 |
| PHOTO BY MICHAEL REYNOLDS/EPA |
Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre advocated the implementation of armed guards at all schools, stating that "Gun-free school zones tell every insane killer that schools are places to inflict maximum pain at minimum risk." This and other statements spoken by LaPierre were noted by House Democrats, who expressed their opposition. Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) said, “The way the NRA is approaching this now is irrational,” and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) argued, "For the NRA and others to sort of shield themselves by saying it’s the mentally ill or something and therefore we have to have more armed cops in the schools or more guns in the school -- it just doesn’t make sense."
LaPierre criticized the media in his speech, blaming it for "demon[izing] gun owners" and exposing children to too much violence. He also censured Congress for failing to create a national database of the mentally ill. He then explained that one way to combat the bad guys is to arm the good guys. Perhaps he was attempting to tie into the media theme by whipping out a superhero analogy? Or perhaps he needs a lesson in logical fallacies.
In the meanwhile, President Obama is working towards legislation that will ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Of course, passing such controversial legislation will be no easy feat. But president's are supposedly the most powerful in terms of getting legislation passed during the beginning of their second term, putting Obama in the perfect position.
According to a recent Pew Research Center Poll, 49% say that it is more important to control gun ownership than protect the rights of Americans to own guns (which 42% find more important). This marks only a slight increase since previous months. Still, the percentage is nowhere near 58% which described public opinion back in 2008.
What are your opinions on the NRA's response to the tragedy? Are the House Democrats justified in their criticisms of the response? Will Obama be able to pass legislation restricting gun access? What do you think of the lack of substantial change in American opinion regarding gun control after the shooting?
5 comments:
First off, I'm glad that Obama is trying to get some response out of the deadlocked Congress after such a terrible tragedy. I somewhat agree with the Democrats' criticisms of armed guards being irrational because the armed guards can't protect everyone. Though, it's nice to know they're trying.
As Sandy showed, it just takes one crazy shooter to cause an incident. If someone is crazy enough to kill children and kill himself, I doubt they would be scared off by armed guards. If anything, I fear it would motivate them to prepare even more weapons to combat them. I’d like to use the Cold War analogy: both sides will not give in and will continue increasing their stockpiles and weapons to gain an edge. If crazy people are willing to suicide bomb twin towers, what else could they do? I imagine assault weapons would probably be on their Santa wish list.
I agree with President Obama's decision to act after this crisis. If feel that if people want to protect themselves, handguns or other such weapons would be enough to kill any psychopaths that target them. However, I strongly agree with the NRA to prevent the banning of all guns. Handgun control laws have historically utterly failed. I cannot predict if assault gun bans will work any better. But as the Aurora and Sandy killings have showed, something has to be done.
Overall, it is a testament to the NRA's prominence that gun control support has been stagnant for so long. I doubt if the people will rise up against them anytime soon. Tragedy after tragedy occurs and people are not willing to do anything because they feel it will not happen to them. As this person believes, it would require much to get gun control over the NRA barbed wire fence.
Final thoughts: Does the second amendment guarantee the right to arms? Yes. Does it mean everyone can have high-powered weapons that were made for mass murder? I would be hesitant to agree with this. Regardless of how this ban issue ends, I hope these gun tragedies never happen again.
Frankly, I find the NRA's "solution" to be entirely misguided. As Matthew pointed out, more guns in general would likely result in an escalation of violence. However, I fundamentally disagree with Matthew's connection between the Connecticut shootings and 9/11. Mental illness (which is the most probable cause of the Connecticut tragedy) and religious extremism are entirely separate issues and the latter certainly does not seem to be relevant to this post.
I predict that the NRA's proposal will face considerable backlash in the media over the next few weeks. I am interested to see if any major Republican NRA supporters will try to distance themselves from the NRA as President George H.W. Bush did in 1995 following LaPierre's verbal attacks on the ATF.
