are just one step removed from the bad guys they say can be deterred by more guns. LaPierre embraces guns, saying out loud what spree killers enact--that guns are a solution to ills, guns are judges and juries, denying their impact on lives and families morality, a deadly force without morality. As much as any spree killer, LaPierre embraces this deadly force. He wants it unrestricted, available, and the freedom to deploy. He does not think about why its outcomes are horrific for society.
On a continuum, the NRA position is cloaked in the same delusions that misguide the killers themselves. A deep fantasy about using guns to correct and defense against personal and social faults; a deep connection to the experience of the trigger pull; an embedded inability to account for the carnage they demand we endure. By words and actions, they demand we live on their edge. We have good reasons to take their guns away.
In reply to Rima RegasDec. 21, 2012 at 11:40 p.m.RECOMMENDED81
Kenneth BergmanAshland, ORNYT Pick
President Obama said that he is committed to increasing the regulation of firearms in the U.S. But he's likely to be opposed by those in Congress, especially Republicans but also some Democrats, who are in thrall to the gun lobby and the NRA. I'm not optimistic that sensible national gun control legislation will be able to get through Congress next year. The NRA thinks the solution is to put armed guards in schools and, by implication, in other public places so that the good guys can shoot it out with the bad guys. That would further the NRA's goal of selling more firearms!
As Charles Blow points out, the statistics speak for themselves. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths and injuries; those with lax regulation have more gun casulties. What could be clearer? Also, compare the U.S. with other leading countries such as Canada or European nations that have stricter gun laws. As a result, fewer people own guns in those countries, and the number of gun-related fatalities is much smaller. About 30,000 people are killed by firearms each year in the U.S.; over half of them are apparent suicides. Just having a gun at one's disposal allows people to carry out rash acts that they would be less likely to do otherwise.
The other point that Blow makes is the sorry state of mental health facilities in this country. Many facilities have been closed; others have had their budgets cut. We're often not giving our mentally ill citizens proper care.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:23 a.m.RECOMMENDED80
DavidAlbuquerque
The Republican party has become a haven for special interest groups such as the NRA. I suspect these group's influence is more proportional to the money spent on supporting or demonizing political candidates than to the rationalism of their arguments.
It is encouraging to me to witness what I believe is the growing rejection of many of the nonsense policies the party backs. The lessening influence of evangelicals, the beginning of rejection of kowtowing to the 1%, and now, at least a cursory examination of the NRA's agenda all point to a hopeful future for our political system; a future wherein the people may demand that political decisions be made based more on the rationality of the argument and less on who scares politicians into bad policy.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED61
Rima RegasMission Viejo, CA
Verified
Correction -- this should have read: the vast majority of gun deaths are *NOT* due to a mentally-ill shooter.
My apologies!
In reply to Rima RegasDec. 21, 2012 at 9:21 p.m.RECOMMENDED59
JP HickeyWareham, MANYT Pick
LaPierre's comments don't even make logical sense. Where does it end? What sort of firepower would be required for armed guards at each school to ward off a modern terrorist arsenal? Why stop at the schools, why not hospitals, libraries, town halls, parks, beaches, churches and places of worship, malls, movie theaters, gyms, sport complexes, etc, wherever groups of people congregate whether organized or not. To suggest an armed response without examining its real causes and broader solutions would escalate the problem and not help solve it. What also of the collateral damage to be considered by LaPierre's proposal. I believe in second amendment rights, but not at the risk of creating a militaristic Gotham City.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED57
MaureenPortland, OR
The NRA is nothing more at this point than a lobbying group for gun and bullet manufacturers. That has been its primary function for years. There is no reason to actually expect "meaningful contributions" to the national conversation on how to solve gun violence from them. Their job is to help their donors (clients?) sell more products, nothing more. Their proposed "solution" was obviously always going to be that more guns should be sold and bought, because that is what is good for the industry they represent. They have no other reason to exist at this point, and they certainly were never going to propose any ideas which would be detrimental to the gun industry's bottom line. Their goal is not to stop these kind of tragedies. It's to help the industry make money. Those who want to have real discussions on how to stop these killings should not waste time listening to anything the gun industry's lobbyists have to say on the matter. It's like expecting Philip Morris to seriously propose solutions for how to decrease lung cancer deaths, or consulting Jack Daniels on how to decrease alcoholism rates.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED52
RKLong Island, NYNYT Pick
If, after 9/11, someone had said that we should equip every tall building in the U.S. with radars, anti-aircraft missiles or "good" guys with shoulder firing missiles, that would have been considered crazy. LaPierre's call for putting armed guards in every school is no less crazy. The man has gone completely bonkers.
The nation should condemn and dismiss NRA's attempt to make the 3 rs (reading, 'riting and 'rithmatic) of primary school education into 4 rs (reading, 'riting, 'rithmatic and rifle).
Guns don't protect people. Gun control does. That should be the slogan of the country until sensible gun control legislation is passed by Congress.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED51
Elizabeth friaufTexasNYT Pick
Lapierre thinks demons drive people to kill. If that is so, wouldn't the solution be an exorcist in every school?
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:45 a.m.RECOMMENDED47
Samantha ShermanNYC
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.”
~ Dwight D. Eisenhower
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
~ Thomas Jefferson
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED47
Beverly SeatonOhio
Let us remember that there were armed guards at the sites of many mass shootings. Reagan was surrounded by the Secret Service. There was an armed deputy at Columbine. Clackamas Mall had an armed guard. And there was one at the shooting of Rep. Giffords. This was pointed out in a December 21 article on Salon by Alex Seitz-Wald, "Why the NRA's plan won't work."
But pay no attention to facts. No--just like in the movies, we can all be heroes. Pay no attention to the opinions of law enforcement professionals. What do they know?
There is a vast difference between a home owner using a hand gun to shoot an intruder and an armed person shooting a "bad guy" in a public place. Of course there are known to be accidents, home owners shooting their wives or children by mistake; but it would be far, far worse in a crowded public arena, especially if there were any number of armed individuals.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED44
LGAlbany
The NRA dogma that I become safer when I'm carrying a gun is nothing more than the formula for an arms race.
It only works when I have a gun and most others do not. If the NRA ever achieved its goal, then I am no safer because every person who might do me harm is also carrying. The logical response at that point is to upgrade to a more powerful weapon, thereby continuing the arms race ad infinitum.
Stability decreases with each cycle of an arms race. When fists are the only weapon, I'll escape a confrontation with mostly bruises. Each more powerful gun increases the odds of instant death. When the attacker's weapon assures my death, then I must respond first leaving less and less time to assess the threat accurately. As our personal defenses become more lethal, we move ever close to a world of "Shoot first, ask questions later."
Any society must eventually impose a limit on this arms race before this instability collapses the mutual trust essential for public life. Ultimately, it must convince its members that personal defense/revenge extends only so far, with all remaining actions and weapons restrained to the community through the police, courts, and military.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED43
Constance WarnerSilver Spring, MDNYT Pick
Perhaps the saddest part of the whole story is that the victims of gun violence vanish from public view, unless they are part of a notorious crime. A few years ago, a serial killer shot a man with a Bushmaster, in a park I sometimes visit. You probably won't remember the case, but you've read about it, because the New York Times covered the story. This past week, a man was shot in the same park; and two days earlier, a man was murdered--with a gun--three or four blocks away. Don't even try to look up the stories; you have to know your way around obscure local media outlets to find out about these crimes.
And that's just the problem: most gun crimes are invisible. I don't know if people think it will never happen to them, in their neighborhood; or if people are so used to gun crimes that they don't even notice any more; or that they never hear about gun crimes, because they're not reported.
I know that these obscure crimes would not weigh heavily on the conscience of Wayne LaPierre. But if the rest of us knew about them--were constantly reminded about them--didn't allow ourselves to forget about them--would the politics of gun control be different, do you think?
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:48 a.m.RECOMMENDED43
tom mcmahonmillis ma
Verified
Wayne Lapierre says the only way to stop bad guys with guns is to have good guys with guns. That may ba the most absurd statement ever made by anyone. A mentally challanged person knows better than that. In Aurora Co. if a movie goer had a handgun several more would have been shot and killed. Training in shooting in crowds by police & military always shows collateral damage ( others shot or killed) having a public walking around armed is not the answer, strict gun control is the answer. The NRA needs to be disbanded as an organization due to the fact they defend guns and those who use them, only when a crime of such grtoesque magnitude occurs do they even say anything, and it's buy more guns & protect yourself. They'd just assume to have us live like the wild west, shooting to solve a arguement. Not to mention I equate the NRA with KKK both hate groups one hates anyone not white christian the other hates anyone who hates guns. Doomsday Preppers, your guns are not going to save you forever unless you'vwe stockpiled tens of thousands of rounds of ammo. And that itself is a time bomb just waiting to explode. The United States may be the dumbest nation on earth.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 4:17 a.m.RECOMMENDED42
ScarlettUnited StatesNYT Pick
Best suggestion is from my nephew....let the NRA put a teacher in every gun store and give the money it spends on lobbyists to the victims of gun violence.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 10:11 a.m.RECOMMENDED41
Diana MosesArlington, MA
Verified
While I'm sure it isn't true in all cases and while I also see multiple factors contributing to youths falling out of the mainstream and into crime, I have witnessed (and advocated against) the contributions schools can make to this process. So I was gratified to read the sentence here about not giving up on some of our children. Again, as I've written in other comments, just ask a bunch of parents or support groups, for example, what can be done differently in schools that might help (in addition to asking about what has been done unnecessarily which exacerbated or even helped create a problem). One issue I would like to see explored is the gap between psychology (or psychiatry) models and school psychology models for what is going on when youths struggle. I've heard Gail Garinger in Massachusetts' Office of the Child Advocate speak powerfully on this issue. I understand the focus on increased gun control, and I certainly support that too, but I would be very disappointed if we also didn't pursue improving mental health services for children -- it's certainly preferable if they can't resort to gun violence, but ameliorating their suffering is important, too.
Dec. 21, 2012 at 8:27 p.m.RECOMMENDED40
Bob WoodsSalem, OR
Ok, so let's run this down the line.
Schools are an easy target, so armed guards and fortress schools.
Next easy target: Libraries. After that, armend guards and fortress Libraries.
Next easy target: Churches. After that, armed guard and fortress Churches.
Next easy target: Baskeball games. After that armed gards and fortress areana.
Next easy target... you get the idea.
The end result is EXACTLY what the NRA and Tear Party nuts fear the most: Their actions and approach will create a Police State America. Armed guards everywhere, whose job is to intimidate those who seek to act against whatever the guards protect.
Lunacy.
Ok, so we can't get a majority to pass effective gun controls. But the government is short of cash and needs to hire armed guards for wherever a citizen goes. Answer: Taxes on gun production, gun sales,gun dealer licenses ammunition sales, and reloading supplies, because it is the action of gun owners and guns that cause the problem. They pay 100% of the costs of security and criminal enforcement nationwide.
When an AR15 costs $7,500 and every bullet cost $70 and licensed dealers pay $50,000 a year to renew their permit, economics may be the best control
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED34
Prof.Jai Prakash Sharma,Jaipur, India
Verified
Tracing gun violence to the American culture, the NRA's executive vice-President Wayne La Pierre seems either being ignorant of the country's vibrant cultural ethos, or trying to go scot-free from the regulatory hook. Both ways searching in vain scapegoats, and playing with the future of America's young generation.
Dec. 21, 2012 at 10:16 p.m.RECOMMENDED32
Pete TBernardsvilleNYT Pick
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” Mr. LaPierre said.
If the bad guy has a semiautomatic AR-15, then the good guy needs one also.
With self-defense, you always want to be better armed than your assailant. That translates into having a Glock gun a few years ago.
But now, this means having a semiautomatic rifle, an AR-15. If the killer at Newtown was able to get and use one, then in the light of the right of self-defense, all law-abiding citizens should be able to get one.
This is the ante upping of gun self-defense. (Note, I'm not sure how this affects law enforcement, guards at schools, etc. Will they have to upgrade their weaponry?) I think it is be the unspoken logical reason why the NRA and its supporters favor not banning automatic and semiautomatic weapons.
As an aside, if you know your Supreme Court history on the Second Amendment, there was the case of United States v Miller in 1939. This case pertained to the 1934 National Firearms Act, which was a result of the public outcry over the 1929 Thompson submachine gun killings, the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre. The law banned "gangster" weapons. (Interestingly, I just read that they originally were going to include pistols and revolvers).
Gangster weapons back then; assault weapons now. But the public outcry over the modern assault weapons is not loud enough to succeed.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED31
liceu93Bethesda
Charles, thank you for these statistics. They confirm what every sane, thoughtful person ituitively knows - the more guns there are, the more opportunities for innocent people to be shot, either deliberately or accidentally.
Adding more guns, especially guns that are designed and built to inflict the maximum damage and carnage in a minimum amount of time - a.k.a. assault weapons, is not going to make our world a safer place.
The problem is, we have a significant number of people in our country who cling to their guns in the mistaken belief that they will make themselves and their loved ones and their communities safer. They don't - the armed guards at Columbine couldn't stop the carnage, Mrs. Lanza's guns didn't protect her from her own disturbed son, etc. - but still those who drink the NRA coolaide cling to that delusion.
I hope columnist such as yourself continue to write about the issue of gun violence in America; for if we are to finally put a stop to this insanity we are going to have to be prepared to lobby, pressure and embarrass our elected officials into changing our obscenely lax gun laws. It will be a long, hard fight, but one that we owe to the victims of this insane violence.
The framers of our Constitution did not intend the Second Amendment to allow assault weapons and extended magazines anywhere and everywhere.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED31
A CentristNew York, NYNYT Pick
It's time we change the litmus paper in this game. It's time we, the people, make our voices and our power known on this issue. It's time we ask every politician in every election "Are you now or have you ever been a member of or affiliated with the NRA?" Then we can make our decisions.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:45 a.m.RECOMMENDED30
RonChicago
This gets much easier to understand when you realize that this is not about the Constitution or public safety. This finally is, as most things are these days, about money - a lot of it. The "shooting industry" does about $11,000,000,000 in business every year. That's what the NRA is really about protecting, and it does so with generous support from the industry (revenue from individual members is a small portion of its budget). It plays on the hot-button issues of personal liberty, self reliance, fear of crime, and fear of government to mobilize its followers to support politicians who can be counted on to protect the industry's profits. The so-called assault weapons are particularly profitable products, and they're going to be around for a long time whatever we do about them now.
