NRA Calls for an End to Gun Free Zones in Schools

In a much-anticipated press conference following Friday’s mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut, NRA EVP Wayne LaPierre expressed horror, outrage and grief at the tragedy and said that they delayed comment out of respect for the families. He then decried attempts to “exploit the tragedy out of political gain.” Saying the issue at hand is how to protect children now, he decried gun free zones. Pointing out that money, power plants, sports stadiums and the president are protected by men with guns, the nation’s children aren’t and “that must change now.” Apparently having minimal screening and security on hand, LaPierre was intrerrupted twice by banner-waiving protestors, one claiming the NRA and assault weapons are killing our children . . .

LaPiere went on to ask rhetorically how many more Adam Lanzas are out there. He also noted the absence of a national database of the mentally ill. Violent video games and other forms of entertainment also came in for criticism, singling out an online game called Kindergarten Killers and saying that fantasizing about killing people is “the most filthy form of pornography.”

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

He anticipated the inevitable headlines screaming that the NRA’s only answer to the “gun problem” is still more guns. He then wondered why the idea of a gun is good when it’s there to protect our president, but bad when it’s there to protect children in schools.

While acknowledging that there’s no single solution to the problem, he pointed out that the President Obama zero’d out school emergency planning funds from recent federal spending. The then asked, given the amount of money going to foreign aid, if money couldn’t be found to put a police officer in every school. LaPierre then called on Congress to immediately appropriate the funds necessary for a cop in every schoolhouse in time for the start of school in January.

LaPierre also pledged the NRA’s help in training the added manpower necessary to staff the new school security positions. Former congressman Asa Hutchinson will lead what he called the National School Shield Safety program, to be funded by the NRA. And he said the School Shield program will be made available to every school in the country, free of charge.

Asa Hutchinson, former DEA head, said armed, trained, qualified personnel would be only one part of the program that “doesn’t depend on massive funding from local or federal government.” It will make use of local volunteers who will be trained and certified by the NRA.

Not covered: the latest gun control efforts in both the executive and legislative branches. While the president has called for a new assault weapons ban and Senator Diane Feinstein has had one waiting and ready to go for months, the NRA was silent on the topic. For now. And despite some of the attending reporters’ best efforts to shout questions, LaPierre, Hutchinson and NRA president David Keane said the gun rights organization will start taking media inquiries through their press office on Monday.

As always, watch this space.

 

122 Responses to NRA Calls for an End to Gun Free Zones in Schools

  1. avatarChris says:

    I am pleasantly surprised the NRA is going to this level.

  2. He’s very strongly calling for armed security to be put in every school. I think that is a silly, vastly expensive, and over reaching strategy. Simply remove gun free zones and they will take care of themselves.

    • avatarKvjavs says:

      It’s not silly, nor vastly expensive. It’s also a great way to increase jobs to veterans who don’t suffer from PTSD.

    • avatarAnon in CT says:

      Remove them at the Federal and State level, and counties, cities and school districts will simply impose them.

    • avatarWSBS says:

      While I agree with you entirely, I think the NRA realizes that armed security (they wear uniforms afterall, and in the psyches of people who could go either way on respecting gun rights, uniform = good guy) is much more palpable to folks who are not passionate about defending their own freedoms. LaPierre will probably get painted as some sort of monster (in fact, that worthless POS Michael Steele is on MSNBC right now claiming LaPierre advocated arming teachers & principals), the coverage from the anit-gun media who’d prefer to direct the news than report it, would be even more outrageous if he’d actually called for letting teachers & administrators conceal or open carry.

      • avatarSanchanim says:

        I personally think if teachers, or faculty want to CC or OC then fine let them…
        The fact the NRA is willing to foot the bill for training etc is great.
        He side stepped the whole AWB thing because right now you, we, the sheep they want action right? Well you got it, the new program. From the NRA to the classroom…
        The Biden task force can go suck their thumbs in a corner, meanwhile the sheepdogs will go into action and do what needs to be done. Personally I would like to see OC armed guards with AR-15′s. We can use national guard or retired folks, I would even volunteer my time.
        It can and should be done…

        • avatarWSBS says:

          I think even the possibility that someone in Sandy Hook Elementary might have been carrying a firearm (open, concealed, whatever) would have been sufficient to stop this nutjob. Hell, I doubt anyone, whether it be a security guard, principal, teacher, or community volunteer, would have even had to draw on this asshole. He just wouldn’t have shown up, probably because he’d never seen a news report about some would-be mass murderer getting ventilated by someone packing before they could give the gun control advocates any bloody shirts to wave.

