Saturday, July 28, 2012

NRA’s La Pierre has Blood on his Hands

Salon

For 21 years, LaPierre has been the executive VP and chief political strategist of the National Rifle Association. The blood of the victims of the Aurora, Colorado shooting is on his hands.

Of course, LaPierre didn’t pull the trigger, but he’s the NRA’s hit man when it comes to intimidating elected officials to oppose any kind of gun control and the nation’s most vocal advocate of gun owner rights.

The NRA not only lobbies on behalf of  “stand your ground” laws, but also offers insurance to members to pay for the legal costs of shooting people in “self-defense.”  

James Holmes, the man who walked into the Aurora movie theater, killed 12 people and wounded 58 others, is no doubt deranged. He’s not alone. There are lots of crazy people around. But if we make it easy for them to obtain guns, they are more likely to translate their psychological problems into dangerous and deadly anti-social behavior. 

LaPierre’s job (which he’s held for 21 years) is to make it easier for people to buy and use guns. And so far he’s been very successful.

It is no accident that the United States ranks first in the world — by a wide margin — in gun-related civilian deaths and injuries. Compared with every other democracy, we have the most guns and the weakest gun laws.
Wayne's no dummy. He knows the best way to mitigate the effect of an accusation like "blood on the hands," is to first and more frequently accuse his opponents of it.This is exactly what he's done.

How many times have we heard this from gun-rights fanatics?  How often have they attempted to silence us with the nonsense that we're "dancing in the blood" of the victims.

Mr. E. J. Dionne's Washington Post editorial of a few days ago described it best.

Nobody who points to the inadequacy of our flood-control policies or mistakes by the Army Corps of Engineers is accused of "exploiting" the victims of a deluge. Nobody who criticizes a botched response by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to a natural disaster is accused of "exploiting" the victims of a hurricane or a tornado. Nobody who lays part of the blame for an accident on insufficient regulation of, say, the airlines or coal mining is accused of "exploiting" the accident's victims. 

No, it's only where a gun massacre is concerned that an absolute and total gag rule is imposed on any thinking beyond the immediate circumstances of the catastrophe. God forbid that we question even a single tenet of the theology of firearms.

What's your opinion? Do you think La Pierre will be able to continue getting away with such flagrant trickery? Do you think the public might have had just about enough?

Please leave a comment.

11 comments:

  1. But hasn't Dog Gone demanded that gun owners have insurance?

    Since we're tossing "blood on the hands" accusations, I'll say that the theater is responsible, since they banned the carrying of firearms on the premises withtout providing adequate protection for the audience.

    See how easy it is?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Speaking of the power of the NRA, I'm looking forward to seeing this website's take on the Arms Trade Treaty being killed, thanks to opposition from said group and others and from the U.S. Senate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obama deserves the credit for that. He's really on your side.

      Delete
  3. I will argue that maniacs who use firearms kill considerably fewer people than possible with alternative methods. Had the @$$hole that shot up the theater in Colorado chained a couple doors and set a gasoline container on fire, he would have killed many more. Alternatively he could have driven a car into a crowd of people and killed many more. And there is no question that armed citizens have a chance of stopping an armed maniac once he starts whereas they have no chance of stopping a fireball or explosion once it starts.

    While the U.S. may lead the world in civilian deaths, that is not surprising since the U.S. has something like the 3rd largest population in the world. When you look at death rate per 100,000 citizens, the U.S. does not lead the world in civilian deaths.

    When you look at total firearm deaths -- including government murders of their own citizens -- the U.S. does not lead the world in total deaths, either.

    Most importantly, the U.S. also leads the world in liberty.

    No, I don't fault the NRA or Wayne LaPierre. Rather, we have too many deaths because of an imbalance of force. When almost no one is armed, criminals can do whatever they want. If easy gun availability and/or lots of guns are a problem, then explain why deaths at gun ranges -- especially deaths from criminal attack -- are virtually non-existent. Explain why deaths in states like Vermont with almost no gun control are virtually non-existent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And why Puerto Rico and South Africa, areas with the kind of gun control advocated by the authors of this blog, have homicide rates far higher than anywhere in the rest of the U.S.

      Delete
  4. Winning:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78991.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Texas Colt carryJuly 29, 2012 at 7:11 AM

    I will tell you that I an NOT a member or the NRA or any organization/lobby alike. NOT a member! Never have been or will be. That said I will tell you that my perspective may different or such organizations. A lobby is just that, the voice of the people that want things for themselves or something that the people want protected. To me, that lobby is no different than PETA, or the farm and ranch lobby and other such groups. They derive their power of political clout and finance from the people. If any lobby that goes in a direction that the people does not approve of then the people have a choice. Oppose said lobby or pull their funding support. Either way that lobby looses its power.

    That said, the NRA and others are a NGO, Non Governmental Organization, that represents the peoples voice. The NRA and others help protect the people from the government taking away guns. The NRA did not place the guns in the Aurora shooters hands and neither do they advocate that guns be placed in criminals hands or use guns for criminal purposes. That would be saying that the people that support these organizations advocate such illegal things. I can never see that.

    It would be saying that the drug companies support the illegal use of prescription drugs. Car makers support drunk driving. Bankers support out right theft.

    Protecting the right of the individual to obtain and own guns does not mean protecting the criminal to obtain them or using them for criminal purposes. Laws are already in place for forbidding certain people to obtain and posses a gun and criminal use of the gun up to and including in the U.S. constitution.


    The sole responsibility of the action of the Aurora shooter rests SOLELY on that individual alone. Not the NRA and like, not the parents or the professors of the college, his psychiatrist or anyone else.

    FRom what I have read about the Aurora shooter, his professors and psychiatrist had a indication that this would or could happen and should have warned the authorities. Like happened in Maryland.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I love that quote from Dionne. The time a tragedy happens, ANY tragedy, is THE correct time to question the policies that led to the tragedy happening and what can be done to change them. Not a week later. Not a month later. But as soon as possible. With no other sort of tragedy do the critics say, "Wait, let's let the memory of the tragedy pass in the public's eye before we act to stop the next one," except when a shooting happens, and only by the gun lobby and their lap dogs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, Dionne is wrong. Look at all the blame passed around after Hurricane Katrina. Look at the blame handed to the Army Corps of Engineers when flood season comes, and the river system can't hold the water.

      But short of barring guns altogether, what happened in Aurora could not be prevented. Let's say there's a law against "assault weapons," whatever those might be. He would have used just the handguns and shotgun. Let's say there's a magazine ban. He would have killed more people, if the reports are correct, since his hundred round magazine jammed. Let's say we require background checks--oh, right, we do already, and he passed them.

      So do tell us what laws would have prevented this. I'll tell you one that could have put a stop to it--a law that permits good citizens to carry a handgun anywhere in public. Are you ready to support that?

      Delete
    2. How about this. "May issue" applies even to gun ownership, not just concealed carry. Mental health screening is implemented as part of the licensing process.

      Don't you think some (many) of these wackos could be identified before they act?

      Delete
    3. Simple answer? No.

      Longer answer? This is why you'll never get us to sit down and compromise with you. Now you want may-issue licensing just to own a firearm. You also believe that psychology is a predictive science.

      Get back to us when you accept that rights are rights.

      Delete