Follow the money; it works every time.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED26
MikeSan Antonio, TX
More guns in schools = more bullets flying who knows where in an armed shooter incident.
Armed teachers will look like armed shooters to police when they arrive on scene and could easily mistakenly shot by police.
Unless armed teachers are highly trained in use of lethal force it unlikely they will use their weapon proficiently and accurately in a high stress situation.
Arming teachers means more guns in school -- unless they are locked in classroom weapons safes they will be accessible to curious or vengeful students (this why guns are not carried by officers working in prisons or jails).
If teachers with weapons don't carry them on their person it is unlikely they will be able to access them from a gun safe in an emergency. Especially when trying to open a gun safe they have not opened in months and do it in a school shooter incident.
Cannot see how any of this improves school safety.
Even with Columbine there were two sworn officers on duty that day... they had a better chance than teachers and they still could not stop the assualt.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED26
LBarkanTempe, AZ
"People that are so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can ever possibly comprehend them" is who Wayne LaPierre blames for gun violence. He is, of course, describing himself and, therefore, finally taking responsibility for the deaths he has caused.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED25
BarbwisconsinNYT Pick
It is true, a good guy with a gun could indeed stop a bad buy with a gun.
But that's not the whole story. In to many homes where there is a good guy with a gun, there is also heartbreak. Those who live in a household with a gun are 11 times more likely to be shot. Locally I can rattle of at least 4 instances of fatalities because of accidents or errors by a good guy with a gun. What could happen if there were indeed more guns in schools? How would they be kept from students? How could they be accessed in an emergency? Why did they not work out in Columbine and other schools?
Is it time for gun owners to ask just who does the NRA advocate for, them or the profits of gun manufacturers which fund the NRA?
In the mean time if indeed we need more good guys with guns in schools, let the gun manufacturers pay for them.
mark, wi.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:46 a.m.RECOMMENDED24
VirginiaCape Cod, MA
I just don't understand how anyone can (rightly) argue that the very nature of human beings is such that they can be moved to violence, are prone to mental illness, can even be persuaded by media to act out in violent ways...AND argue that such a species must have easy and unregulated access to machines whose sole purpose is to kill.
Doesn't Wayne LaPierre defeat his own argument by suggesting the above?
If, say, a particular ethnicity of people is prone to a disease (which is the case) such as diabetes, is the solution to fill their kitchens with candy?
And how disturbing is it that the executive vice president of the NRA seems to understand guns and the toll they're taking less than anyone?
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED24
JBCA
Fanatics cannot be expected to be logical, especially when their job depends on that behavior. La Pierre is such a person. If he thought about his premise, that the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, he wouldn't have said it. The ONLY thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is to make it impossible for him to get one in the first place.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that one...or 20 school, theatre, mall or stadium guard(s) is no assurance that a man with an assault firearm can be stopped. The logistics of such a scenario make it just a matter of chance the act would be prevented. Say nothing of the expense.
Instead of offering to sit down and negotiate about needed controls, the NRA tells the nation what to do. No questions allowed. Bad move! It speaks for all their members and so precludes that any amount of reasoning will come from the association. It is way past time for the individual members to clean house and become a rational organization. Failing that, they put themselves out of the negotiations and become part of the lunatic fringe. Its up to the members.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED21
EddieLew
Our founding fathers, brilliant, but imperfect men, gave us and the world a great gift, our constitution. It was an experiment, untried by any other country on earth. They assumed that the flexibility of the wording would allow the document to grew and adapt to the future, which it did for many years; however, they assumed that intelligent, rational men, and women, would interpret and adopt it. Sadly, as we developed an allergy to education, we are squandering that gift. Any rational person would interpret the Second Amendment and realize it is largely obsolete. But uneducated and provincial, as we have become, it is a tool to manipulate the gullible by a small group of men who are earning great sums of money by preying on misguided, deluded "patriots" into investing in guns to protect themselves.
Once, "We the people..." were the bosses, but now, "We the dolts..." are being held hostage by a group of venal men and women who are clever enough to get very rich on our stupidity.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED21
MimiBaltimore, MD
The Second Amendment should be repealed. A gun ownership law could be passed in its place that specifies the requirements and limits of gun ownership - including registration, licensing, training, renewal, background checks, purpose, number, types of guns, prohibitions. Until gun ownership is clearly defined as a privilege and not a right, we will never see the end of gun deaths and violence. Anyone who owns guns after the Second Amendment is repealed and the "gun ownership law" passed would need to register those guns that would be defined legal and proceed through all the requirements before receiving a license to own a gun. Illegal guns would have to be turned over to the authorities. This is the only way we can even approach being a civilized society where unarmed citizens can feel safe in public. Otherwise we are doomed.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED20
tom mcmahonmillis ma
Verified
Here's a though, why not round up every President, Vice presidents of every gun company and drop them in south central LA, the Bronx, Harlem, South side of Chicago, The worst parts of St Louis and a few other ghettos. Lets drop them there in their two thousand dollar suits with their Rolex watches and see what happens to them. They'd be naked , shot and robbed before one counld say one. You know sometimes only when people fully understand the implications of actions do they consider changing. Guns are not the way, they are a way to kill, maim and find yourself in jail for years, passing the jailhouse test of getting to murder another to prove loyalty. The united sataes is a sick society where people think they are safe when armed, the news is you are not. A criminal will shoot you before you have a chance to even grab your gun. Warren Zevon said it best,
Lawyers, Guns & Money, ain't it the truth. lawyers who defend gun violent perps are the lowest on the legal totem pole for sure.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 3:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED20
blackmambaIL
The emphasis on violence in American art and culture is a simply an accurate reflection and recording of America's past and present.
Rather than focusing on the sound and the fury of the artist we should examine the bloody carnage played out on many of are all too mean streets.
More Americans are gunned down in America every year than die in our ongoing wars.
Much of the violence can be correlated with low socioeconomic educational political status. But that is only part of the picture.
America has 5% of the world's population but 50% of it's guns. America has more money invested in it's miliitary-industrial complex than any other nation.
War is big business. Empire is big business. Prisons and guns are big business.
From the birth of a nation born in revolution, surrounded by hostile natives and surly slaves to the wild west and civil war and war against our neighbors and anybody else in the world who will not do our bidding, America is quite often the opposite of a peace loving humanitarian nation liberal secular nation worthy of any god's blessings.
Those kids were not killed by bad artistic choices. White boys and young men are the best and biggest consumers of hip hop rap video games.
And the idea of educators playing out a Clint Eastwood or John Wayne or Charles Bronson fantasy in an elementary school is insanity.
"The Birth of a Nation" was only a movie. But Jim Crow and lynching were reality.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED20
JimmyJDCNYT Pick
I think the NRA response was more politics than anything. The media has jumped on the anti-gun rant with a passion and it is to the point where they will let anyone speak about the issue on air even those that have no knowledge about the issue but just want a soap box to stand on. Nothing worse than unintelligent debate.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:55 a.m.RECOMMENDED19
Joel FriedlanderHuntington Station, New York
It is no surprise that the NRA's response to the recent murders, a continuation of a long string of tragedies this very year, is not nuanced. The supporters of the NRA are either the Gun manufacturers, who must sell continually to satisfy their shareholders, or people who believe, albeit incredibly, that having 15 - 20 guns in the house is going to protect them when the government comes to take them away. These are people who believe that they are real life Rambos. The concept that a man, or woman alone, in the case of the recent killers mother, can fight off a well trained military force is endemic in certain outlying areas of the country. It goes with the concept that it is every man for himself, rather than one for all and all for one. Some people have a genuine fear that the government is going to suddenly become fascist any day now and they must be prepared to protect themselves. Others believe that we are shortly going to be invaded by some terrible enemy and our military, the strongest and most effective in the World - so we believe) will not be able to protect them, so they must fight alone. Most of these people are frankly afraid of other people, either because they are a different skin color or because they are a different religion than theirs. Most importantly, the people who believe these things are dangerous because they are off kilter to begin with and when they tip over mentally they are often the people who are doing drive by shootings.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED19
KimberlyChicago, IL
I've been wondering: In schools where teachers are armed, and where the state has some kind of stand-your-ground law, how long will it be before a student is "justifiably" shot by a teacher or administrator because they're a difficult individual? You know, where the teacher felt "threatened" by an unarmed student.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED18
steve hunterseattle
After listening to LaPierre he struck me as someone desperately in need of mental health services. In Europe they watch the same movies and have the same video games and yet have a death rate by guns that is a small fraction of that in the US simply because they do not have access to them. To demand that teachers pack a sidearm is one of the most preposterous things to come from the NRA.
When a society no longer cares for the welfare of the group but stresses the unbridled rights of an individual that society ceases to be human. I don't know who or what LaPierre is but he is not a decent man, is un-American and is a terrorist.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED17
The RealistSydney, Australia
What would worry me most if I were an American would be the power the NRA has over the government. Is this your "freedom"? If large corporations have this much power, then that freedom is a sham.
Lets face it, owning assault weapons is for men who fear for their own masculinity. If it were not for the deadly consequences of their insecurities, I would pity them.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED17
oxfdblueStaten Island, NY
We need to do what Australia did in 1996. Strict controls, registration, licensing, and a massive and national buyback program.
As far as the NRA- they live in an alternate universe where reality and sanity aren't allowed.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED17
PaulBellerose Terrace
@Rima: Interestingly, the Venn diagram of those who, like La Pierre, favor unlimited gun rights, also favor "less government." In fact, Grover (read my lips, no taxes at all) Norquist is on the board of the NRA. So, gentlemen, from WHERE would the money come to put armed guards in all schools in the country? Even if that approach is taken, take a look at shooting accuracy statistics of police officers, other than the military, the most highly trained shooters in the country, if not the world. In NYC, whose police are held up as exemplars of the best shooting statistics show its officers hit their targets with under 30% of bullets fired. So, Mr La Pierre, how often does "a good guy with a gun actually" stop a bad guy with a gun? Once again, the right wing conflates Hollywood fantasies with cold reality.
In reply to Rima RegasDec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED16
WalkerNew York
President Obama should declare a national health emergency due to an epidemic of gun-fueled violence, and invoke the executive authority of the presidency to order the repurchase, seizure, or confiscation and destruction of all firearms currently owned by civilians in the United States. Only the military and police should retain their weapons.
The time for discussion and reasonable compromise regarding gun ownership is long past. It is utterly pointless for pro- and anti-gun advocates to engage in interminable debates over the Second Amendment, high-capacity magazines, background checks, assault weapons bans, micro-encoded bullets, secure gun storage, databases of the mentally ill, violent movies and computer games, or armed guards for schools. Completely, utterly pointless.
Guns are now a medical and public health emergency, a communicable disease just like syphilis or other venereal disease. Nancy Lanza and her son Adam are but two victims of the gun virus; the disease killed them and 25 others. Wayne LaPierre and his minions at the National Rifle Association are all infected with the gun disease. They seek to spread the plague to all members of our society, even as the carnage continues and bullet-ridden corpses fill morgues across the country.
Steps must be taken to eradicate the gun plague in our society. Let's immediately eliminate all civilian-owned guns, period. No one will ever die from the gun that isn't there.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED16
Steve MDoylestown, PA
In the fantasyland of the NRA the good guys with guns stop the bad guys.
In reality the outcome of a gun fight will not be determined by the moral quality of the participants. The chances of who kills whom will be about 50/50.
We are much more likely to reduce the frequency of horrific slaughters by limiting the availabilities of guns and ammo than by increasing them. The evidence is that more limited gun access in civil societies like Australia, Britain, and Canada is correlated with increased freedom from gun violence. The NRA's argument that it is the other way around is not supported by the facts. We suspect that their counter factual world view is, at its core, despicably motivated by a combination of personal paranoia and greed.
Improve gun control now.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED15
JSGPendleton, KY
The problem is not about guns. It's about the fact that guns often complete a man's life. Like road rage, drugs, sports -- men use guns to shore up their perceived personal inadequacies, their fears, their weaknesses. Buying, fondling, cleaning, holding, shooting and packing guns make them feel manly, powerful and in control. If a man of any age can hold a gun and not have to explain to himself why he is a failure, he will own guns forever. That gun is his ticket into the world. Yes, guns are protection, but in so many cases, protection for the owner against the reality of himself. There is nothing society can do to change things.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED15
Beverlee JobrackCenterburg, Ohio
I'm really glad we're having a debate about gun control since we have allowed our country to become complacent about the availability of guns anywhere and everywhere--National Parks, restaurants, bars, even the State House here in Ohio. As a former middle school teacher, parent of two girls who graduated from public schools, and a student myself years ago, the thought of armed guards in schools, teachers armed with guns, or even guns just in the the principal's office is a disaster in waiting. Guns and kids do not mix well in homes and definitely not in school. It doesn't take long for me to imagine likely scenarios of unattended weapons being "played with" by primary students, angry teachers using a gun to threaten students, hormone racing middle-high students getting the school gun and shooting a teacher who made them mad, a girlfriend who broke up with them, or someone who just ticks people off. Shouting matches and fistfights happen frequently in schools, but they aren't deadly. The idea that more guns in schools will make students safer is insane. It will just usher in a whole host of new killings.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED15
AmelieNorthern California
One of the only rays of hope this past grim week has been the possibility that the NRA and Wayne LaPierre --along with the equally odious and wrongheaded Grover Norquist, the unelected fiscal kingpin -- are through this window of time losing their stranglehold on American politics.
It is time that Americans wake up and take their government back.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED14
Tim NewlinFrederiksberg, Denmark
Seriously, there is no "sensible" where gun regulation is concerned. Guns are a sickness. America hates guns, America loves guns, America is addicted to guns. Fear is the catalyst that drives this - fear of oppression, fear of government, fear of violence, fear of each other, fear of ourselves.