          That being said, I’m pragmatic about it. The partisan media outlets (who operate under the premise that all guns are EEEE-VIL) are already branding the NRA as “loons” and “nuts.” (Seriously, go check out the front page of Huffington Post right now, if you can stomach it). All LaPierre did was say we need someone in our schools to protect the defenseless, yet the hoplophobe-run media is trying to spin it that the NRA just demanded that school faculties and administrations be REQUIRED to be armed. I’m not privy to the NRA’s internal PR discussions of late, but that presser seemed to be aimed at winning over the hearts and minds of people who haven’t bought into this hoplophobic “OMG, GUNS ARE EVIL!” meme these so-called journalists are marching out 24/7 in the last week. Rather, I think who their message was aimed at what I’ll call the “middle grounders,” the gun owners who maybe keep a revolver or shotgun in the house for home-defense, but have never considered themselves “gun people,” the folks who have found themselves asking of late, “Yeah, why don’t we have someone on site who would be capable of defending the students when one of these lunatics show up?”

          It think when you look at it in those terms, it makes LaPierre’s railing against violence in entertainment, and advocacy for a national mental illness database (both of which I strongly disagree with for constitutional reasons) more understandable. The NRA can’t just come out with guns blazing (pun intended) and point the finger at the American public for this tragedy because of its (the American public’s, not the NRA’s) failure to demand Congress repeal the (nominal) Gun-Free School Zone Act when the first one of these school spree-killing tragedies occurred. Better to take the opportunity to try to related with John Q. Public. And there ain’t nothin’ Mr. Public likes himself more than the proverbial boogeyman. For the hoplophobic so-called journalists, that boogeyman is guns. For the NRA, it’s video games and privacy laws.

        • avatarW C says:

          Look at the Columbine massacre. There was an armed security on duty. There also happened to be an armed cop right next to the school when it started. Neither were effective at either preventing or stopping the shooters.

        • Furthermore, today I heard in one of the rebuttals that one-third of schools do have armed guards. La Pierre’s lies are incredible. Of course the whole speech was one big smoke screen to deflect attention from the first main problem: access to guns by people who shouldn’t have them. This is a by-product of what the NRA, and you Armed Intelligentsia guys, fight so hard for. You are responsible for that and you’ll do anything to deflect attention from that ugly reality.

    • avatarMatt says:

      I believe that he is offering a volunteer program, made up of people from the community to protect their own. Not only is that a good idea, but it will also bring the community closer together, as they will be responsible for protecting each other. I applaud the NRA for the plan they put forth. I was disappointed that the upcoming AWB legislation wasnt addressed, but Im sure that was intentionally on their part. No point in drifting away from the message of ‘make our schools safe, and heres how we can do it’. Ignore the gun grabbers ploy to get ineffective laws, and put something out there that actually CAN work.

      • avatarJuanCudz says:

        I think this went as expected a measured response avoiding the AWB/high cap question. The danger is the media can construct the hysteria of a “George Zimmerman in every classroom” around this. After all he was on neighbourhood watch an’all.

    • avatarIdahoMan says:

      Agreed.

    • avatarPhydeaux says:

      Simply allowing teachers and staff carry concealed when at work wouldn’t necessarily cost a dime. Combine that with volunteer training (perhaps facilitated by NRA) and you have a low cost, effective solution.

  3. avatarbontai Joe says:

    I haven’t had a chance to hear or read the speech yet, but from what you posted here, sounds like the NRA has hit the major points I would want them to. I especially like the phrase, ” why the idea of a gun is good when it’s there to protect our president, but bad when it’s there to protect kids in schools.”

  4. avatarBooters says:

    You know what I’m hearing? I’m hearing this guy basically state that only professional police, military, rescue workers are the one’s qualified to defend our children.

      • avatarDisThunder says:

        He mentioned highly trained civilians too, as well as security employees.

        • avatarGreg says:

          Given current emotions, this is probably the smartest approach. We’ll get there. Sounds like that may still be an option.

        • “Highly trained civilians,” where are we going to find them? The standards for concealed carry permits are so low, in some states non-existent, there’s no way to expect highly trained people. In fact you guys object to mandatory requirements for people to be allowed to exercise their rights.

          Plus, what make you think teachers in certain states would want to carry guns. Very few of them would even be in favor of this approach which is basically a big smoke screen to blame the gun free zone.

          “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” is not true. We could prevent the bad guy from getting the gun in the first place. You guys love to pretend that it’s not possible, but that’s not true either. The bad guys get their guns from you. You could be constrained through proper gun control laws to hold onto your property. Safe storage laws, no private sales without background checks, licensing and registration would do the trick.

    • avatarBill says:

      He has too. He left schools with open-ended solutions to come to their own conclusion. But, he couldn’t say, “everybody grab your gun and go to school.” It would make anti-gunners think we are crazy.

      • avatarBob says:

        @Mikeb302000 – Just how trained did someone with a gun need to be in that school that day?

        Many civilians pay for more and better training than the police.

        How the hell do you know how many teachers (you left out admins) would volunteer? A few is all that’s really needed, or it would be enough to save lives, but I guess that’s not good enough for you.

        Nobody is advocating forcing teachers to arm themselves. Why not at least give them the opportunity?

