Email
PrintLead the way, NRA – We trust you?
Valley forum
If it wasn’t so ludicrously twisted and cynical, last week’s “press conference” held by the National Rifle Association would have been comical. It took a whole week for the NRA leadership to come up with the new plan to end gun violence aimed at schoolchildren – just put people with guns at EVERY school.
Wayne LaPierre, the organization’s spokesman, claimed that the reason the unconscionable murders continue unabated is that there simply aren’t enough guns in the hands of “good guys,” and that there are big signs on campuses that tell killers that schools are gun-free zones. Where better to shoot people with, you know, no hassles?
He told us the NRA was prepared to train people to stand guard, armed to the teeth, at every one of our nation’s school sites. We seem to have forgotten that the NRA is the leading apologist and lobbying group for the personal weapons industry in America. Putting the NRA in charge of protecting our citizens is a little like letting the lobbying arm of the American Butter Producers Council run the National Institutes of Health – “You know why our heart attack rate is so high? Not enough butter! Sure, people blame butter for the high cholesterol rate but, in the hands of responsibly trained adults, butter can provide a protective coating on the artery walls of every law-abiding American. Used properly, it will slow the raging blood flow that so often bursts the blood vessels of the most vulnerable among us.”
By all means, lead the way NRA. We trust you.
LaPierre derided the media for being so stupid that they didn’t know a clip from a magazine, or a semi-automatic from a machine gun. Gee, he seemed to say, if the media would only turn its attention to finding out the correct words for different types of armaments and educating the public about them, we wouldn’t have any of these pesky school shootings. And you know who could teach the press the right words to say? Why, the NRA! Heck, they’ve been teaching people about guns for years, and they know just the right words to say.
This isn’t really funny anymore, for anyone.
LaPierre plaintively asked, “When did ‘gun’ become a bad word?”
Uh, gee, Wayne, maybe when assault rifles became readily available to just about everyone?
Maybe when the killing capacity of these weapons outran anything law enforcement routinely carries?
Maybe when your organization fought so hard and so successfully against regulation of private gun dealers and gun shows, where 40 percent of guns are purchased? Maybe when you made sure that there were no background checks on ammunition sales?
Maybe when you fought hard and won the battle against renewal of the only assault weapon ban this country ever had?
It’s tempting to agree with the NRA’s logic, but think about this: In America, there are currently 89 guns for every 100 people. Since Bobby Kennedy was killed in 1968, more Americans have died from gunshot (including suicide) than have died in every war in our entire history combined. That includes the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, both Iraq wars, Afghanistan and others too small to mention. Last year alone, more than 30,000 Americans died from gun-related injuries.
Perhaps the most cynical and cruel moment of the so-called press conference (in which the press were not allowed to ask any questions) was when the leadership of the NRA – the organization that has almost single-handedly facilitated the ready availability of assault weapons to the entire population – proposed the National School Shield program.
That would apparently consist of weapons training for school personnel and any interested members of the community who want to be deputized to protect children. There would be participation, of course, from gun-packing NRA members who are, in LaPierre’s words, “uniquely qualified to help.” The goal would be to erect a “cordon of security” around every school. The program would be administered by the NRA, which apparently now has decided to elevate itself from a gun enthusiast’s lobbying group to a quasi-governmental agency.
Finally, LaPierre’s description of those responsible for the mass killings is unwittingly ironic. As he explained it, “The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters, people that are so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can ever possibly comprehend them.”
And they have oh, so many of our nation’s leaders in their pockets.
• • •
Bernie Fleming is a Sonoma Valley resident and former SVUSD teacher who says his work life “became infinitely easier” when he left teaching.
Please note: Your full name will be published with your comment.
Love them or hate them, the NRA is the only lobbying organization dedicated to protecting an individual right.
Some questions for you Bernie.
How many Americans have died in auto accidents since
Robert Kennedy was shot in 1968? I come up with apx.
2,100,000 people. In the same period I come up with
840,000 killed with guns. You...as many Liberals do...
fail to mention that a large percentage of those
killed were crooks and thugs shot by people defending
themselves. Seems strange that a gun (designed to kill)
kills far less people then a object (the car) that is
not designed to kill. The truth is that a very small
amount of those 30K killed were with assualt style
weapons. All that is going on now is nothing more than
a bunch of political posturing.
If armed officers patrol campuses in Oakland and San
Francisco school districts then why is it not a good
idea anywhere else?
A point...The NRA got involved because the Obama
Admin asked them for some input regarding what
happened at Sandy Hook.
Wayne, you're right about the fact that cars can be dangerous. I don't suggest that we should outlaw all dangerous things, though. My article was about the cynicism and lack of sensitivity the NRA leadership has shown.
But if you asked me for a first step towards eliminating the carnage, I'd say start with assault weapons, which are clearly designed to kill lots of people quickly. I haven't said that I want to outlaw guns or take them away from people. But I do think that it's reasonable to start eliminating the most destructive of them and start increasing vigilance of ammunition purchasers. (I know, the argument will be that we can't let the government start outlawing ANY weapons, lest they take them all away. That's paranoid delusion. The Supreme Court has forcefully upheld the Second Amendment.)