You correctly mention Centers for Disease Control. We are dealing with an epidemic. The smoke and mirrors began with the American ideal of the "lone hero" fed by almost every commercial aspect of US society. America is an addict at war with itself.
The NRA is no different than the drug and gambling cartels and the tobacco industries. Add the media and toy-violence profiteers and you have a cradle-to-bullet-riddled-grave of constant indoctrination into the life of fear.
The first step on the road out of any addiction is to stand up and admit to being an addict. Stand up America!
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED14
sallybchicagoIL
Furthermore, no rational person, including gun owners, hunters & collectors, could possibly object to closing the gun-show loophole. Why, how, could anyone think that's an infringement of their rights? It's not substantially different from having to pass a test to get a driver's license.
Private sales of guns also needs to be regulated. Passing laws that hold the original owner responsible for any crime committed with the weapon s/he sells would help encourage compliance.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED14
egearBaltimore
Ya know I believe that I am living in a world of idiots. Yes lets counter gun violence with with more guns a stellar idea. I don't want to see us lose anymore of our rights then we already have but that press conference was ridiculous. Shows the complete stupidity of these people. Now the mental health aspect of this discussion. Cranking up the availability of more mental health providers/programs means getting these people "serial killers" into the program. Forget about it. These types don't utilize mental health services they shun them. Increased mental health services in this country will do very little to solve these problems. Increased services just provide a heaven for those with substance abuse issues. Another way for them to get disability benefits for their issues. Believe me I work at one of the largest facilities in the country I see the "treatment" everyday. Treatment begins on the inside and can't be pushed from the outside. You have to want to get better. Treatment begins by example and the shambles of our political system are not teaching anybody anything. Working together is clearly a thing of the past. Dumping tons of money at an issue NEVER solves anything.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED14
KofenderRockaway, NJ
Verified
But Stu, when you think about it, this is actually who might provide some meaningful discussion to the dialogue. Viewed externally, the Five Families as well as the Crips and Bloods might seem to be engaged in senseless violence, but they actually appear to be more oriented to specific types of revenge actions. When an innocent bystander is killed, the internal mechanisms take hold and the perpetrator is dealt with appropriately.
The NRA, on the other hand, does not offer any sort of rationale or revenge or retaliation for senseless shootings. It just wants to make more guns (well, its corporate sponsors want that) with no restrictions. Someone dies? The NRA doesn't care.
By all means, bring in the Five Families to tame the NRA. Then something might get done. (No, I'm not advocating any violence whatsoever.)
In reply to Stu FreemanDec. 22, 2012 at 2:50 a.m.RECOMMENDED14
WelcomeCanada
If a check on mental illness was mandatory, Lapierre would have his guns taken away and obviously, would not be able to buy some. I think he is not all there.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.RECOMMENDED13
GrayguyGray, Maine
Verified
If the shooter at the school had a gun that has to be reloaded after three shots,he probably couldn't have killed 26 people. Because we have the guns is no reason to keep them. And if you need an automatic weapon to kill squirrels, you probably shouldn't be out shooting squirrels. Are you a member of a well-regulated militia? I thought not. You have no right to bear arms.
In reply to voice of reasonDec. 22, 2012 at 6:07 a.m.RECOMMENDED13
seeing with open eyesusa
The NRA has 4.3 million members, the population of the US is 311 million.
Why are we letting a minority, 1.38% of our population, have such a large and devstating effect on all of us?
The NRA foundation its largest funding-raising arm is categorized as a charitable organization and is tax exempt!!!!! Meanwhile wayne the a-hl is paid $900,000 a year.
Remember that the feds got Al Capone on tax evasion. Maybe we can castrate the NRA the same way.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED13
dc lambertnj
While no one could be against better mental health care, I think the emphasis on mental health here is a red herring. It certainly is to the NRA which has argued in effect, "We have a severe problem with mental healthcare in our country, so our proposal is to have at least two mental health professionals in every school. Wait, sorry, did we say 'mental health professionals'? We mean more guns."
As a teacher, I witness mental health issues all the time.My students have included students with fetal alcohol syndrome, crack babies, antisocial disorders, severe anger management, etc. I realize that from a parents' perspective it may happen that the school doesn't do enough for your child, but from the schools' perspective, we are literally spending millions of dollars in each school to help the disturbed. I can't count the hours I've spent with parents, guardians, Child Study Teams, guidance, the nurse, discipline, the school psychologist in efforts to help.
Our system is most certainly not perfect, but it is far better than it was when I was a child, when a mentally ill child was not cared for in the slightest. You were just kicked out of school. That was only a few decades ago. Our mental healthcare has IMPROVED vastly in schools since then. The correlation in the rise of massacres is guns, not mental healthcare. The solution to the violence is to remove the guns.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED12
ThomasBranford, Florida
The NRA does not represent gun owners, it represents the gun industry and as such, is making so much money it sees no other path than to make more guns.
Ban assault weapons . The Founding Fathers did not plan on this lunacy.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED12
ChloeZZZManhattan
In an interview by Terry Gross of Tom Diaz at
...
Diaz says that we have laws prohibiting the CDC from doing research on the impact of gun violence and that the ATF has very detailed information about gun possession but by law is not allowed to spend any money to do anything with the data which means they are impotent to do any research or provide access to the information by anyone. Basically, the gun lobby has gotten laws passed to prevent the facts about gun violence from being known because they tend to be inconvenient to their purposes.
This interview is rich in information about legal loopholes the gun lobby passed to bypass legislation explained. I highly recommend giving this one a listen. The most interesting fact is that while guns are proliferating, hunting is declining which means the NRA is less about protecting the individual right to bear arms and more being a front for the gun industry.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED12
MNWConnecticut
Charles Blow, referring to the NRA statement from Wayne LaPierre, says puzzlingly: "I really don’t know how to describe it. A soliloquy of propaganda? A carnival of canards? A herding of scapegoats?"
I suggest an encompassing description:
Irrational ranting from a deranged mind that has the inability to grasp tragedy brought about by the purposeful single-mindedness of those who have embraced evil with the full intent of subjecting all of us to their deranged attitudes and inhuman goals.
Or to put it in a more simple way.
They are on the other side of the missing link.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED12
Carl Ian SchwartzPaterson, New Jersey
At this point, the NRA should be classified a terrorist organization.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED11
Kevin RothsteinNew York
Verified
Alexander: Get rid of lobbyists.
In reply to Kevin RothsteinDec. 22, 2012 at 5:37 a.m.RECOMMENDED11
SBIreland
A very long time ago indeed - the last years of the nineteenth century - my great grandfather was murdered by a woman using her husband's revolver. This left four children orphaned, one of whom later died at seventeen - this would have been less likely had he still been living with his father.
My grandmother mourned her father all her life, all 98 years of it; and we - her descendants - are in no doubt of what an instant and a bullet can cause. The compounded heartbreak of automatic weapons? A gun in every pocket?
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED11
WendyNew Jersey
Verified
I think he's been watching too much James Bond. Most people who own guns are not precision marksmen.
In reply to Tim BDec. 22, 2012 at 4:21 a.m.RECOMMENDED11
SAAPhiladelphia
Wayne LaPierre is himself a bad guy with a gun.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 10:13 a.m.RECOMMENDED11
RM PolhemusCalifornia
Quoting Blow's fine column on LaPierre: "He blamed 'every insane killer,' 'monsters and the predators,' and 'people that are so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can ever possibly comprehend them.'" Since the policies of LaPierre and the greed-driven efforts of gun-makers-and-sellers have made our homicie-prone nation the model of "exceptionalism" in the blood-drenched murder of innocents and suicide by bullets, I say "Here, Here!" to LaPierre's statement: It's a shoe that fits him nicely and he's wearing it.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED10
George L.New York
We are fighting the Civil War again.
The White house has been occupied by upper class white men as far back as we can remember. This is the constituency of today's Republican Party.
Emotionally and intellectually they haven't yet digested the experience of losing the Civil War and losing their slaves. Now comes the shock of a black face looking at them from the White House.
Let's face it. there will not be an agreement about the budget or anything else, because governing is not the real objective of the Republican Party. Their objective is to undermine the legitimacy of the black (actually, half black) president, as they expressed in 2008, before President Obama even took office. They declared that their objective was to make sure that this president will be a one term president. (a mistake in judgement by the electorate, that will be righted on the next turn) Never mind the Bush financial collapse that brought the world to the brink of a second Great Depression, both the results of Republican economic policies, in a century.
They are still licking their wounds of the Civil War,
and no rational arguments can move them from that emotional base they are stuck on.
Voters of America, remember this in the next general election!
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED10
RozthepoetLos Angeles,CA
As a former teacher and school counselor, there's no way I'd want to own a gun or make it mandatory for teachers to carry guns. Violence is far too pervasive in our society; we see the start of it with small toddlers and their shoot 'em guns bought by parents and family members as holiday gifts and birthday presents. We see the continuation of it as adults purchase and permit young kids to sit for hours watching violent and brutal TV movies and video games. Let's start right now to stop this brutal cycle of violence in our coutnry. Don't buy your kids and grandkids or any child you care about such types of toys. If you have done so this year, head back to the store right now to return your purchase; buy a book, a board game, some art supplies. This is one step parents can take right now to begin to eliminate the culture of violence in our country.
Roz Levine
Los Angeles
California
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED10
George O'DonnellNew York City
Glad you mentioned cars. Cars can kill or injure people. They can wreck other people's property. Therefore we have to take a test so we know the rules and have the proper training in order to get a license. We have to have insurance in the event of an accident. Our equipment must be inspected once a year. We must re-register on a regular basis. Yes, keeping a car costs money and we may not like all the regulations but we don't complain because it makes sense and protects us as well as others. Unfortunately, the arguments of those who are opposed to any kind of gun control are simply not making sense.
In reply to Rima RegasDec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED10
LTSpringfield, MO
Mr. LaPierre completely misses the point. It's that bad guys have GUNS. Bad guys with knives wouldn't be able to kill many people in a short time. A bad guy with a machete standing on a stage in a movie theater couldn't kill anyone. A bad guy with a knife couldn't stand in the doorway of a classroom of kindergartners and kill them all with 3 - 11 stab wounds in each body in a matter of 10 minutes.
The entire point is the bad guy has the gun. How telling that LaPierre doesn't even see that.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 10:15 a.m.RECOMMENDED10
JHoppeMABoston
The NRA has one purpose: helping gun companies sell guns and bullets. Period. You might as well ask McDonald's if people should eat more hamburgers.
Also: Columbine had an armed guard. Ford Hood had armed soldiers. Virginia Tech had a whole armed police unit. They were no help at all. The answer is fewer guns, not more guns in school.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.RECOMMENDED10
robertgeary9Portland, Oregon
Thankfully, everyone can now indicate that they have a handle on the leader of the NRA (Wayne La Pierre) and his brand of logic. Of course, it is simplistic. It also contradicts serious national organizations such as the one composed of active governors.
Furthermore, it comes as no surprise that some southern states, and somewhat redneck ones (WY and MT), have the highest rate of homicides. They tend to be way, way outside of Main Street America.
No wonder TV sitcoms enjoy showing their residents in stereotypes. But aside from entertainment (at the expense of some of our fellow Americans...), ours is indeed a culture with violence. So every household should consider this fact and act.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED10
WendyNew Jersey
Verified
Rima - I totally agree. Unfortunately, although I'm appalled at the cuts in funding to all sorts of mental health treatment, I don't want to say anything in this debate that allows the gun lobby to get away with saying it's just the "crazy people" responsible for these horrible incidents. If this disturbed young man had not had an AK 47 or whatever high-powered rifle he was carrying, some of those children would still be alive today.
In reply to Rima RegasDec. 22, 2012 at 4:19 a.m.RECOMMENDED10
Retired GardenerEast Greenville, PA
Listening in stunned disbelief to the NRA 'press conference' [someone help me with their redefined meaning of the concept], I think LaPierre's mean-spirited, disengaged rant lacked one overlooked volunteer group - the PTA. I am surprised he did not also request that its parent members MUST volunteer at least one day per year locked and loaded, and patrolling school grounds. After all, I wonder if he has ever set foot in a school on several levels. Most schools are quite spead out with multiple entry points not to mention outdoor playground and athletic field areas. Surely one NRA certified security guard cannot be expected to effectively and efficiently cover such a wide expanse.
The David Gregory interview on Meet The Press on Sunday should be interesting -assuming LaPierre shows..
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED10
Robert Henry EllerMilan, Italy
Why is anyone waiting to hear what the NRA has to say, or listening, once the NRA says anything? They're the NRA. What do we expect them to say? They are the lobby of gun manufacturers. Are gun manufacturers going to limit their profits?
The NRA is going to propose legislation to limit their profits about as quickly as Wall Street will.
It is the job of citizens, and their elected and supposed "representatives," to limit the excesses of greed. Unfortunately, citizens have not yet moved to limit the excesses of greed of their elected and supposed "representatives."
The real problem is that citizens are not exercising their votes effectively. Stop asking criminals to police themselves. Why do you think we have police?
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED10
KEFLake Oswego, OR
Teachers should teach. Period.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 10:16 a.m.RECOMMENDED10
ronkourbana, il
The NRA should use less of their dues for lobbying and more for the support of those injured and killed by their precious guns. They should pay for their privilege. They should pay for funerals of those who were victims of gun violence. Pay for the care of the injured, rebuild ravaged communities, and pay for the future safety of public and private spaces where innocent people gather. Mental illness and "evil" are difficult and nebulous things to define, much less cure and eliminate. It would be much easier to regulate guns and ammunition. Other countries do it, why can't we?
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED9
LynneUsa
Arming teachers, janitors, having security guards misses a larger point. How do you know that the "good guy " with a gun isn't going through a horrible divorce or bankrupt and turns anguish outward and becomes "bad guy" with a gun? or a student grabs a teacher's gun? Or the underlying fear placed in our children as they are learning in an armed environment?