        Keep guns from criminals? Just like the way the government with all their anti-drug laws succeeded in keeping marijuana out of the hands of kids in school?

        Just like the last “assault weapons” ban kept an “assault weapon” out of the hand of the Columbine murderer?

        Do you think that criminals obey laws?

        • I’m not opposed to the idea of eliminating gun free zones or allowing teachers to arm themselves if they want to, per se, but I am opposed to making those suggestions as a way of avoiding the first main problem: easy access to guns by unfit maniacs. I realize why you want to deflect attention from that ugly fact, it is your fault after all.

      • avatarBob says:

        @Mikeb302000 – Have you ever read about the intention of the founders for the 2nd Amendment? It was not about self-defense against street criminals (that was so obviously a right to them that it didn’t even occur to them to state it, kind of like the right to breathe), it was about preventing a tyrannical government. Yes, that’s right, our very own Constitution advocates an armed uprising against a tyrannical government in Washington by farmers, plumbers, accountants, and housewives.

        And you want only the tyrannical government to have high cap mags and semi-automatic rifles. How did that work out for the Jews?

        You would rather risk total tyranny for your fantasy that you can legislate away evil.

        And what would be next? Since you’ve trashed the 2nd, why not trash the 1st Amendment for speaking out against the government?

        • Bob, total tyranny is a figment of your fevered imagination, it’s a twisted justification for gun proliferation among many who can’t responsibly handle them.

          The sick irony is that in the US, where you enjoy such gun freedom, there’s more tyranny than in the UK or Australia.

    • avatarshdowhunt60 says:

      No, he’s providing a solution that liberals can agree with.

    • avatarMaxwell H. says:

      Totally disagree. What he’s doing is destroying the liberal tenet that “guns are evil.” He’s pulling the “no atheists in foxholes” argument and turning it into, “See, you like guns when you’re being burglarized–you wish you had a police officer to protect you, right??” You can’t get anti-gunners to admit that they might wish that they had a gun if they came under attack themselves, but you CAN get them to admit that they’d like Officer Friendly to show up with a crew of SWAT Team members with MP5s if they had a crazy guy shooting up their child’s school.

  5. avatarRichard W. says:

    Two Words: Police Unions.

    • avatarDyspeptic says:

      Yea, I thought that too. The NRA has always been tight with cops for obvious reasons. But unfortunately cops are unionized so what is the NRA supposed to do about that?

      It seems odd that La Pierre didn’t criticize the current gun grabber frenzy directly but maybe their PR experts (which I really hope they have and I really hope are top notch) told them to do it this way.

  6. avatarBill says:

    Classy NRA, providing short term and long term solutions.

  7. avatarMichaelK says:

    The only images we’ll see in main stream media will be of those protest signs.

    • avatarDisThunder says:

      And they’ll see it as some kind of victory. “Yeah, we’ll show those gun assholes”
      It’s good for business. The hits on the video will go up. Nothing like watching a thoughtful, collected speaker outline actual ideas for solutions while dumbasses hold up finger paints and scream about assault weapons.

      • avatarWSBS says:

        Probably a mad dash between Ed Schultz, Piers Morgan, and Rachel Maddow to book one or both of those assholes as guests on tonight’s telecasts as we speak.

    • avatarHenrik says:

      Also the headline will be “the NRA want more baby eating guns in our schools”.

    • avatarChrisM says:

      I had the same thought.

      For what it’s worth, I guess I’ll be re-upping my membership. The speach and everything in it may not have been perfect, but at least they didn’t come out and say they were willing to give ground.

      • avatarWiregrass says:

        I was thinking the same thing. At least I don’t feel like I just pissed away $35 by renewing my membership.

    • avatar.9mm says:

      I was thinking the same thing. The ”journalists” turned into paparazzi when they held up those signs.

  8. avatar6 gunner says:

    Yeah, I missed the “end gun free school zones” amidst the “let’s blame the entertainment industry” and “let’s hire cops and ex-military people who are best suited to handle this kind of situation”. Did I also miss the point where they said “we’re going to fight against AWB II” ?

    • avatarNate says:

      Ya I didn’t like one industry blaming another. It does not make for a good argument. When you have the gun industry blaming the videogame industry all the arguments you can possibly make can be turned right back around on us as an industry. They did not address the AWB but what are they going to say…. I’m not sure how I thought about the conference as a whole. I do like the Operation Shield, that makes a lot of sense.

    • avatarCastle says:

      I am a bit disappointed that they didn’t directly and forcefully speak out against an AWB. Still, at least he talked about the misconceptions surrounding semi-autos and how they’re not the same as military weapons.

      Not perfect. Not by a long shot. But they didn’t sell everyone out, and I’ll be signing up today.

    • avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

      I must have missed that as well.

    • avatarRalph says:

      Which AWB is the NRA supposed to oppose? POTUS hasn’t put his on the table, so opposing it would be a little odd. DiFi’s proposal will probably be yanked once POTUS has his own ready to go.