While I personally support stricter gun control and President Obama's efforts are encouraging, I think that our national mental health system is also in need of attention and reform.
Additionally, the media's coverage of the tragedy has received a lot of criticism. In addition to factual inaccuracies (the shooter's brother was wrongly named as the suspect for a considerable amount of time) that are somewhat understandable given the highly competitive and moment-to-moment nature of modern reporting, interviews with children eyewitnesses and pictures of grieving parents have led to backlash. As with all coverage of mass shootings, it can be questionable if the national attention these events receive encourage future tragedies. Ultimately, I believe that it is the function of news corporations to cover these events but their conduct can also be improved upon to appear more sensitive.
LaPierre's speech was too divisive, and as far as I'm concerned, seemed to put the NRA and its members on a moral high ground. In his speech, he said that Americans faced "the much larger and more lethal criminal class: Killers, robbers, rapists and drug gang members who have spread like cancer in every community in this country." (courtesy of David Frum).
Oh, man. And the best part is, the things that enable the "criminal class" to commit crimes is what LaPierre thinks will solve the problem: guns. He isolates Americans into two categories, and its a level of fear-mongering that McCarthy could only hope to compare with. There aren't two classes of Americans, and people shouldn't hope to defend themselves from
Today a man started a fire and shot at the firemen sent to respond, killing two of them. I'm guessing the NRAs solution will be to suggest that firemen ought to be equipped with firearms to protect themselves, when in reality it seems like there is a more deeply rooted problem in the United States.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." True in a twisted sense, but guns kill people, or at the very least, enable the killing. Guns are easy and impersonal; anything else and you have to get your hands dirty. It's probably not a coincidence that countries that ban guns have lower murder rates.
An assault weapons ban is likely. There should be a closer compromise, with laws that restrict people from owning guns in urban or suburban areas, but that might be a stretch. For better or worse, there probably won't be any significant change in opinion towards gun control.
(A minor addition)
This isn't a debate about whether to regulate guns or treat mental health. Both steps should be taken, because both are necessary. American mental health treatment is, frankly, disappointing, and would enable cities to curb their unacceptable levels of homelessness. At the same time, though, mental health issues aren't always the root behind a problem. Sometimes people just suck at being people, so there's that too.
Also, the man who shot at two firefighters? He was an ex-convict who wasn't allowed to own firearms, and still obtained them. So more scrutiny on who exactly gets guns after they are purchased is probably going to be necessary too.
In response to Matthew's questioning of the second amendment, I would have to say that the right to bear arms and the right for everyone to have high powered weapons made for "mass murder" is a tricky comparison. Any type of gun, hand gun, rifle, shot gun, machine gun, can be equipped for mass murder so I don't think asking if the second amendment permits weapons of mass murder is appropriate. By nature the second amendment is allowing citizens to own weapons that could be used for mass murders, but how many citizens own guns and aren't mass murderers?
I agree that the NRA's movement to fight guns with guns is ridiculous. I also agree that there needs to be some kind of gun control. However, I am hesitant to support a complete ban of all guns. The second amendment clearly states a citizen's right to bear arms and over turning such an amendment would be monumental. I would hope for some kind of gun control that permits the right to bear arms but helps to eliminate public killings.
I will have to disagree with James on the fact that guns are "impersonal and easy". The spot in which a man shoots his victim has a lot of significance. Some areas of the body are less personal than other. Shots to the face or head are extremely personal. The variation in range can also be an indication of how personal the kill was. Shots a few feet away are more personal than those who sniper people from over 200ft away. The type of gun used to kill is also strategic. Because of their size, handguns are "easier" to handle, but generally shot in closer range than rifles, making them more personal.
I also disagree with the statement that by using any weapon other than a gun and you'll "have to get your hands dirty". There are other forms of murder which do not involve blood such as: strangling, poisoning, lynching, lethal injection, generally any type of injection, and forms of electrocution.
Post a Comment