I was taught never to say this but I will go against my upbringing to say that every syllable coming out of Wayne LaPierre's mouth was just plain dumb! If our politicians can sleep at night knowing that they have more allegiance to this idiotic club than to the families all over this country, most recently Newtown, who have been devastated by gun violence, they should be promptly run out of office. We need a MADD like moment because clearly we have elected a bunch of cowards who would rather take campaign contributions on their own behalf than make actual contributions to the entire electorate.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED9
Darsan 54Grand Rapids, MI
Mr. Blow and others are thinking Mr. LaPierre was actually talking to the general audience. He was talking to all those people who are running out and buying guns like there is no tomorrow. Behavior which translates into increased profits for the manufacturers, which are the NRA's real sponsors.
Mr. LaPierre could care less what anyone else thinks of him, the NRA, the gun makers and buyers. Not as long as they keep buying. Hail free market capitalism!!!!
Dec. 22, 2012 at 10:14 a.m.RECOMMENDED9
Mr BillRego Park, Queens, NY
So because more victims of shootings are surviving with serious injuries, our gun-crazed culture is contributing billions to public health-care expenditures. Hadn't thought of this detail; thank you, Mr. Blow. Let's send the tab to Wayne LaPierre, the gun manufacturers, the N.R.A.'s rank and file, the gun-enabling politicians, and Charlton Heston's cold, dead hands.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:50 a.m.RECOMMENDED9
Leslie BNaples, FL
There's a logical answer here. Mental illness, violent video games, and violent movies are present in nearly all societies. Yet only one has an insanely high incidence of gun related deaths and injuries. What are these other countries missing?- Guns and ammunition. That's the only logical conclusion. We have too many guns and way many bullets.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED9
Jen DNew Jersey
I am hoping the NRA finds itself on the wrong side of history. Hoping, but not feeling very hopeful as I look at our nation's history where gun control is concerned. Maybe if Mr. LaPierre keeps talking, more people will realize how downright irrational and crazy he (and, by extension, the NRA) sounds.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 10:15 a.m.RECOMMENDED8
Bart DonowYorktown Heights NY
How many people have to be slaughtered before we will take the minimal steps to end it? I am neither a gun owner nor a hunter. I never wanted to be and I suspect I never will be. I know people who are both and they are "good people." I don't want to take their hunting guns, or target pistols, or rifles, or other "sports" equipment. However, I cannot, for the life of me and others, understand why someone needs a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill as many human beings as possible in as short amount of time as possible.
No one NEEDS a gun that is designed for murder except for a soldier in combat or a SWAT team police officer. Neither my wife nor my mother needs one. A sportsman doesn't need one. If someone one must experience the thrill of shooting 5 bullets a second, let him or her go to a licensed shooting range and rent one for an hour.
Finally, I am the leader of a school for students with disabilities. Many of these students have experienced unbelievable violence in their short lives. I've been working with these students for more than 25 years. The day I am told I have to have a gun in my office to prevent violence is the day I turn in my resignation.
We have sent enough cards and burned enough candles and held too many moments of silence. Let's do something about the instruments of death that result in us having this conversation all too frequently.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED8
rjpaquinNorton Shores Michigan
I had viewed the NRA as group plying the joy of hunting, improving game management, sportsmanship, good relationships and family ties/times. What I heard from
Waynee LaPierre (the double "e" is mine) is the prey is no longer big enough. Oh, human beings are smaller than many species, but humans add a certain challenge to the (their) hunt.
If we listened close enough to Waynee's statements we would have heard the lust for killing.
As the hunter, Waynee did, however, show fear. Oh, yes he did! When twice interrupted he must have felt like the children in Newtown last week. He must have feared " they got weapons past all this security". No, Waynee, they didn't, but for a moment you had to feel the need to be reborn. Well, in Wayne’s case it will take a third or fourth born again experience.
Unfortunately, many young lives didn't even get a chance to make us all proud. Attitudes like Waynees' make it very difficult for that chance to succeed.
Shame on him! Shame on all cowards especially those in our legislative body’s that are bought off by the likes of Waynee
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED8
TimGlencoe, IL
Problems with the NRA argument that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun:
Bad guys are deceptive,
Good guys are fallible,
Some people are neither good nor bad,
Some people who have been good will be bad,
We don't always know who's good and who's bad.
More secure windows, doors and gatekeepers, yes. But leave the guns to the police.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:50 a.m.RECOMMENDED8
jbishopNC
Follow the money: certain elements in our society have been duped into thinking guns are the answer to being safe. It is a false message sent out by the NRA at the behest of the manufacturers and gun traders. The more fear they peddle, the more guns they sell.
The NRA controls our politics wherever it can. They threaten anyone in office with lots of money that will be used against them, if they do not follow the message of lax gun laws. This is one reason why it is so difficult to pass and enforce reasonable gun legislation. Our officials have been bought by the NRA, whose money comes more from the manufacturers than it does from its membership.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED8
Elizabeth friaufTexas
Adam Lanza's first victim, his mother, owned guns and knew how to use them. But she died anyway. I fail to see how arming more people = less mayhem.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED8
JohnFort Wayne
"A Well Regulated Militia, being necessary to the Security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The right of "the people" to bear arms is performed by the military and police. Your right has been outsourced to professionals with appropriate training.
The NRA has acknowledged that gun violence a serious problem which must be acted on. When the time comes that armed guards are required in schools, we have a very serious situation. But why should the community pay the approximately 10 billion dollars required for a solution unlikely to make a difference?
America must believe its police and military services can protect them. The money spent on guns can be spent on better policing. Not as spectacular, but more rational.
Ban the guns.
There is no situation where a 6 shot revolver does not supply excellent personal protection. Anything else is dangerous thrill seeking.
"Drugs don't kill people, people kill people"
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED8
john greenS.F. CA
I think it's possible that we witnessed a sort of lunatic product launching from the NRA today. Asa Hutchinson will send Blackwater into our schools and communities under the new NRA program, the Shield. today, His plan is to have retired police and firefighter(?) and so forth and, he adds that there would be "a corps of patriots. . .civilians who have been trained and are ready to deploy." His advice was that we fund it and start it before kids go back from winter break. Are we Afghanistan now?
The NRA seems to feel it is our elected government.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.RECOMMENDED8
laMissyBoston, MA
Why should the leadership of the NRA have any standing at all in the question of school safety? Firstly and most importantly, they are not educators. They have not been elected to a local school board, nor chosen as school superintendents. They certainly have not been trained as safety officers nor as first responders. Their only goal is to assure the wider distribution of guns, a goal their proposal would certainly further.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED8
Richard LuettgenNew JerseyNYT Pick
Your piece is as one-sided as LaPierre's "press conference".
So he was over-the-top. You expected him perhaps to be ON his meds? He represents the nation's largest gun rights activist organization, but he doesn't represent gun OWNERS: a lot of them are quite willing to talk about sensible limits, if only you'd stop demonizing them as hicks and the source of all evil, and telling them you want to confiscate all their guns. And if you're agitating for a repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, you might try Congress: that's where amendments start. Good luck.
I don't know if I buy LaPierre's solution about good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns -- that sounds like a recipe for a lot of collateral damage to people caught between the two; but I know that what the public education unions said about the matter ("Guns have no place in our schools. Period.") is nonsense: at Columbine and now at Sandy Hook, someone deranged with guns wasn't listening to them. And I understand that a groundswell is building among the public for armed security officers in schools, for the same reason we put armed air marshals on planes. Basically, the teachers unions don't know what they're talking about, about ANYTHING.
This frontal assault on guns in America is simply poisoning the atmosphere for discussion about rational safeguards and limits. But I guess rational in an opinion piece doesn't sell newspapers. But it doesn't limit gun excess, either.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 10:13 a.m.RECOMMENDED8
KrisMadison, WI
This is so ludicrous. Teachers cannot get enough funding and time for the newest researched-based methods of instruction, but by all means, find time and funds for gun training.
How will those guns be kept safe enough from students who may also want to take them, an inevitable result in a place where emotions and tensions often run high? And given that security, would those school guns be accessible quickly enough, thinking how quickly the Newtown shootings happened? By every means of logic, arming teachers fails.
In reply to LindaDec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED7
Larry Eisenbergnyc
Let's nationalize all weapon making,
Great income is ours for the taking,
Would the NRA scream
It's a Marxian dream
Their love of all weapons forsaking?
If we make the Guns we control 'em,
Get rid of the Massacre Golem,
Privatize Musket making,
It's theirs for the taking,
Let all of those profits console 'em!
Dec. 22, 2012 at 10:16 a.m.RECOMMENDED7
PeterManzariNYC
A question for the NRA: The Newtown shooter took the guns from his mother before he killed her. Was she a good guy or a bad guy? Did her guns protect her or hurt her?
Dec. 22, 2012 at 10:09 a.m.RECOMMENDED7
RohitNew York
"He blamed American culture, and the media, and video games and even natural disasters. But not a society saturated with guns that spray bullets the way that Super Soakers spray water and have made us the embarrassment of the developed world. "
I think ALL of these are to blame. I am fully in sympathy with the effort to control guns and favor a total ban on assault weapons. But I am a little cautious about using the Sandy Hook incident into a "let us stick it to the Republicans" moment.
There are countries like Switzerland where gun ownership is common and such massacres do not seem to have taken place. Vermont has more gun ownership per capita than New York but less gun violence. So the evidence is mixed rather than "guns are the only problem." Certainly guns are a major part of the problem. But so is the glorification of violence in movies and video games. My own son was mugged on a New York city subway and no guns were involved.
If the Republicans are saying, "Let us control ALL these things, including guns, and violence in the media", I would agree with them.
If the Republicans are saying, "There are many factors and therefore let us not do anything about guns" I would disagree with them.
If others are saying, "guns are the only problem and if we have gun control we need not do anything about the other causes," then I would disagree with them too.
God knows the Republicans deserve bashing, but it is not a constructive direction.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED7
R.E.F.LANTANA, FL
Say goodnight, Wayne! Any NRA member not totally embarrassed by this rambling bloviation couched as a potential "solution" needs self-examination. It is now time the membership elected, appointed, annointed, or otherwise exhumed new leadership in tune with the real world!
Dec. 22, 2012 at 10:16 a.m.RECOMMENDED7
RVBCT
OK, let me get this straight. We’re supposed to put locked and loaded VOLUNTEERS into public schools in order to keep kids safe. Exactly where is the command and control? What are the rules of engagement? Where is the accountability? What authority does anyone have over VOLUNTEERS? This is a bad idea, people. A really, really bad idea. TRUTH: IF WEAPONS AND AMMUNITION HAD BEEN PROPERLY SECURED, TWENTY SIX INNOCENT PEOPLE WOULD STILL BE ALIVE TODAY!!! It’s time for anyone who is not totally stoned on the partisan kool-aid to stand up and just say “NO!!” Oh, and for the record, I am a gun owner, and I have proudly worn the Rifle Expert Badge on my U.S. Army uniform.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 10:09 a.m.RECOMMENDED7
MohanSingapore
I am from Singapore. We don't but this idea that one man's freedom be another's nightmare. That is wrong ! We must learn to live together offering safety to life and property of each and everyone. This gun culture is absolutely stupid and self destructive. While my government may be too oppressive in politics , i agree with them just as many other nation in this planet, weapons are meant to defend the country and protect citizens from voilent individuals. Claiming that carrying a gun gives an American his freedom sounds silly to me. If US follow this man's wya of thinking than there is difference between US and Afghanistan.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED7
FromBrooklynEurope
I'm just venting here - others have already given good comments, but I couldn't believe what I was hearing from the NRA rep! The mind boggles. I truly believe that those who advocate more guns as a solution are not in their right minds. There will always be unbalanced people, and there will always be crimes of violence, but if guns aren't so readily available, people won't be able to kill people so easily! Is that so hard to understand? It's the fanatical gun advocates who are trampling on everyone else's freedom to live reasonably normal lives. Why do we and our elected representatives put up with this?
I'm also against the horrible proliferation and glorification of violence in the media; why not get back to some form of "censorship"? I remember the days when Lucy and Desi didn't have a double bed! And I don't believe that signaled the end of American freedom of speech and expression.
At the moment, I'm glad I live inEurope.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED7
PhillipOhio
The NRA should be obolished as a terrorist organization whose purpose is to destroy American society.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED7
Bruce RozenblitKansas City
Mr. Blow,
You ask for sensible regulations? How is that possible with unsensible people?
Hyper-individualists fueled by apocalyptic paranoia cannot be sensible.
People that are ignorant of the concept of the rule of law cannot be sensible.
People that claim to be true patriots but yet fear and hate the government cannot be sensible.
People that claim to love this country but yet don't have a clue how our democracy functions cannot be sensible.
People that equate freedom and liberty with he ability to kill cannot be sensible.
People that cannot accept ANY restrictions whatsoever on firearms cannot be sensible.
Mr. Blow, we have a problem.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.RECOMMENDED7
STIllinois
What is wrong with this picture? Every time there is a mass murder, the number of guns sold spikes. If that is the case, what is the incentive for the NRA who are at the beck and call of gun manufacturers to change when there is a mass murder? Zero, zilch. In this strange American society, more mass murders mean more people get scared for their personal safety, leading to more sales and more profit for the gun manufacturers. Of course, it makes sense for the NRA to call for arming more people. More mayhem, more people are scared, more guns sold, more profit, more money to the NRA, more money for lobbying, more money to elected representatives .... finally we have a fait accompli .... when there are so many guns, that it becomes impossible to get rid of them. Something like the logic of banks too big to fail ....
Madness!
Dec. 22, 2012 at 10:08 a.m.RECOMMENDED7
LLWSan Francisco, CA
Despite the overwhelming evidence from many excellent studies and sources, including Harvard, Johns Hopkins and UC Davis, the gun apologists continue to spout off the same old tired arguments. Trying to reason with them is like trying to reason with a toddler: But they WANT their guns! They operate from a primal fear that falsely reassures them that if they have a gun, they are safe.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:50 a.m.RECOMMENDED7
nfnmgNYC
LaPierre was preaching to the converted. Newtown had not changed his thinking one bit. The NRA has made itself irrelevant to the conversation.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED6
Ed JahnLeesburg VA
It's all about the money. Guards with guns in every school would give millions in profits to the gun industry.