      The NRA held fire because it doesn’t have a target. Attacking a plan that hasn’t been announced yet would make them look like petulant fools.

      • avatarMichael B. says:

        They already look like petulant fools to anyone under 40 by using a bunch of 20 year old video games as scapegoats.

  9. avatarMichael B. says:

    So we need more government to solve a problem that’s statistically pretty rare?

    And whomever told him to use the “THINK OF THE CHILDREN” crap and the “WE MUST DO SOMETHING NOW” garbage that the Brady Campaign uses should be smacked.

    Still, I’m happy he didn’t screw us. So let’s fight for our rights.

    • avatarMatt says:

      If you mean ‘more government’ to be local city and county governments, Im fine with that. Thats where these decisions need to be made, not by out federal congress critters.

    • Adding cops into schools is not the best solution. Sure, it will deter school shootings, but then crazies will just go to another likely gun free zone filled with victims to commit their atrocity. Simply remove the gun free zone lable and there are plenty of teachers who would be willing to carry. We should stop prioritizing places to place security to deter armed threats in public places. The confidence of killing many before an armed response arrives in gun free zones is the problem.

      • avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

        I agree. It is impractical to divert one police officer off of the street for each school, when there are already qualified people who work there everyday, who are willing but prohibited from defending that school.

        • avatarMatt says:

          I agree that armed volunteers are the answer, but if it has to be police, so be it. Lets be honest here. The chances of a police officer on the street stopping any crime is unlikely. He simply responds to it most of the time, and gets there once its over. Its much more likely that him being in a school would be a deterent to a shooting ever taking place. If something were to happen in a school with an officer there, he has a much greater chance of stopping the situation than if he werent there to begin with. I think most of the public would stand behind taking an officer off the street if it meant he was patrolling a local school.

          But again, put me in the ‘armed and trained volunteered’ group.

  10. avatarJH says:

    I like what I am hearing. “School Shield” sounds promising. Why not give every teacher a can a pepper spray and baseball bat in every class room. Give them less than lethal methods to at least attempt to imobilize an active shooter ASAP? That would give time for the onsite security team to further respond. Just a thought. Layer on the options and security.

    Fortify doors. Less than lethal to teachers. Security forces in each school.

  11. avatarTRUTHY says:

    Their response made too much sense, the media will eat them alive.

  12. avatarBlinkyPete says:

    I’m happy that they aren’t buckling under political pressure and grotesque opportunism on the part of the gun control lobby, but disappointed that he’s passing the buck to video games and entertainment. Movies, video games and music have never been more violent, and it’s likely America has never been LESS violent. How many other monsters are there out there? Likely very, very few. Even among murderers I’d bet this cruel beast’s actions would be considered foul and unthinkable. The creature that did this was incredibly rare, and now it’s dead.

    Nothing can soften the blow this coward has dealt us, but we need more people recognizing that it’s never been safer to be an American, a student or a child. We need to be grateful for that. Not finding another boogeyman to point our fingers at.

    • avatarBlinkyPete says:

      Also, if he really called for a database of the mentally ill, that’s idiotic and putrid. I’m not going to throw non-violent people with autism, Down syndrome, ADD or OCD under the bus just to cover my ass. It’s time for a comprehensive, scientific approach, not blind finger pointing.

      • avatarRalph says:

        Some mentally ill people should be denied guns, even if they are nonviolent. Do you really want a nonviolent, low-functioning person with Down Syndrome to have a gun? The potential for unsafe handling resulting a disastrous accident is obvious.

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          Not what I said. I said vilifying people with mental illnesses is grotesque, and calling for a database of all mentally ill people is even more so. Reminds me of Nazism, and it will do the same for other people.

          Of course there are people that should not have access to guns, but it needs to be an individualistic approach with due process, not a blanket policy based on ignorant phobias.

        • avatarDyspeptic says:

          Since neither Autism nor ADD are mental illnesses, I would hope that these developmental abnormalities wouldn’t end up in the database. Me, I’m about as ADD as it gets but that has no effect on my ability to own firearms responsibly. Besides, normalcy is way over rated. Why would I want to be like most people?

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          As I said I was generically using DSM definitions; I am aware genetic and neurological conditions are distinct from mental illness. Being ADD myself I hope no one listens to his crazy database idea.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        Your clear implication that ADD, OCD, autism-spectrum disorders and Down’s are mental illnesses is repugnant and wrong.

        I hope you realize that by calling ADD a mental illness you just grievously insulted about 4% of the US adult population, most of them at the upper end of the intelligence curve.

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          I have ADD, dingus, and I was defending people with mental disorders. I used modern parlance so everyone reading would understand.

          If you really are that sensitive, lighten the hell up. If you have an issue with these disorders or syndromes being represented as such, please take it up with the doctors and scientists behind the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, not me. My guess is that you just like to snap at other people, in which case, troll elsewhere, the grownups are talking.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          The fact that I’m not the only commenter who interpreted your statements this way should be a signal that perhaps you could have worded it a little better. If you’d like to clarify what you meant, I’m listening.