As for the point about armed officers in schools in the city and Oakland, I think that's a bad idea, too. They shouldn't be there. The message to students is that we resolve conflict by arming ourselves. I do like the idea that actual police personnel occasionally walk through campuses, because they are part of the community safety system and need to be seen as problem-solvers. LaPierre's people would be more akin to prison guards. Some smart person made the point that the mass shooters are seldom caught because they kill themselves. They are essentially suicide bombers -- not deterred by the thought of their own death. Why does anyone think armed guards will scare them away?
I do understand that this is a hot-button issue, but there has to be a reasonable middle ground, where people can keep guns for hunting and personal protection, but we start to eliminate assault weapons. It will take the cooperation go owners and manufacturers. I think that most NRA members would probably get on board with that.
Last, Obama's plea for help was met with a response that seemed more defensive than helpful. No one wants to disarm the citizenry. But can't we be honest here?
Bernie..It's not that they will "scare them away". They
may still show up to cause havoc. They may even still
kill. But, if that killing can be cut short by a armed
teacher, policeman, security guard, etc:, then it ould
be worth it. Right now a gunman in a school has it easy
as shooting fish in a barrel. That is not acceptable to
me.
Thet truth is the Democratic Party is controlled by the
more radical left fringe in this country. A very large
percentage of these people thing that only the military
and police should have guns. That is a scarry mind set
if you ask me.
Lastly, no one wants armed ANYONE on schools until
they save your child. Sort of like the saying" no
one likes the cops until you need one".
Regarding assault weapons. If these weapons were kept
to only hold 5-6 rounds they are no different then
a Winchester or Remington semi-automatic deer hunting
rifle that are not even being questioned. A six round
semi automatic rifle is the same no matter what it
looks like. It is sort of like judging someone negatively
because they have tatoos all over themselves. You don't
judge people from the way they appear from the outside
do you? Assault rifles are being judged from appearence.
Put a 30 rd. clip (you can't) on a Remington Model 760
and it's just as dangerous as an assault rifle holding
the same amount of rounds.One looks like an assault rifle
but one does not, yet in firepower they are the same.
http://hardnoxandfriends.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/san-antonio-theater-shooting/
Wayne, even though we disagree, I'm glad we can do it respectfully. We've got to have this conversation on a national basis if we ever hope to figure out how to stop the killings. So thanks for responding. As for our disagreements and concurrences:
I think we're in agreement about the way weapons look as opposed to what they are capable of. I also think you're making my point for me. The weapons do the same thing, only one has far more capacity to do damage quickly due to the number of rounds it can use in a certain amount of time. So, why would responsible gun owners object to banning high capacity clips and weapons that can use them? Realistically, if one can't protect his home with a weapon that holds 5-6 rounds at a time, he's probably going to lose that battle. The idea that there's going to be some Hollywood-style shootout is pretty far-fetched. Maybe the tern "assault weapon" needs better definition, though, as you suggest, because we'll get nowhere if we can't agree on the terms...
Also, I don't think there are many people who realistically think that the right to keep a gun for personal protection will be taken away -- again, the Supreme Court clearly has upheld that right -- but I think there are a lot of people who want to explore the idea of damage control as far as certain types of weapons go. One of my least favorite Democrats (and most conservative, to my mind) is leading the charge on reinstating an assault weapons ban, while one of the most liberal (Barbara Boxer) has suggested we put the National Guard in schools. So they're all over the place.
I don't think this is a Democrat/Republican issue, and I also think there are plenty of NRA members who would support some re-working of the law. If we listen to each other and think clearly, we will at least start to have a saner, less-fearful society.
Last thing: I like cops even when I don't need them. Wouldn't mind seeing a few more on the streets, too. I'm willing to pay higher taxes for that!
Susan..The truth is we will NEVER STOP these types of
incidents from happening. Sad, but it is a fact. All
that is going on is nothing more then passing laws that
make us feel all warm and fuzzy but do not stop the
activity we want to stop. As I have stated in other posts.
Assault weapons account for less that one percent of
gun violence in this country. We don't even know how
many of the victims at Sandy Hook were actually killed
with the assault rifle vs. the two handguns. Criminals
do not obey laws. If they did we have no need for jails
and prisons. Even if you did ban clips (criminals don't
obey bans either) over 6 rd and every clip over that
on the face of the earth were destroyed you would not
stop these types of incidents. Why?? Because all you have
to do is epoxy the 6 rd clips end-to-end and carry a bunch
of these with you. You shoot 6 rounds, pull the clip, and
flip it around. Your back to shooting. This can take just
a matter of seconds to complete. Once that clip is empty
you push a button and it drops out. Then slam in a new
clip and..you get the picture. The time it takes to change
clips is not enough time for anyone with common sense
(and unarmed)to attempt to try and stop the attack.
Especially, when most people are going to be hiding
and frozen in fear. I am sick and tired of our kids being
fish in a barrel because we fear armed responsible people
on school grounds.
I would like more cops. The policemans primary job is to
serve warrants for the courts. Their primary role is not
to protect individual citizens. That is our job.