Behind the weepy pretense, that's what matters to NRA leaders.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.RECOMMENDED6
sallybchicagoIL
Agree 100% with your p.s., as we shouldn't be appalled only at mass killings such as last week's. A child killed while 'playing' with a gun found in their home is every bit as tragic.
Also, it often happens that the gun kept in your home is stolen during a break-in, and used in still another crime.
In reply to Bill AppledorfDec. 22, 2012 at 9:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED6
Thoreau101Concord
Sandy Hook was the equivalent of Pearl Harbor for the NRA. It will never be forgotten. The organization will never again have any status for most Americans.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.RECOMMENDED6
Them or UsNew York
Wayne LaPierre and David Keene have the blood of all of the victims of the Newtown massacre on their hands. They are directly responsible for the proliferation of guns in our society, and for every gun death that has resulted.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED6
James FinneganWest Islip NY
One obvious way around the second amendment quandary is a change in definition.
The Constitution mentions a "right to bear arms".
One need only re-define assault weapons and high ammunition clips in some alternate manner--personal assault implements, or whatever....
Hunting rifles, small pistols for home protection, and other "arms" of personal use would be left unscathed.
Better yet--define "arms" as the powder load flintlocks of 1793. This will no doubt bring great comfort to Justice Scalia and other Constitutional "originalists"
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED6
CitizenRI
Be careful about using statistics. Mr. Blow states that "According to the analysis, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut had the lowest per capita gun death rates." Interesting, but so far no one has commented on the fact that despite the statistic, the shooting in Newtown occurred in one of these states with the "lowest per capita gun death rates."
Statistics are not going to be useful in this ongoing discussion. What will be useful, in my opinion, is a discussion based on principles and reasoning.
Argue this on principles and reasoning. Make the argument from the point that the Second Amendment is unclear and vague. Make these points:
-No right is absolute, and therefore all are subject to reasonable limits.
-Not all gun owners are irresponsible.
-Guns are enough of a risk to society that certain people should never be allowed to own or possess them, and the methods for obtaining them should be more strictly and rigorously enforced/controlled.
-This discussion is not about ridding the nation of guns, because that is not a reasonable solution in any form.
-No solution will completely eliminate the threat of violence by gun, but "more guns" cannot be the answer to a gun problem, especially in our schools.
-The penalties regarding irresponsible/criminal use of guns should be increased to highly discourage their use.
There are other points that can be made, but I think these are a good start.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED6
George KvideraCudahy, WI
The adage of Jesus, “For all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” isn’t that hard to understand, but apparently Mr. La Pierre doesn’t want children to understand it either. The idea that the threat of violence is the solution to all our problems isn’t just an affront to Jesus; it’s an affront to civilization.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 10:08 a.m.RECOMMENDED6
Cornelia BinkleyLake Tahoe, Nevada
The NRA position is NOT so "insane", not all of it anyway, just most of it. The auto killer mega clips do gotta go. Guns aren't new,but our violence is
Most teachers don't wish to tote a gun in their petti or waist coat. How about a teacher with poor judgement with a gun, like a few of our soldiers and cops.
(Kristof), impressive stats have been related how much gun violence goes up in a society with more guns, especially those guns several evolutions beyond the musket of the 1770's.
The bar is ever lowering for violence tolerance for young and old storing away hideous images lurking in synapses to surface druing a bad day, bad year, bad life, not coping well.
And please don't focus on diagnosed mentally ill: most schizophrenics are not violent, and people in an acute pschotic episode don't blend in well anyway. Look for isolative, functioning poorly, with addictive traits.
Try it. You play highly addictive kill-kill-conquer (get to next level in "Guild" with avatar manipulated by a human you'll never meet) in Call of Duty, Star Wars, Assassin, Halo, World of Warcraft, dozens of others,Lego's kiddie kill games, up all night, sleep deprivation, social isolation, poor diet/exercise & mix in anger/depressed and voila...Columbine, Lanza, and more. Other than sports the games are about killing humans and take the spectator violence of a Quentin Tarrantino movie to a new stratosphere of engagement. Gaming is the Number One entertainment today for teens and college people.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED6
SRDallas, Texas
One thing La Pierre forgot to do was show the P and L statements of our lovely firearms industry. Such a silly goose!
Oh by the way, did he make an argument for more and better health care? You know a psychiatrist in every home.
Mental health and access to it should be a topic co-joining the gun control issue. The silly goose tried to make it one not the other. It's both! Not either! Better out reach, more health care and less guns. That's where we need to go.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED6
Alex pIt
Having more guns increases odds of damages, injuries and deaths. It's not like having a car, the more we have, the slower they run, the safest we are. The bullet's velocity is number insensitive, and hits in shorter time than human response.
With semi-automatic ones, a gun can shot many bullets in the time of human response.
It's physics, alas.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
KGSflorida keys
Wayne La Pierre is flat out wrong when he blames "American culture, and the media, and video games and even natural disasters" on the number of gun related deaths. Look at the rest of the world. They worship American culture but have more stringent
controls and, consequently, the number of accidents and deaths is significantly lower than in the USA. Blow is absolutely correct when he asserts "The simple truth is that more guns equal more death."
Obama needs to do an end around the gridlock of Congress and use his impressive oratorical skills and the presidency as a bully pulpit to take his case on gun control (as well as the other mandates he received from the election) directly to the people. He must urge the public to start a groundswell to move their elected officials forward.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
Robbie J.Miami, Fl
I agree with the statement by the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association. Weapons of any sort (especially guns) have no place in any school, anywhere, or in any institution of learning.
To follow Mr. la Pierre's logic, why stop at the teachers, or the school staff? Why not also allow the school's eldest students to be armed also? Why not allow the younger students also to be armed? Why not continue all the way to the youngest of the school's students? If the school has kindergarten students, why not let them be armed too?
If you find such a scenario to be absurd, then you see the absurdity of Mr. la Pierre's proposition. In that case you will then have to accept that keeping guns out of schools is the right thing to do. A similar kind of argument also serves to uncover the incoherence of propositions that advocate that places where people gather should have more, not fewer, armed persons.
Mr. la Pierre's proposition fails at the outset.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
David EvansReisterstown, MD
Now that the Nation has seen a face to go with the NRA we have an opportunity to view the enemy and unlike what Charley Brown said, we can truly say, "We have seen the enemy and he is not at all like us." It was revealing to see his facial tics and strange looney stares while he delivered his pitch. Now that America has seen a face on the NRA I almost felt that a meaningful gun law could pass. But the House Republicans living in a sheltered parallel universe still do not get it. The NRA is going to have to grease a lot of palms to block this one however.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
HCFlorida
Yes, I watched Wayne Lapierre lecturing America about why guns are just a reflection of the movies, DVDs of movies, comic book violence, our fascination with violence and gore, our buying our five to ten year olds xmas presents for their "wi" games of violence on TV. Oh what fun it is to crash a brand new car, kill the shooter, blow up the characters coming at us, etc. ad nauseam. Essentially he blamed Americans for the actions of the shooters who are both unbalanced and vengeful for paranoid reasons.
His solution, everybody has heard, and it is absurd. If Congress had any cohones, they would outlaw not only assault weapons, large capacity magazines, but also carrying a loaded weapon in your purse, hidden holster, or behind your back, belt holding it in place until it is whipped out and used for murder.
We seem as a nation to be impotent. We do not seem to be able to have our representatives in the House, do their job they took an oath to do.
Gun ownership has, ultimately, reduced our domestic tranquillity. They have gone overboard in providing for our defense, but nothing to defend us against the crazy psychopaths that get assault guns at guns shows, where they are able to avoid background checks that would otherwise disqualify them as gun buyers.
I don't think we as a nation are a laughing stock of the world because of the predictable frequency, increasing for years now, of such slaughters that take place every year. Lapierre is a lackey for the NRA, an evil stupid man.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
JenaNorth Carolina
Mr LaPierre's comments would logically conclude with every mall, movie theater, church and street having "armed guards" usually called police which could be paid for by high taxes on guns and ammunition. Then America would be the first industrial nation protected by a "private police force" bought and paid for by the NRA and gun manufacturers. This sounds like Fascism to me. Is Mr. LaPierre and the NRA espousing a fascists state? I thought that is what they were arming themselves against.? One more time the NRA makes no sense which makes you ask the obvious question why don't the "sensible gun" owners who are members of the NRA vote them out of office?
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
milesthekittenKalamazoo, MI
I hope that LaPierre continues to speak his mind--it can only result in his becoming more and more irrelevant as people are closely paying attention now. The one thing we could do to most dramatically reduce guns and associated violence is to repeal all laws protecting gun manufacturers and distributors from civil liability. Then you would see the real power of the free market working for the people's welfare.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
Vector65Pa
Wayne LaPierre's speech showed how a zealot has no ability to adjust to context. His rambling, disjointed protest confirmed why the gun issue is not going anywhere any time soon. These devotees will hold onto the belief that "guns don't kill, people do" or "I will lay down my arms right after the criminals do" or "my weapons are the last stand against tyranny" etc. etc. The NRA will not and can not change its battle cry. This was a speech for the 4 million lawful gun owners many of whom reportedly are quite fine with making gun ownership a marginally more intelligent program. LaPierre attempted to be the strident, powerful leader so he could justify his compensation package. If nothing else, the NRA should get much better speech writers.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
Nan SocolowCayman Islands, British West Indies
Wayne LaPierre "can't handle the truth"! That more guns equal more murders in The United States of America. His insane suggestion of putting armed guards in every American school from coast to coast is only as obscene as lack of gun control and control of the megabusiness of selling and providing guns is by the NRA. LaPierre should scuttle back under the rock he came out from.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
OchanBordeaux, France
Yes, we need to take out the gunman. That's the NRA.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
Chris DSydney, Australia
It is surreal: the anti-government NRA, who hold the right to bear arms as fundamental to 'protecting' themselves against everything and everyone, including some notion of a malignant government, would like to see armed government employees stationed in every school yard?
When the answer is "more guns", someone is asking the wrong question.
As Mark Shields pointed out on PBS Newshour: more Americans have died from guns since the death of Robert Kennedy, than have died in every war since the Revolution.
America is awash in guns, and that's the way the NRA wants to keep it.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
PeterSBoston, MA
Mr. LaPierre's idea is dangerous. With few limits on the types of guns that are freely availaable, this is a recipe for escalation. If the guards have handguns, a dangerous person can prepare and acquire a handgun with greater fire power and larger magazine. If we upgrade the hand guns of the guards, criminals can acquire even more dangerous rifles. Where is this going to end? We will have open warfare on the street and innocent bystanders will be harmed. In fact, is this what is happening across Mexico border where America guns are fueling the war of the gangs? Instead, putting limits on the types of guns and putting more stringent qualifications for gun ownership will limit the firepower of dangerous people and give our law enforcement personnel an upper hand.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
Charles AlmonBrooklyn NYC
It cannot be emphasized enough, the NRA is not a dues paying social club, but a lobbying and PR organization for rifle/gun makers. Their opinions on these matters are as 'valuable' as the opinions of the tobacco industry during the cigarette labeling debates of a few decades ago.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
seymourkramerAlbany, Ca.
Wayne LaPierre's performance brings to mind Ed Begley in the original 12 Angry Men, a racist ranter, in that incarnation, who would require a Dewey Decimal system to log all of his evasions. In the film Begley is "sent to coventry" when the rest of the jury of his peers simply refuse to listen.
That should be the fate of Wayne's World as we tackle life beyond the apocalypse without him.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:38 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
Jessica PrentissSF Bay Area, California, USA
"Wayne LaPierre ... blamed gun violence in general, and mass shootings in schools in particular, on everything except for the proliferation of brutally efficient, high-capacity guns and his organization’s efforts to resist virtually any restriction on people’s access to those weapons."
I think "virtually" is a wee bit generous, there! What restriction efforts has the NRA ever NOT resisted? They have preempted, with legislation, restrictions not even thought up yet by gun safety advocates.*
No disrespect to those struggling with mental illness, but it seems like Mr. LaPierre and many of his NRA board member colleagues are afflicted with paranoid delusions, narcissism, and a wicked case of persecution complex.
(*I'm making an effort to never again use the term "control" with reference to guns. That term just feeds the beast.)
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
LLWSan Francisco, CA
How about we give a "press conference" to the teachers?
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
pixelpersonMiami, FL
Let's call it for what this issue really is.
1. Paranoia sells guns.
2. Fear sells guns.
3. People who have an intense vested interest in stoking those fears are very good at their job.
Any questions?
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
Tim NewlinFrederiksberg, Denmark
There is no "sensible" to gun regulation. Guns are a sickness. America hates guns, America loves guns, America is addicted to guns. Fear is the catalyst that drives this - fear of oppression, fear of government, fear of violence, fear of each other, fear of ourselves.
You mention Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and rightly so, because we are dealing with an epidemic. The smoke and mirrors began with the American ideal of the "lone hero" fed by almost every commercial aspect of US society. America is an addict at war with itself.
The NRA is no different than the drug and gambling cartels and the tobacco industries. Add the media and toy-violence profiteers to this and you have a cradle to bullet-riddled grave of constant indoctrination into the life of fear. The first step on the road out of any addiction is to stand up and admit to being an addict. Stand up America!
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
ddyteBrooklyn
The numbers speak for themselves, clearly and forthrightly, that America stands out from the developed world in two ways: the number of guns it has, and the amount of damage its guns inflict. If France has banned video games and a prurient media, please correct me on that, however.
The NRA's Friday charade was a disgrace to the very notion of a free exchange of ideas. The moments were many and would be laughable in less tragic circumstances.
"This is the beginning of a serious conversation. We will not be taking questions today." - Words fail me.
"Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize gun owners." - Subject and object reversed in that sentence, perhaps?