          I’m not particularly sensitive (understatement) but in this case, I took it personally because I also have ADD and disliked being labeled mentally ill.

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          He made a distinction and said he hoped that distinction would be made by those creating this theoretical database. He didn’t accuse me of making any implications, and if he was trying to say what you’re saying I’m assuming he would have echoed your sentiments rather than sharing his own.

          You, on the other hand, had a temper tantrum. You accused me of making a “repugnant and wrong” characterization of the people I was trying to defend and then said I had grievously insulted an entire group, which I am a part of. Calling you overly sensitive was an understatement.

          If you want to talk down to people and pontificate in pure hyperbole find someone else to do it with. I’m done talking to you.

  13. avatarRoll says:

    Dangit, I got stuck in a phone call and missed the broadcast, thanks for the summary!

  14. avatarHoustorm says:

    Not exactly what I was looking for as a measured response, seems like they just looked at that recent Gallup poll and based their talking points on that. Also, despite facing a hostile crowd, they should take questions to at least interject facts into the media’s false narrative.

  15. avatarCoryJ says:

    Did it appear that he danced around mentioning the AWB?

    It seemed he mentioned ‘legislation’, but did he actually mention AWB by name?

    • avatarshdowhunt60 says:

      He did appear to dance around the issue, but that’s fine. We don’t want liberals to shit their pants, yet.

    • avatarWSBS says:

      When he went after the media for their continued glorification of spree killers via ’round-the-clock coverage of these sickos, he did call out the so-called journalists ignorance regarding pretty much all things firearms, in particular their depictions of AR-15′s as military-grade firearms and the myth that somehow .223 caliber ammo is particularly more lethal than other calibers of ammunition.

  16. avatarIdahoMan says:

    He wants a national database of the “mentally ill”?

    • avatarBlinkyPete says:

      That’s grotesque. Thanks for pointing it out.

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      He said this?

      • avatarRichard W. says:

        Yes. It goes hand-in-hand with the “preventing the mentally ill from buying guns” which you can’t do unless you identify them and provide that info with the NICS. Hell, Obama may very well love this one. More personal info on anyone that someone else says is crazy…”gun-nuts” anyone?

        • avatarIdahoMan says:

          Like I have said before, if gun-owners fall for the idea that we have to “keep guns out of the wrong hands” then they have already lost the war.

          Because “keeping guns out of the wrong hands”, translated, is: Government needs to oversee who can/cannot have what firearm and/or prove themselves before they are “allowed” to exercise their rights.

          Look people, it DOESN’T work that way. You cannot “regulate”, via the government and laws, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Arms must be naturally “regulated” by leaving it alone and simply punishing those who abuse them (Ex: Murder, armed robbery, threatening without cause..).

          Guns are to be a non-issue: Make them in your garage, sell them to your neighbor, buy them over the internet, etc.. No FFLs, no NICS, no ATF, permits, licenses, ID, “requirements”, etc..

          It really ticks me off to see people post on a gun website like this one who either agree with gun-control, or have forgotten what it is to be a free man with rights. Maybe they have been so long under the previous abuses and unconstitutional laws, that they actually think being a “responsible gun-owner” means having their guns registered, locked up and their special FOID cards proudly dangling from their necks.

    • avatar.9mm says:

      I think the mentally ill should be registered and tracked the same way that sex offenders are registered and tracked. They are both a danger to our children.

      • avatarMichael B. says:

        lol

      • avatarIdahoMan says:

        Yes.

        By all means.

        Get government to dictate a category of the population as “mentally ill” and placed on lists. Gee, why hasn’t something this fantastic been done before? /sarc

      • avatarDyspeptic says:

        You would have liked living in the Soviet Union then. Congratulations comrade. Now give me that .9mm pistol before we take YOU to our nice KGB style mental hospital. For your own good of course.

        By the way, .9mm is a very small and silly caliber.

      • avatarWLCE says:

        or we could not do that and not allow more government into our lives…

  17. avatarRon says:

    I don’t know if I can put much stock in the affect playing video games has on children.
    The same has been said many times about playing with toy guns.
    What affect either has on children depends on the child.
    Any child that can be influenced to crime by playing video games ( toy guns, televion, movies)has more serious issues influencing his maturation that need to be addressed.

    • avatarJTPhilly says:

      Many have studied the issue and tried to find a link between video-game and real world violence, but none have been able to prove such a link exists.

      Video games and movies both have a ratings system designed specifically to keep inappropriate age groups from consuming “mature” material. A 7 year-old cannot go to Wal-Mart and buy a video game rated M, or a movie rated R. While many parents buy games for their kids that are out of their recommended age group, the evidence still does not show that there is any link to actual violence.

      I just don’t want us to come off like we’re blaming “these kids and their Rock N’ Roll”…

    • avatarsurlycmd says:

      That is the point. The rare batsh!t crazy person who would do this kind of crime is most likely influenced by the violence in entertainment long before they even touch a gun. Most people are not gonna be negatively impacted by the entertainment.

    • avatarAsh says:

      Correlations between violent movie and video games to violence are higher than smoking and lung cancer. Obviously there are other issues but to me this is the large change over the past 50 years. You can’t tell me that desensitization and operate conditioning have no effect, if that’s the case someone should tell the military it’s training methods don’t work anymore.

      • avatarJTPhilly says:

        I’m not saying that desensitization plays no role, I’m saying no one has been able to prove a CAUSAL link between violence in entertainment and violence in the real world. I’m sure most violent criminals have consumed some sort of “violent entertainment” at some point, but so have literally MILLIONS of other people who do not commit violent actions.

        All I’m saying is that because of the prevalence of this “violent entertainment” it destroys any possible causal link. There are too many people who watch war movies and play Call of Duty who have never committed any act of violence.

      • avatarRon says:

        Hi Ash,
        If 1,000,000,000 children play a video game and 10,000 of them become criminals is it the fault of the game?
        Even if the 10,000 were directly affected by the game, why were the others not?
        Could it be because of other influencing factors? Violence in the home. The neighborhood. Abusive parents. Bullying. Poverty. Low self estime (which has it’s own underlying causes).
        Could it be that because of these factors, the 10,000 are less mature, more unstable, weaker willed, more gullible?
        If these more serious issues had been addressed, would the 10,000 still have been influenced by the game?
        Would banning the game have changed anything?
        Just asking.

        • avatarAsh says:

          Look at Brandon Centerwall’s findings on television/violence or Col. Grossman’s “on Killing” book for empirical evidence, your idea that there’s never been causal findings is incorrect.

          Ron, obviously there are many factors that contribute but also several buffers that guard against it. However, when you a small percentage of the population that has social or psychological issues, coupled with other stressors then they may be easily influenced by film and video games. Am I looking for a ban on movies or video games? Absolutely not, the same way as I’m not looking for bans on any types of weapons or ammo/magazines. But I do realize that there are a serious link between violence in film and violence in behavior and I don’t see the NRA’s comments as deflection or pointing the finger.

        • avatarJTPhilly says:

          Also, I really like the Penn & Teller BS episode about Gun Control. That’s worth a watch, as well.

  18. avatarJohnnyMac says:

    Was I naive in expecting something more material from the NRA?

    I don’t mean backing off on gun rights, or acquiescing to a ban on high-cap magazines. I neither expect that nor want that. But since the NRA purports to hold Gun Safety and Training in high regard–and in fact, has at its disposal a veritable army of people trained in Gun Safety Education–along with a substantial war chest, I would have liked to see an offer to use their influence and $$$ to increase awareness of Gun Safety and Training.

    Say, offering immediate, free Eddie Eagle safety programs to all elementary schools, and one-time-only free NRA Basic Safety courses in some very large percentage of towns across the country. I know the Eddie Eagle courses are always free, but a public reminder that they are available while the media is hanging on to every word about guns would be widely disseminated and reflect well on the organization.

    I also imagine many NRA-certified instructors would gladly volunteer their time for such an effort in the aftermath of a tragedy like Sandy Hook.

    And it reinforces the message that while NRA is unabashedly in favor of (mostly) unrestricted gun rights, it is also committed to responsible exercise of same.

    It would be poo-pooed by the anti-gun crowd, but then, in the minds of the average American voter–who after all is as likely to own a gun as not–the moral high ground will go to the NRA.

    Opportunity wasted.

  19. avatarirock350 says:

    Why couldn’t LaPierre stay on target? Violent video games, Violent movies, mental health data bases, detract from school security. DHS has an 830 million budget for security grants, lets tap into that for schools that need Police officers, perhaps more officers in schools and less drones. His speech would have been great if that doddering old man could keep on target.

  20. avatarTRP says:

    LaPierre hit the nail on the head….in the face of someone willing to use deadly force against you, there is only once way to protect yourself and your loved ones; BE ARMED, WELL TRAINED AND READY FOR WHATEVER COMES YOUR WAY. My dollars will continue to go to support the NRA.

  21. avatarNate says:

    We need to get that man a Teleprompter. That will go a long way to make him a better speaker.

  22. avatarAlexBosco says:

    I dont understand why they simply dont talk about the math???? The whole idea of banning a type of gun that incurrs 2% of the total amount of homicide with a firearm is ridiculous? There are a little less than 12000 homicides in the US per year, if 2% of these are committed with an assault gun thats 240 people a year. There are over 4 million AR15 owners some of which who own more than one in the US. So what Bloomberg and all the antigun people are saying is that we need to ban a certain type of gun that accounts for .006% of murders in the US? I’m sorry but I just dont buy into that because there is no logic in it….and this is where the NRA is missing their chance to “school” the public.