The vision offered by Wayne LaPierre turns America;s schools into something more closely resembling the border between North and South Korea. Take your John Wayne macho vigilante fantasies to some small, hitherto uninhabited island, and leave us decent people alone, NRA members.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
The Wifely PersonSt. Paul, MN
Dear Mr. Blow,
There was a split second at the moment I heard the NRA was planning a press conference, that there was a glimmer of hope that this wasn't some kind of NRA humorless joke cum dog and pony show. Before I could be fully dazzled by the sparkle, I came to my senses and girded up, instead, for a bevy of bull-oney.
My only advice to the NRA...besides the general suggestion that they find an auto-cranial proctologist with group rates as quickly as possible,....they should go live in S'derot, Israel for a couple of weeks to try out the guns in schools and shopping centers theory. Go ask those citizens what it's like. Ask them if, given the choice, they would want guns in their schools.
Of course, it would be to the NRA's advantage to turn us into a third world third class player. Think of the gun sales! Think of the ammo sales! Think of the casket sales! Think of the maximization of profits!
The only explanation as to why that man stood there and rationalized the sales of arms and ammo, single shot and automatic alike, is because he was either high or drunk, or both...and neither of those are acceptable excuses.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
Sean ThackreyBolinas, CA
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is if he doesn't have one.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
MeredithNew York
We’ve gotten used to the nefarious right wing through the years, as they’ve conditioned the electorate to accept their programs as normal—even beneficial to voters. But I’m still shocked at the full range of their despicable callousness on display—both in the ‘budget negotiations’ and in the NRA speech that insulted the country.
This La Pierre is in La La Land. He may not be legally insane, but his fantasy world presentation shows how detached he is from reality, facts, and the suffering of others. He is resolutely walled off from understanding cause and effect.
Because of his past efforts to repeal the assault gun ban, so many more people are dead, and so many more parents and children went through anguish and grief. He has blocked himself from any feeling about this suffering, and has no shame appearing before the nation on TV to justify himself.
Will we soon see television commercials for full body armor to don every time we go to work, school or shopping? Child and adult sizes. Now there’s a business opportunity. How about a mutual fund selling shares—maybe people can recoup some of their lost retirement savings from its profits. it’s sure to be the coming thing, the way the country is going.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 10:12 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
L. JensenTokyo
The first point of logic is that ANY PERSON with a rapid fire multi-shot weapon is a significant potential treat to life. Perhaps a good first order would be for all NRA members to be psychologically examined, helped or hospitalized.
As you see, I'm an American in Tokyo. A fine friend told me, "Here in Tokyo, a city of 12 million, with strict gun possession laws, you and I have a greater chance to be hit by an asteroid, than killed by a gun!!" And Johnny Cash sang, "Don't take your gun to town, Son, don't take your gun to town." The son did, and died. And certainly,we have the greatest well-armed and regulated militias in the world. Aren't we secure enough with our 50 National Guards, Police in every city, town, and hamlet, and Military beyond compare?! Perhaps at this Holiday Season, there is even this echo from the Creation, "When it comes to guns, you Americans are quite socially handicapped."
In the name of civilized humanity, questions surrounding current American gun carnage deserve prompt answers. Because of the many vagaries within human nature, strictly enforced gun possession laws, on limited fire weapons used only for sport or hunting, have proven to be absolutely necessary.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 10:12 a.m.RECOMMENDED5
famjOlympia, WA
Since it's all about 'compromise' lately, less compromise. First off, let's give the NRA what it wants, an armed presence in schools. We've had a police liaison officer for a number of years in our schools, and it's been a positive experience for our HS students. Not sure a single pistol packing police person could stop a semi-automatic armed, armor clad rampage killer, nor how we'd pay for this presence in all school, but I'm sure the NRA won't mind a hefty tax on gun and ammunition purchases to fund this. Then what the NRA will do for us: 100% background checks, a ban on assault weapons, a limit on how many bullets may be in a clip, and increased funding for mental health services - we non-NRAers should pay for this since they're paying for the armed guards, right? Now we just need to get the NRA to agree with this - or perhaps Rep. Boehner could come up with a Plan B.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.RECOMMENDED4
Robert KoorseWest Hartford
A woman called in to a radio show this past week. She sounded rational as she discussed her opposition to gun control laws. She then stated very matter of factly that there are 400,000 (no typo here) armed Russian troops hiding out in the mountains of North Carolina. I did a brief Google search and found a number of websites discussing similar notions. One such website was adorned with an American flag and an eagle. How very American they are! How very patriotic!
How very frightening!
In reply to Joel FriedlanderDec. 22, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED4
Laurence B.Portland, Or
Ninety nine percent of the time people don't kill people, it is a gun that does the job most of the time. Killing people without a weapon is way more difficult and is nothing like shooting the place up with a 21st. century weapon, despite anything the NRA might say.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.RECOMMENDED4
LynnNew York
The NRA will oppose the election of anyone who votes against their guns-in-every-school bill or who votes for restrictions on assault weapons.
SO the bill might as well include making gun manufacturers and their NRA legally responsible to pay the hospital, doctor and rehabilitation bills for all gunshot victims (rather than our current system of forcing our health care insurers--and thus us through our premiums--- and charity providers to pay these bills).
If a Republican is too cowardly to vote for such a bill because he (or, rarely for Republican Congresspeople, she) is afraid of losing election, that stands in dramatic and heart-breaking contrast to the courage of the Principal, teachers, and I would bet quite a few of the children, at Sandy Hook, who put their very lives at risk in their devotion to those they cared for.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED4
ABMaryland
Where guns are concerned in the US, we have a genie-out-of-the-bottle situation. Unless we assume Australia's gun-control approach in the wake of a mass shooting in the 1990s, we'll have to learn to cope with more mass shootings in the future. Do we really think Congress will buy back guns, restrict the sale of automatic weapons, and put potential gun buyers through a rigorous screening process not even the Pope would pass?
Americans have long accepted wanton murders in our cities in which thousands of teens are killed each year. In the case of urban violence, Americans never ask why (only the parents of the dead are left behind to do that). Americans just blame black pathology or absent fathers and wash their hands of the whole situation. But in places like Newtown, everyone is asking why Lanza did such thing. Answering why has mesmerized the country. Here is an answer: His mother was a gun nut with an arsenal of weapons and a survivalist who made sure her son was trained to use an automatic weapon. What are automatic weapons for anyway if not for mass killing. Where was his father, the GE executive? His father was as absent as a winter's night is long.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED4
Silence Dogood IICT
What Lapierre stated in his statement was that '5 years ago' he recommended armed security in schools. Yet you take his statement out of context. From Lapierre's statement the question begs that had his suggestion been put into practice would the Newtown tragedy occurred? I have no answer to that. You also opine Lapierre regarding the response that the answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun is misguided. The police have guns. Are they not the good guys? At this point I cannot form an informed opinion one way or the other about gun control or gun regulation. I can, however, spot biased reporting/opinion when I see it.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.RECOMMENDED4
ali08detroit
Based on Mr. LaPierre's logic I would ask him:
1 If more guns means less gun violence how come we as a country have the highest per capita rate of guns and the highest rate of gun violence?
2. If the issue is that we do not have enough guns yet, what is the ideal per capita rate of guns to be reached in order to see a declining rate of gun violence?
3. How come this logic does not work in any other part of the world? What is unique to America that requires more guns to be safe when the rest of the world is safer with less guns.
Or is the really important statistic, the really important logic that NRA contributions and influence has gone up as guns have proliferated in our society due to lax gun regulation.
Mr. LaPierre insults our intelligence with his self serving nonsense.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED4
Dale GlowackiChicago, IL
Ah, the sacred right to keep automatic weapons in the home. If Adam Lanza's mother wasn't so enthralled with her 2nd amendment rights and having her own personal armory, Sandy Hook Elementary School would probably be just another small & nice school in Connecticut that the rest of the world never heard of, and not the scene of a massacre of 1st graders and school staff.
In reply to Bill AppledorfDec. 22, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.RECOMMENDED4
Dr Hilary BlacklockNew Zealand
Sincere sympathy to the Newtown families who have lost their precious children. What madness in USA......the only gun I have seen in 60 years in our lovely country, was used by my dad once to kill rabbits (pests that damage the farmland) and the stew was superb. Our police are not armed except in very rare situations; anyone having a gun such as a hunter has to be vetted and checked to ensure safe storage.
And yet we see guns all the time on our TV ...mainly in USA programmes, and we cannot comprehend that thousands of your citizens are killed by gun shots per annum.
Here is an idea for your nation...on New Year's Eve, pile your guns in a huge stockpile in every city in an appropriate safe open area, ensure that the ammunition is removed, slip a little Catherine wheel in each barrel, create a huge bonfire and celebrate the start of 2013 with a little tentative symbolic step to freedom from terror and mass murder - I am not naive, but know there is a lot further work to ensure gun safety for the ordinary citizen.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.RECOMMENDED4
SueBrisbane Australia
I was stunned at the hypocrisy of La Pierre and the NRA banning guns at their so called press conference. They weren't willing to put their safety where their mouths are. Perhaps they understand, deep down, that no one is safe when guns are around.
This article, which many of you would have read in The NY Times, exposes them for what they are, bullies who demand to have their own way, except when it comes to their own safety at a press conference:
The NRA protection racket:
Here is a link to the list of politicians who accepted campaign donations from the NRA in the last election. If any are from your district, call, write, email them and demand tighter gun controls. The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
...
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.RECOMMENDED4
Ivo VosNetherlands
The way I translate it is an NRA basically stating that more violence is needed in order to diminish violence. In Europe, we've had our share of this kind of 'final solutions'. More violence to prevent violence. On logical grounds, the statement of the NRA is 'without doubt' correct. If for some reason or another it is put into practice it will end violence (among other things). The problem is, I'm not willing to accept that most people in the US will choose this final solution.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED4
Alexander Mac DonaldSan Francisco, CA
Term limits, Sir, turn our legislatures into training schools for high paying careers as lobbyists. The termed-out pol has learned the ropes, has built his network of collaborators, built a stash of chits to call in, and then presents himself or herself or itself to the highest bidder. Give me a career politician with a secure pension upon retirement to those sycophants and parasites. Whatever they are when come into office, the termed-out are worse when they leave, more destructive, more corrupting.
In reply to Kevin RothsteinDec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED4
ASWSan Francisco, CA
Thank you for the thoughtful opinion piece. Gun control is a start but will provide only an incremental risk reduction, given the realities of what laws can be enacted. Providing a strong focus on the ammunition in such legislation sounds clever. Voluntary control of the type of media exposure would be very effective in taking away desire for immortality thru infamy. Each major event is another escalation of outrage. What's next; babies? Day-to-day mayhem of gun violence can only be moderated thru traditional policing using improved gun regulation. Understaffing of conventional police forces has reached a crisis point and it could be addressed in a non-partisan way. Images of these para-military SWAT forces swarming on the scene after the fact is rather disheartening rather than reassuring to me. Is that the America we want? Seeing heavily armed troops on the streets of a small town presents a dystopian nightmare. Easing liability laws available against manufacturers or negligent gun owners would also be astonishingly effective.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED4
johnmassachusetts
"Since last week's massacre, 100 more people have died in gun related violence, according to the Huffington Post. While Wayne La Pierre was pontificating at his press event, three state troopers were injured in a gun fight in which four people died."
These facts are a truly appalling indictment of our gun-crazed society. Will outrageously skewed the Second Amendment ultimately be our undoing?
In reply to Rima RegasDec. 22, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED4
DonAustralia
When are people in the U.S. going to wake up to the fact that the NRA and its members are selfish and evil. You let them get away with too much simply because they are so active politically. You must cut off their power if you are going to save potential victims, and only your Congress can do that.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED4
MatthewTewksbury, MA
In a perfect world the NRA would be right: a good guy with a gun would save the day. However, this is not a perfect world. John Wayne is not going to show up and save the day with one well placed shot. If the NRA's plan came to fruition, Sandy Hook would have turned into a shooting gallery with teachers and administrators with shaky aim. The police would find it hard to distinguish friend from perpetrator.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.RECOMMENDED4
Voice of ReasonNew England
do a google search of "gun sales soar" and you will find that gun sales have exploded across the nation, in every state. 10,000 new members are joining NRA every day, Pres. Obama's gun control speech is having the opposite effect.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.RECOMMENDED4
Slowriter59Chandler, AZ
Great idea! that's one thing I was thinking. Why not require the purchase of insurance with every gun sale? You would be insuring that the weapon, not you, would never be used in a manner that injures or kills another person.
Obviously, that would entail insurers assuming substantial risk. Meaning sky high premiums.
As far as these mass shootings, the only solution I see is banning high-capacity magazines. But gun violence more generally imposes huge costs on society. For too long the gun manufacturers have been following the same strategy as the oil industry. Privatize the profits, socialize the loses.
Seems reasonable to suppose that along with the right to gun ownership comes the responsibility to pay for the carnage guns create.
In reply to John D EdwardsDec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
PageStaunton, VA
I suppose it did not strike the author as an irony that among the strong-gun-laws states trotted out as models of a better future is Connecticut, the very state where this latest atrocity happened. So the proposed fix is broken before we even apply it -- which really goes to the point that all the prescriptive dialogue is a witch-hunt strangely disconnected from reality. Mr. Blow too is focused on the means - why not, it is easier to address the how than the why, and it is easier to pretend to know the solution than to reflect more deeply on the problem. In any case it is reasonable to believe the level of rage which the CT killer experienced would not be dammed up by the unavailability of a specific fdtype of weapon. It seems no one wishes to address the sociopathic malaise of shadowy origin that modern societies, here and abroad seem to incubate and which exists in the heart of our society like an underworld that erupts onto the scene in such horrid ways. Yes, mental health screening and better background checks and data bases would be nice -- and sure, it would be good to keep assault weapons out of the hands of disturbed individuals. But lost in the rush to provide a band-aid to the gaping wound of American psychosis are other complex challenges: the fact that our mental health system is medievally afflicted with ignorance and primitive faith in pharmaceutical fixes - and that no set of laws or restrictions is going to cure what is wrong inside society itself.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
donmintzTrumansburg, NY
Mr. Blow: Look back at the table you published yesterday. Note the high rate of gun ownership and low rate of gun homicides in Finland, Norway, and Sweden. It does appear that a highly developed welfare state is the place to be to be safe from guns, this in spite of the weird massacre in Norway. (You can protect against the more or less ordinary as these countries do, but the weird will always be with us.)