    • avatarguzzimike says:

      The math the other side will use is that the elimination of “assault rifles” will SAVE 240 people/year and what is the price of just 1 life. I don’t agree with that logic myself but there are a lot of folks who will. Look @ the controversy of the UK gun ban where everyone is all proud of themselves to have minimized gun deaths while conveniently ignoring that the murder rate (I believe) has increased since then.

    • avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

      I agree. Every pro gun pulpit should be constantly droning the numbers to the public, daring anyone to dispute them, until they stick. I never hear the numbers! Always appeals to their emotional points. Facts don’t lie, and they are always the last thing standing.

  23. avatarOHgunner says:

    I want to know why he completely left out the millions of CCW holders that have been trained by NRA certified instructors? He mentioned police, security, yada yada, but never said the words “responsible, armed citizens”.

    Not that it matters as the media bias is so thick in all of the articles “summarizing” the speech, aka making shit up. I’m beyond fed up with this. We need common sense media control (*joking, but just barely)

    • avatarDave says:

      Gotta start small. This was just the first response. I’m ok with not mentioning having CCW holders carry in school (though it may be inferred with the end the gun free zones at school).

      let’s see what the next few weeks bring.

  24. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    I was kind of hoping he would hold up an AR & say “kiss my ass feinstein”, Randy

  25. avatarthomas de los garcia says:

    I am really confused about the negative reaction. It makes sense. I am glad that the NRA did not buckle. I will be sending a check to them now. I was waiting to hear what they had to say.

  26. avatarHal says:

    I was actually pleasantly surprised. He stated that new laws won’t work, didn’t feed media trolls sound bites regarding AWBs (which is what they wanted), has a plan of action to offer to schools who want it and RIGHTFULLY indicated that we have a CULTURE problem in America, not a gun problem.

    Our culture, of which the 24 hour news cycle is a huge part, is the reason things like this happen. It’s the culture that normalizes death through entertainment (I’m as guilty as anyone… I love a good first person shooter) and glorifies mass killers through the media. It is also the culture that is so fundamentally hypocritical that it screams for change when 20 or so little white children in a rich liberal state die but doesn’t bat an eye as thousands of African American youths die each year in gun free utopias (admittedly in many cases those killings are criminal on criminal but you guys see my point).

    That’s why there can never be any compromise on the issue of civil rights. Our rights and our individualism are the only tools we have to unplug ourselves from the insanity that has become our mainstream culture. Let’s face it… COLLECTIVELY speaking, we stink. Mean-spirited, short-sighted and rude. Perfectly willing to punish a super-majority of good people because of the mistakes of a mirco-minority of bad people because it provides temporary peace of mind. Who cares if it doesn’t provide any actualy safety benefits. That’s why we must embrace our civil rights and not allow ourselves to be dragged into that collective. Through liberty, politeness and exceptionalism we can be the examples to lead others out of the fog our mainstream culture has created.

  27. avatarsurlycmd says:

    Why do millions of law abiding citizens who own these firearms or want to own them be subjected to limitations because of criminals? Why is the recidivism rate among violent criminals so high? How do these criminals get out of jail so soon? What is wrong with the Judicial system that allows repeat offenders a revolving door in and out of prison?

    These are some of the questions the NRA must address.

    The core issue is society does not do enough to punish those who commit crimes. Prison time is an actual benefit to most criminals. Their reputation feeds on it. The misunderstood person who never had a chance in life and fell in with the wrong crowd is the person responsible for their actions. Not the law abiding citizen.

    • avatarHenrik says:

      Crimes must be punished but that is after the fact thinking. We need to make sure there are no criminals to begin with. And most violent crime are gang related and gangs are related to the failed war on drugs. Why not do something that actually works in that end of the problem?

      • avatarsurlycmd says:

        Freewill and a society based on freedoms will always be plagued with criminals. Without someone choosing to commit a crime there is no victim and no criminal. But once a crime has been committed that criminal, once convicted, must serve a harsh penalty. It serves to dissuade some others from committing the same crime as well as punishes the guilty.
        It will never stop crime but I believe it will severely cut down on repeat offenders. That would directly impact our crime rates.
        This is only one facet of reducing crime without unduly restricting law abiding citizens rights.

  28. avatarLongPurple says:

    My impression:
    He threw down the gauntlet.
    He offered a practical plan to immediately replace the incedibly stupid GFSZA, which is not merely ineffective at preventing school slaughters of children, but is itself causitive.

  29. avatarAccur81 says:

    Sounds promising. My wife said “hey, we should send the NRA some money.”

    I agree. Not perfect, but I’m in about 90% agreement, and they’ll get more cash when they oppose AWB 2.0.

    I especially liked the gun protecting POTUS so they can protect children part.

  30. avatarjwm says:

    It’s what I’ve been saying since Friday. Get people from the local communities vetted and supported by local law enforcement to volunteer as armed patrols on the campus’s.