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
blgreenieNew Jersey
This week, in the Times, but elsewhere too, an outpouring of anger and angry attacks about guns and their defenders, especially the NRA. Elsewhere this week, there were record sales of guns. Wal-Mart, currently sold out of some popular firearms, promises that more are on the way. Internet gun sales, mostly unregulated, are booming. Is this an unreconcilable situation?
Agreed that proliferation of guns is the primary problem along with several associated problems. Are we making an hard to solve problem all the harder with so many vitriolic comments, columns, editorials and public statements? They don't advance the cause of resolution. We need to hear from those who can offer some realistic steps to take.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
Jonathan HansonArizona
Let's see - on the "lower gun crime" side we have Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. On the "higher gun crime" side we have Alabama, Louisiana, Montana, and Mississippi. Can anyone think of another difference between those groups? Such as, for example, median income? It's axiomatic that poor communities and states have higher rates of ALL types of crime. That "statistic" is utterly meaningless.
Our gun crime problem has nothing to do with the guns. It's a societal problem. Just as Japan's tragically high suicide rate persists in spite of the near-complete absence of firearms in that country (remember how gun-control advocates claim suicides would decrease with more gun control?). That's a societal problem as well.
You can't control a societal problem by restricting access to weapons.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
AnpadhFlorida
The NRA is about money, not about guns. If they made the same amount of money selling cookies as selling guns, they would want everyone in the US to buy cookies for every member of the family every day.Perhaps my solution is simplistic, but here it is: Pay the NRA leaders whatever they are earning already and have them support gun-control.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
Marc LippmanFriendsville, PA
In the course of our moral evolution as a species, it may be that we are now ready to choose the protection of fellow human beings over the protection of gun ownership. It would be the only good that could come from these massive traumas to our innocents and innocence.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
RWNormanSilver Spring, MD
We're stuck by the fact that people want to take away the "rights" of a gun owner to have guns, absolutely bestowed upon the American people by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. There is no allowance anywhere in the Constitution nor the Amendments that end up with people's rights to own a gun may be taken away from them.
But what people don't realize is that they want guns taken away or have only specific guns available because they don't like guns. They just don't have any legal method to do so, whether they like guns or not. At least not without amending one of the mainstays of American rights by changing the 2nd Amendment, which simply will not pass muster with the American people.
For one thing, it is not the gun's fault, therefore one cannot blame either the gun itself nor the gun manufacturer as long as they sell their product under both federal and state laws.
Also, one cannot blame all gun owners who have acted legally in their purchase and use of a weapon for the illegal use of a weapon by someone else.
So it's not the gun's fault, and it's not the legal owners of gun's fault that 20+ people are dead, it is the fault of one person, ipso facto, only the one person has committed a crime, yet everyone wants to make the criminal the gun.
You cannot make the gun responsible for it's use, no matter what type of gun it is.
Roger W. Norman
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
BarbaraMaine
Wayne LaPierre and the leaders of the NRA likely don't give a good gosh darn about gun laws, gun rights, or the 2nd Amendment. Just as the saying goes, you dance with those that brung ya...these people dance to the tune of an enormous, and enormously profitable business. The NRA is designed to do one thing- lobby for the rights of the gun industry to continue producing more guns and all their accompanying products; the bullets, the holsters, the clips, the ammo, etc. All that horrific events like Sandy Hook, Aurora, etc. do is strike fear in the hearts of the gun industry that their profits could decrease- that their long run might be ending. They are no different than any other business that wants more shelf space and will do whatever they need in order to get it, and maintain it. That's where the NRA comes in. When Wayne Lapierre and his ilk go on television, radio, and put ads in newspapers telling people that their rights are in jeopardy it's not the gun owners rights they care about, nor is it the 2nd Amendment. It's the rights of the gun manufacturers to make as much money as they can without regard for lethality or common sense. Welcome to the death of capitalism. Literally.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
Robert KoorseWest Hartford
Excellent points from Mike. Especially the second one. This will be the case in any scenario. Consider the mall or the movie theater or any crowded place. Imagine the arriving police (and EMTs) having to decide which armed individuals they need to consider dangerous. Certainly puts the trained expert responders at higher risk.
In reply to MikeDec. 22, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
Ray HarperSwarthmore, PA
We have to stop giving “people that are so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can ever possibly comprehend them” media coverage, faux press conferences where no questions are taken and the political power to dictate their anti-social obsessions to our elected representatives.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
Lucie McKeeBennington, Vermont
We need comprehensive campaign finance reform to prevent congress from being bought by various factions. The NRA gives huge monies to congress to promote their agenda and congress people accept this money and will continue to do so until prohibited by law.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
Albert Shankerwest palm beach fl
Funny how we as kids played endless cowboys and indians,and army shooting games ,and i cant recall 1 school shooting in the late 50's, 60's and 70's Mr Blow. Here's why. No video games, No overload of prescription drugs to unstable kids. No "Kill Bill movies and their ilk. Furthermore , history proves gun control leads to socialist , totalitarian regimes. Russia 1929, Turkey 1914,Germany 1938,Cambodia & Uganda in the 70's. We already have NDAA,that i'm sure liberals have forgotten. An unfortunate event in CT, perpetuated by a domestic situation where the mother was not a responsible gun owner..
Dec. 22, 2012 at 10:14 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
AmarilloMikeAmarillo, Texas
I grew up in a small farming town (3,000) in the panhandle of Texas. There were rifles and shotguns hanging in the back windows of the students' pickups in the parking lot of the high school. We had shotguns, pistols and rifles at our house in the unlocked gun cabinet. That was back in the sixties. Some were semi-autos.
The ever increasing number of murders by people using firearms is a cultural phenomenon, not a
"By words and actions, they demand we live on their edge. We have good reasons to take their guns away."
You will have to repeal the Second Amendment to get that done. Good luck. Until you have managed to repeal the Second Amendment you might advocate for something that can be done now. A policeman in a school would vastly lower the probability that a lone gunman could kill so many in that school. Training and arming some teachers would serve the same purpose.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
TudognightSan Diego California
The gunman's mother took the killer to target practice with her. She was obsessed with desperate people trying to take her stuff when the economy went bad. The killer kid surely was not discriminated against at the gun range. Kudos for the Gun Range folks. Will the NRA also support those with mental limits being the good guys who will for no money defend our kids? Notice that the gun rage incidents occur in wealthier upscale white dominated areas by their own kids! I guess the less well off minority and integrated areas do not feel the need to protect their stuff or just maybe they just cannot afford the cost of a rootin, tootin, all out armor piercing super duper assault rifle. Look at every school related mass killing and tell me I am wrong about the nature of killers and the wealth of families they come from. I dare you!
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
OttoWinter Park, Florida
Hear, hear. "Bad boy with a gun" sounds to me like an apt description of Mr. LaPierre.
On the impact of violent games on mass murderers, count me among the doubters. I spend a lot of time in China, and I can report that in the Internet cafes there, young men spend much of their time on-line playing Counter-Strike and other violent video games. Yet China has nothing to compare with the endless mass gun murders that we have here. (Yes, there is the occasional lunatic-with-a knife attack in China, but these don't come close to equaling our all-too-common multiple killings with guns.)
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:46 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
PogoWasRightMelbourne Florida
I completely agree with the AFT and the NEA: guns of any kind have no place in our schools. Guns are the problem, not the solution. Teachers know no more about guns than the students do, possibly even less. Adding armed policemen to every school is also not a solution. And where do we draw the line about which gathering of people will be defended by armed guards? Churches? Nursing homes? Businesses? Factories? Sporting events? Which street, which building, which group is more deserving of protection? And who makes that decision? Wayne LaPierre and the NRA?
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
kushelevitchisrael
Mr la Pierre sounds so unhinged that it seemed a parody of rationality. How did a gentlemen of his lack of mind get into such a position?
We have our own share of deranged weekend cowboys and delusionists but luckily have gotten away with it. The reason being that their hatred and irrationality is directed at our neighbors. That is definitely not a solution I would advise to anyone, on the other hand more and more people here are understanding the danger inherent in an armed society. The ideal would be the Swiss system,where the responsible have weapons at home..........
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
Walter BrownswordJakarta, Indonesia
What would it take to get LaPierre to admit he and his army of incestuous armament cabals are wrong?
Why don't the the sensible collectors and sportsman who lock their weapons in safe cabinets push the NRA into a more appropriate response to this unthinkable tragedy? Surely some of them must have cringed at LaPierre's bizarre polemic?
Why haven't we heard from any of the CEOs of the companies that make these weapons?
Our government seems to have plenty of moxie to go after tobacco manufacturers; I would guess that smoking guns are a different story.
A society is judged not by its global clout but by the way it shelters, rears, and educates its most vulnerable members.
America fails miserably. What will it take to change that?
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
PaulBellerose Terrace
John Lennon wrote "Happiness Is a Warm Gun" in 1968. Twelve years later, a warm gun killed him. THAT is reality. La Pierre's assertion that only "a good guy with a gun" can stop a bad guy with a gun is pure fantasy.
In reply to Kevin RothsteinDec. 22, 2012 at 10:09 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
Bill in San DiegoSan Diego
Wayne LaPierre is a paid shill. He is paid to represent the NRA, which is the lobbying arm of the gun manufacturing industry.
He is paid to represent their position, and to stifle all possible threats to the completely unconstrained growth of the gun industry.
He will not contribute to any serious discussion of the issues surrounding guns or gun safety in the United States.
He is paid to shut down serious discussions concerning these issues. That's his job.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
LauraCT
Wayne LaPierre should be forced to have to look at color, glossy, 11x14 photographs of each of the Newtown shooting victims, along with the many required photos taken at the school. On Christmas morning.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
MikeSan Antonio, TX
Excellent comment Rima - thoughtful and well founded. Proactive crime prevention (i.e., preventing crime before it occurs) is far more effective than reactive response after the fact - better to fence off the cliff rather than rely on an ambulance in the valley (from a well known poem).
Greater investment in mental health services is needed to help people who need there help and would strengthen the fence around the cliff. Public safety cannot be provided with traditional law enforcement policies. In the future, the creation of safer and more livable communities will be determined more by proactive crime prevention stategies that address not only mental health problems but also deal with quality of life issues particularly in high crime neighborhoods and reduce institutional injustices and structural inequalities that foster increased crime and violence.
The one issue I would disagree with you on is the last point "guns have to go" -- if you mean prohibition of all guns, it would be disasterous and create a huge and violent black market in guns with cartels running guns instead of drugs. Perhaps you meant to say "reasonable regulation of high capacity military grade weapons."
I love reading your comments -- they are well thought out and well expressed. In addition, they are usually well found and consistent the literature. Keep up these thoughtful contributions to the discussion.
In reply to Rima RegasDec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
MeredithNew York
Americans must ask, why should we be less likely to live out our life spans than millions of other people abroad. Americans are free--free to die sooner than citizens of other countries.
We are constantly exposed to so much distorted misinformation from the rw gun supporters & politicians, that the public is confused, bullied and frightened. Many learned to identify ‘freedom’ with weapons and any regulation is resented.
Americans need to be exposed to other points of view—away from our domestic political wars. The media should find some citizens of other countries, or people here who have lived abroad, and interview families with different ages and occupations on TV. Let them tell us how they accept and live with strict gun safety laws and how their rates of gun deaths are so much lower than ours. Did they feel less free growing up, because of stricter gun laws? Or do the welcome this? Do their politicians try to get votes based on liberalizing gun ownership?
Interview these foreign citizens and let the US be exposed to the viewpoints of people like them, but who live with laws in stark contrast to ours, and with sharply lower gun deaths. Their kids are not mowed down by machine guns spewing a hundred bullets a minute, with anywhere near the frequency that US kids are.
We can’t start to change our culture until we are exposed to different viewpoints in a concrete personal way.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
Mary CarmelaPA
Hopefully there are many more sane Americans then these ignorant lunatics out to line their own pockets. Every single one of us sane citizens has got to keep pressing every social, political and religious leader we can find to work to ban handguns,ssault weapons and ammunition, and to buy back those already purchased. We can't do anything less. We all have got to step forward and voice our opinions.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
LaughingdragonSF Bay Area
Guns have always been in this culture. What hasn't been in this culture before are sick video games and movies. If a person spends hours playing sick video games and then moves on to mass murder using a gun, it's not sensible to say that access to a gun caused that person to form the ideation for mass murder.
Video games are extremely repetitious. Many of them have heros and villains with little difference, in ascribed thoughts and actions, between them.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED3
Slowriter59Chandler, AZ
From what I've heard so far about the events in CT, to be adequately prepared to prevent Mr. Lanza from causing the carnage he did, you would want to come to school every day in full combat gear. I suspect that to have an advantage, you would want a fully auto assault rifle, strapped to your body armoured chest at all times while teaching. You'd probably want something with a little more stopping power than the .223 carried by the assailant.
Great. Just the message I want to send to my kid, who already attends a high school that looks a lot like a prison and has armed police on campus at all times. When they start showing up in tactical gear, the lines start to blur as to who they're there to protect and who they're there to dominate with an instrument that brooks no dissent.
In reply to IshmaDec. 22, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
Cwolf88VA
I don't care about the NRA or guns one way or another. The reality is new laws will take time to write and get implemented. Are you planning on fixing mental health next month? Changing new gun buys will obviate the existing 150+ million weapon pool?
First, we need to understand why these folks attack schools, churches, etc.
Second, what works to prevent them?
Right now, folks with mental problems self refer or they are mandated care for overt behavior. "Quiet loners" don't raise any flags. Do you have any idea of the size of the mentally ill population?
The last gun ban/magazine restriction law had zero effect on crime.
AR style guns are not functionally different from semi-auto hunting rifles/shotguns...it takes a second to change a magazine. Would the attack have been OK if Lanza had used a pump shotgun and revolvers?
The only feasible, near term solution is school security officers, etc. The future problem is the next spree killer will look for softer targets. They have a variety of tools to attack with (I'm not going to spell out scenarios, but just watch TV).