    I have worked in jobs all my life that require finger printing and background checks and drug testing. Less than a month ago I underwent a drug test and FBI check because I’m coming out of retirement and going back to work.

    There’s no valid reason why a person like me should not be acceptable as a volunteer to watch over our schools. And I’m certain that every community out there has a ready supply of people like me willing to step up.

    If the NRA is willing to provide free training and the vols provide their own guns what would be the cost of the program? You wouldn’t even need a full uniform. Something simple like a vest or windbreaker marked “Security”.

  31. avatarThrawn says:

    “the latest gun control efforts in both the executive and legislative branches.”

    You mean the non-existent bills?

  32. avatarMichael B. says:

    Wayne wants “an active national database of the mentally ill.”

    Whether or not someone who was put on antidepressants years ago by some pill-peddling shrink because grandpa died will be registered with the government remains to be seen.

  33. avatarPhil says:

    Is this guy seriously blaming video games?

  34. avatarJustAJ says:

    I like their plan. And I wonder how many people will discredit it immediately and without weighing the merits simply because it came from the NRA? This certainly makes a lot more sense than taking guns away from people who didn’t do anything.

  35. avatarMatt says:

    I was reading through the comments on the Yahoo story concerning the NRA statement, and was very surprised at how positive the overall comments were about the plan. It’s a good sign, for sure.

  36. avatarSilver says:

    Doesn’t matter. He could have made the most enlightening argument since Plato’s A game and the media and vast majority of this pathetic country won’t heed it because it came from them.

  37. avatarWLCE says:

    blaming video games is bullshit.

    here’s a idea: ban the idea of “gun free zones” and allow CCW carriers to be armed. Sure, armed security guards or police officers are A way…but i feel the low-profile concealed carrier is more of a ideal solution.

  38. avatarAnotheropinion says:

    You know, I liked EVERYTHING he said! Probably wont make any difference to the dictator obama since he will probably exercise executive order again, lets think about it! Since the few posts I have read above seem to not like the Hollywood blame or the game blame. Obama vs Romney was pretty much dictated by Hollywood and media. We will still pay and reep the outcome of that for the next few years and possible more. May even pay now with legislation to our RIGHT to have guns. Nevertheless, that is the effects of media and Hollywood on us as adults NOT CHILDREN in which are way more influence-able little minds! If Kim Cardashion (spell check) says she wants to wear shoes made of raw hide, “what do you think your daughter will come home wanting”. What about the news media that feeds ONLY on DRAMA and hype that keeps all of the American peoples nerves on end? The commercials in which markets have tailored to make us compulsively buy things ( you know it is true and it works). That is influence and sways your perception! You all said it above the media will turn this thing into a frizzy of emotion. No what near facts or realism but all about drama and political motive. It all plays a role in how think, act and perceive the world around you. It works on us all as adults from commercials, movies, news and YES GAMES.

    On the note of video games! Why do you all buy your kids Barney videos, The wiggles, Dora the explorer and the list keeps going. WHY? Thats right your trying to teach your child a moral and educational lesson right? They learn from it right?If you didn’t think they did why do you buy it? They all learn good manners, people skills and the list will keep going on from these videos and games RIGHT! Now sit your kids butt down in front of a PS3 for half a day every day of his youthful life and let him play modern warfare, grand theft auto, dead island and or what ever shoot em game that is OUTSTANDINGLY REALISTIC and tell me those games are not doing the same thing. He or she is getting “something” from it. Whether it is desensitized to blood, war, violence or anything else what these games provide, they are getting that grain of mental gain from it. Now before you go off your high horse ” I like the games to they are FUN for an ADULT who can tell it is just that a game”but do you not remember when you were a kid and wanted to be like your favorite action hero that was way cool or super famous. If you were a boy you probably pulled some kung fu on your best friend which probably sported a black eye when you tried to demonstrate and the accident happened. More than a couple is probably snickering and nodding! Why is this any different? I ask anyone here? Would you let your kids hang out with gang members? NOPE its an influence and your kids will start acting like his or her influence. CYBER world or VIRTUAL world is no difference and most of you know it. Like LaPierre said ” why are guns good to protect the president and not our kids? Why do educational games teach your children history, math, morals of right and wrong naughty and nice but the violent shootem games do not envoke/teach violence and callousness to violence??? HMMMMMM
    We have a culture problem plain and simple and that would be a whole article in itself . When something bad comes from it then we harp for laws thinking it will fix it. Laws are for criminals AFTER they do something WRONG not for people who have done nothing! Read about the alcohol prohibition era! We seen what that got us. We are also taking away religion which is the only source to a CODE of ethics of good and bad we as humans have! Similar to the constitution for rights we must keep that give us freedom. We are slowly getting rid of them both! Now for years to come we are going to pay and the price I am afraid will get higher and higher!

  39. avatargringito says:

    It is not enough to have good and realistic arguments.
    You also have to be a good and rhethorically excellent speaker!

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.