Why are police/security officers in schools bad? Aren't police officers one of the things that children should learn about?
There have always been lions, tigers, and bears.... and monsters. There are no easy solutions.
The reality is our culture is undergoing massive structural changes. Look at the single parent and dual-income family rates. Read the Harlow and CDC ACE studies.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
jojorichPhiladelphia
Mr. Blow your point regarding the number of people being shot every year is totally on point. Police departments are quick to point to falling numbers of homicides as markers of success despite the fact that violent crimes are actually going up in many of the cities that have experienced drops in homicides. For example, Washington DC, has experienced a significant drop in homicides actually DC PD touts that the homicide rate is at the lowest point since the 60s yet violent crime has gone up 40 percent in the District. The CDC has documented that for every homicide committed in the US there are 94 non fatal assaults. If you take the total number of homicides in the US and multiple by 94 you can a better picture of how many nonfatal assaults actually occur in the US. Far more people experience violent trauma in the US than homicides whether by shootings, beatings or stabbings. Guns are part of the problem but the structural violence played out everyday in the US in the form of poverty, dysfunctional schools, easy accessibility to firearms, police brutality, food deserts, lack of mental health care resources, etc., has led us to this place. Interesting that the overwhelming majority of mass murderers in the US are middle class white males yet that gets lost in the discussion. For all the studies on violence which focus solely on race and social class, quite ironic, that in this national debate that has never come up.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
Robert C GuenveurBrooklyn
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
FrankStamford CT
Tour observations are quite correct in pointing to the often unmentioned fact that state legislatures are full of truly unqualified and sometimes amazingly ignorant people.
In reply to LindaDec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
NumberOne1AZfanAZ
The genie is out of the bottle - there are 300 million guns in the USA .
The police protect us - The TSA protects us - Our Military protects us.
Why is protection for our children while at school a bad thing?
Do you want your child attending a school with an armed security guard or one without? ( yes it's a shame that protection is needed)
Do you want to take off from an airport where there is security or one that has none?
(yes its'a a shame we need the TSA now)
Do you want to live in a city without police?
Should we disband our police departments because they don't stop 100% of crime and make some tragic mistakes now and then?
The argument doesn't make sense to me.
Lastly - it is my observation that Violent Hollywood Movies ,Violent Video Games and Reality are now melding.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
alan turnernew york, ny
It's just business!
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:50 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
Siegfried HeydrichSW Florida
They won't care. To them, an accidental shooting victim, no matter how young, is simply collateral damage, a tragic price we have to pay to keep the country free by ensuring that the country is awash in weapons that they fantasize will allow them to rise up against their own government if and when they get angry enough. If kids die, well, it's a tragedy, but taking the guns away would be an even greater tragedy.
These are not rational people; these are zealots, fanatics, and true believers who live inside a separate universe where the only information they get is from their fellow zealots. Go to any of the RW sites and look at the commentary there (and really, seriously, go and have a look for yourself. not kidding. it's scary.) regarding the shootings and the reactions to it. To them, the problem is never too many guns, it's always not enough guns. The only way to protect us all from bad guys with guns is to fill the streets with good guys with guns. Ine very instance, they KNOW that if THEY had been there, things would have turned out differently because THEY would have drawn their guns and leaped into action, taking down the bad guy with one well aimed shot, just like in the movies.
For the gun fanatic, shooting deaths are an abstraction - either poor victims who should have been protected by an armed good guy, or a bad guy killed by a good guy. Their guns are their reality. And their reality will always protect them from the abstractions of everyone else's reality.
In reply to Janice Badger NelsonDec. 22, 2012 at 9:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
Doc GEastport ME
Yes, the NRA's solution is ridiculous. Yes, gun control laws need to be tightened in all states. However, the mother, whose son killed 26 in Sandy Hook, purchased her guns legally. As a responsible mother, she taught her son gun safety. I think that more attention needs to be focused on the treatment of the mentally ill. We do not institutionalize the potentially violent criminally insane. Mental illness arises from chemical imbalances in the brain. Many of these imbalances result from inheritance or from physical injury to the brain. Nurture acts on inherited traits both positively and negatively. Adolescence and early adulthood is when the sociopath and psychopath become apparent. It is not just the guns, Sandy Hooks and Columbines also result from our inadequate care of the insane and the criminally insane.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
DBTucson
Is it hopeless? I expect laws to be passed. But there are several hundred million guns in America and some seriously impaired people in influential positions pushing dangerous agendas. I fear the USA is like soft fruit in a slow spiral toward an immovable brick wall. It has gone horribly awry. LaPierre blaming everyone else is the same dodge I hear from every Republican and Libertarian always. Someone else is always the blame for their ill conceived policy and their slippery grasp on reality.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
Jack BrayCullman,Alabama
Bullseye,Mr. Blow, if you'll forgive the expression.It's all about "rights" today to have this do that. It boggles my mind that the NRA and their ilk feel like we're taking their guns out of their "cold dead hands" when regulation is mentioned. Lord, it's easier to buy a gun these days than to have a smoke somewhere. All we want to do is have these cowboys put their guns back in their holsters. Oh, and, by the way, their intransigence is based on the 2nd Amendment interpretation. Methinks the Founders were talking about allowing guns if they needed a militia in case the British returned...
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
Phillip J. BakerKensington, Maryland
Although I strongly support a ban on assault-type weapons (that must be carefully defined to avid loop-holes in the law) as well as magazines and drums that hold more than 10 rounds, the fact that we have SO MANY -- more than 30 million-- of these weapons already in the public domain prevents such a law from having the desired impact -- at least in the near future. Since the confiscation of such weapons is not an option and appeals to voluntarily surrender such weapons are not likely to be effective, the only way to neutralize their existent is to make them useless by a "starvation" approach in which the supply of ammunition issued is drastically reduced. I suggest that ALL gun owner be listed in a National Registry which would provide relevant information on the number and type of weapons own, as well as the amount of ammunition in their possession. Strict limits on the amount of ammunition issued should be in place and one would not be able to purchase additional ammunition without evidence of the amount previously issued that actually was used, i.e., they must provide spent cartridges/shells as evidence of use. A tax on the sale of weapons and ammunition can be used to support such a program. For those engaged in target shooting, perhaps they can obtain their ammunition through the target range operator for use solely at the site. I'm sure with a little more thought, this plan can be fine tuned and be made to work effectively.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
VHZNew Jersey
I agree wholeheartedly, but would suggest we also consider this: Almost no one is speaking about the enormous costs involved after one of these tragedies. The emergency personnel, the coroner's office, the police departments, the school districts which may have to raze a school, but, in any case, will have to rebuild a portion of it. Why should taxpayers have to handle these costs? Liability insurance for gun owners ought to be a lot more expensive than car insurance; and gigantic taxes on ammunition, dispensed by the equivalent of a pharmacy, might be a start to pay for these costs, and discourage gun ownership. Nothing but money seems to talk in this country.
In reply to Bob WoodsDec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
ben pinczewskinew york, new york
You knocked it out of the ballpark with that thought. Bear in mind they say an armed society will lead to a more polite one. My question is who defines " polite" ? As a loud liberal lawyer from NY I wonder how many times I would have been shot to date as a result of my failure to be polite in the minds of those bearing assault weapons and or concealed weapons .
In reply to Mary ScottDec. 22, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
PragwattU.S.
Years from now the thought of going to the store to purchase firearms will seem unimagineable. Personally, as someone who grew up around guns, the thought of having one in my house with young children scares the heck out of me. And why is it we never read about a gun owner stopping a criminal with his weapon?
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
Bruce MacDougallNewburyport Ma
At what point , at what event , do each of us look into our soul/ mind and say I am contributing to this problem. There are many reasons for excessive violence in America but to deny easy access to assault weapons does not contribute to any more death's is absurd. This is math and physics if you shoot 60 large bullets from a high powered rifle your probability of death and destruction does not increase exponentially ? There is no reason for assault weapons and large ammo clips ban them now and tax ammunition for these weapons like cigarettes.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
Betsy SUpstate NY
Here's a modest proposal: Tax guns and ammunition to pay for the cost of maintaining armed guards in all schools. Of course it won't do anything to address the larger problem of too many guns too easily available, but the NRA obviously doesn't care about that. People will continue to shoot the people they know and themselves outside of schools. The deranged will be able to attack random innocents in offices, shopping malls and movie theatres. Gangs will still be able to terrorize whole communities. It's pretty weak for the NRA to propose an expensive solutiion that won't solve the real problem. Gun owners should at the very least be willing to bear the cost of the solution their organization suggested.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
lynninnyNY
Isn't that chilling? You are right--that is what they are advocating. Every church pew, movie seat, teacher's desk, grocery store, and doctor's waiting room full of armed "good" people. Doesn't that sound like some futuristic movie that should be completely fictional?
Yep. I think I'll keep advocating with you, that this has to stop now. There have to be more of us than there are of them.
In reply to Mary ScottDec. 22, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
Ton van LieropAmsterdam
But there are sufficient whackos to get these whackos elected. You have my commisserations for having to live in a state with so many whackos. Any ideas on what can be done to change this?
In reply to LindaDec. 22, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
Mary DoanPalm Coast, Florida
While I don't agree with the NRA that one good guy with a gun can protect children in a school against a bad guy with a gun (reality is that sometimes the bad guy wins), let's insist that should the NRA's plan be put into law, guns would have to be registered and gun owners would be taxed enough to pay the bill. Then see what the NRA does.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
CitizenRI
Janice,
That's a horrible story about the 2-yer old, but it's not about the gun, really. It's about the supremely irresponsible and stupid gun owner - someone who would leave a loaded handgun under a couch!
Had the gun been some caustic chemical, lighter, a poisonous snake, etc., the situation would still have been tragic. Yes, a gun is a dangerous object, as are the other ones I mentioned. The problem is with the owner who doesn't have the brains to responsibly manage the gun/chemical/lighter/snake.
Hating the gun does nothing to address the owner, who is the real problem. I have owned guns for many years, with my own children in the house, and this situation could never have happened to us, as I am smart enough to know how to responsibly store weapons so there is no danger of them inadvertently being used to hurt anyone.
On the other side of the coin, the NRA is being as reckless with its stance as any organization in recent memory. Guns, like caustic chemicals and poisonous snakes, have their proper place in society (I would argue), but only for those who are responsible enough to own them. And since the right to gun ownership is not absolute, there ought to be reasonable limits placed on them.
In reply to Janice Badger NelsonDec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
DorisChicago
These bullets are called "cop killing" bullets for a reason.
In reply to Ozark HomesteaderDec. 22, 2012 at 9:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
RAPConnecticut
Dear Mr.Blow, As pointed out in the New York Times, the NRA receives millions from gun manufacturers;that money is then doled out to the people who make the laws. It would appear the deaths of 20 children in my state is just "collateral damage" to upholding a perverse view of the Second Amendment. And now, these same leaders, are taking their usual holiday break. Let the voters remember these spineless and greedy legislators;2014 is not far away and I, for one, will not vote for anyone who has taken money from the NRA.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
PLSweden
In dismissing LaPierre let's not overlook his one valid point: "gun free zones" are sitting ducks for maniacs who come into them with a gun. Putting guns in schools for defensive purposes is a bad solution. But how about tasers, tear gas or Mace?
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
Walter BrownswordJakarta, Indonesia
Who knows what those kids might have contributed to human society? A critical innovative scientist, inventor, our President? A First Lady? Ad infinitum.
What has America lost with all these killings? Is the pursuit of wealth, ergo power worth the life of even one of these children? They AND Lanza are all victims of an apparently, at least in the eyes of the world, uncaring society.
Enough already!
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
James GastonVancouver Island
Its all about the $. The NRA is the lobby for the gun manufacturers and dealers. All the care about is the $. They are like drug dealers except their drug is legal.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
Brad ADallas, Texas
Picking liberal sources to quote proves nothing.
First, every society is challenged with mentally ill individuals. Our society has seen fit to make it very difficult to institutionalize a person, even to the point where family members are in fear.
Surely we need robust means for wrongly committed individuals to work their way to freedom before their life is ruined. On the other hand, agencies must learn to rapidly intervene when a Sandy Hook or Tucson or Boulder shooter is a known danger.
There are 300 million guns in this country that did not go out and kill someone today.
It would be rational for thoughtful citizens to focus on the evil intentions in the mind behind the gun, and not inanimate objects.
Of course, locking up the criminals and the insane is not a path to tyranny, so guns are the focus of the Left.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
voice of reasonNew England
Finally, if the shooter at the school would have survived, he would have been arrested, jailed, and lost his 2nd Amendment Rights. Don't blame the type of gun. How can we ban semi-autos, when full autos are still legal with a proper collectors license ? Today's assault rifle, is tomorrow's antiquated wallhanger, when someday we have ray guns 100 years from now. When the 2nd Amendment was written, the assault weapon of the day, was a single shot flintlock muzzle loader. Today that's an antique. In this manner, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is timeless, it's not dependent on what type of weapon it is. Someday firearms will be obsolete, but it will apply to whatever modern arms take their place. Such was the amazing foresight of the Founders. A semi-auto isn't even a true assault rifle, because by definition, assault rifles are selective fire, and can shoot full auto, or semi auto. Those are already controlled and considered machine guns. A 22 squirrel gun is also made in semi auto, so is the classic Browning Auto 5 quail-pheasant-grouse gun. It would be exceedingly foolish to ban all semi-autos for obvious reasons. We would all rest easier with more protection in the schools, instead of more gun control- that is the proper countermeasure.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
CSChicago
The NRA and the Tea Party are trying to run this country. I would like to think they will not be successful however, I am growing ever more pessimistic. America is a mess!
Dec. 22, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.RECOMMENDED2
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- makeup mirrors with lights walmart
- 4000 1 fha smoke detector requirements
- combo guns 308 and 12 gauge
- greenheck fire smoke dampers
- why you shouldn t smoke cigarettes
- did princess diana smoke cigarettes
- icd 10 smoke inhalation exposure
- current satellite smoke map
- noaa smoke forecast
- noaa smoke map today
- noaa smoke satellite
- noaa fire and smoke map