Wayne LaPierre appeared on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday.
Photograph: Rex Features
The head of the National Rifle Association said on Sunday "there weren't enough good guys with guns" to confront the gunman who killed 12 people at the Washington navy yard on Monday. Wayne LaPierre, theNRA's executive vice president, called for more armed guards and better security at military bases.
LaPierre's comments, in an interview with NBC's Meet the Press, echoed his response nine months ago to the Newtown school shooting, in which Adam Lanza killed 20 young children and six adults. Following Newtown, LaPierre's response was to call for an armed guard in every school, saying: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
On Sunday, LaPierre criticised what he said was a flawed security system that meant the navy yard had been "largely left unprotected". He also called for active duty personnel on military bases to be armed.
"There weren't enough good guys with guns," he said. "When the good guys with guns got there it stopped."
Old Wayne is conveniently overlooking the fact that Aaron Alexis WAS a good guy with as gun just like Loughner and Holmes and Lanza and almost all the mass shooters.
The last thing we need is more good guys with guns. In each of these cases we needed just one fewer.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Yes, yes. Nice manipulation to call a psychotic killer a "good guy with a gun" even while he's committing his massacre. You complain if you think people are twisting your definitions; well, you know good and well that LaPierre is talking about whether someone is a "good guy" or a "bad guy" based on their utilization of the gun at the time, not their status as a lawful owner. Once they start using the gun unlawfully, they're no longer a "good guy with a gun."
ReplyDeleteBut don't worry, I don't expect you to stop lying about LaPierre's meaning by twisting these situations.
What I DO wish you would do is use a tiny bit of common sense. Yes, there were armed police (MP's, NCIS, etc.) in their assigned areas and there were armed guards at the perimeter. The problem is that this creates a target like an egg--a hardened outside protecting a soft and vulnerable interior--in this case, an interior with a couple of solid particles at more or less known locations. As soon as the shooter smuggled his gun past security, he was free to do damage so long as he avoided areas where people were armed.
Laci and Jade made a lot of comments about how people with guns running around would have caused problems and might have gotten themselves shot. True. Most people can realize that, however, and would be smart enough to holster their weapon and show their hands clear if they were being evacuated.
In the mean time, imagine if the disgruntled youth had decided to shoot up the NCIS building--he might have gotten a few people, but would have been taken down quickly.
The idea behind allowing people to carry is to harden the interior of the base. You could post guards here and there inside the perimeter, or inside each building--this would be like the School resource officers we have seen in more public schools, and just like in the schools, they would make a difference sometimes, and sometimes they would not.
The other option is allowing these military members, or at least the officers, to be armed on base. If their building/position is attacked, they can respond immediately instead of fighting back with improvised weapons as DHS approved workplace safety videos recommend. If they're not in an affected area, then they can leave the weapon holstered, evacuate with everyone else, keep their hands up, and follow police commands.
You're the one who rejects my definition of hidden criminals. That leaves only two possibilities, law-abiding and criminal. You're the one who condones the demarcation line between the two at felony convictions or domestic violence in some places. That means Aaron was one of you lawful gun owners. Own it.
DeleteYes, I reject your term as a badly constructed misnomer. That is neither here nor there, however. As I said, yes, the guy legally owned his firearm. That does not make him a "good guy with a gun" in LaPierre's model, and it is dishonest for you to keep pretending that is what he meant.
DeleteAnd by the way: what do you have to say regarding the rest of my comment?
DeleteOh, I know La Pierre didn't mean that. Just like you, he conveniently opts out of his own definitions when it suits.
DeleteI didn't think much of the rest of your comment either. The idea that more guys with guns will help is asinine. The more guys with guns we have the more Loughners and Holmeses and Alexises and Nidals we have with even freer access to secure places. That's a brilliant idea.
Wow. Deep thoughts. Totally picked apart my comments. More guys with guns on the base will lead to more shootings, even if the additional guys with guns are on internal security teams in individual buildings. And there was nothing to discuss beyond that--no other suggestions that could be made or argued for.
DeleteAs for the coments about LaPierre and me, he uses different terms to mean different things--"law abiding citizen" and "good guy with a gun" have different meanings and are used in different contexts. As for me, where have I opted out of my own definitions when it suited me? Show me examples. If you show actual examples, I'll thank you and correct them. If you just keep saying, "You do SO!" then I'll thank you to stop making shit up.
Every single day I point out your lies and distortions. Now, what, you're gonna pretend that doesn't happen.
DeleteYou distort what I say and call me a liar. Unfortunately this has become an annoying daily occurrence that I suspect is aimed at driving me away since you keep ignoring the bulk of what I post here, distorting one point, and calling me a liar for expressing something I never expressed in the first place.
DeleteThat's bullshit but it contains an interesting piece of what makes you tick. If you decide to leave it'll be because I DROVE YOU AWAY. Way to take responsibility for your decisions and actions.
DeleteActually, that statement was made in the hopes that if that was your motive, you'd give it up. If I leave, it'll be because I got bored with coming back here, or I found some other outlet for my desire to discuss these issues.
DeleteAs for your claim of bullshit, you keep making charges, and except in the rare occasion where you have corrected an error on my part and I admit it, I show how they're distortions of my position or of what I've said.
The D.C. shooter was clearly not a good guy with a gun. You love the idea of law enforcement controlling what we may or may not own, but here, your favorite government agents dropped the ball repeatedly.
ReplyDeleteNo, you dropped the ball when you defended guys like Aaron who have never received a felony conviction and therefore have the right to buy and own guns. That's why I blame you.
DeleteAh, yes. Drawing a line somewhere and demanding due process to convict of something that reaches or passes that line is equivalent to purposefully arguing for this guy to have a gun, in spite of what he planned to do with it.
DeleteIt's just like how proponents of only finding people guilty if the case against them is proven beyond a reasonable doubt (what a fanatical idea) are disgusting people and are responsible for everything criminals do when they get off in spite of the preponderance of the evidence being against them.
I've said repeatedly that the shooter here gave law enforcement a number of opportunities to put him through due process and convict him, but those chances were missed again and again. Nothing that you propose is clever enough to catch people who will commit a crime in the future without also punishing a large number of people who won't.
DeleteGreg, are you saying you wouldn't pass the psyche test, or the eye exam? Would your local law enforcement people strip you of your guns because of things they know about you?
DeleteNo, of course not. You just keep pushing that bullshit that good guys would be punished but they wouldn't.
1. There are at least 100,000,000 gun owners in this country. Any psych test to cover that many would either be meaningless or would take so long that the government would have to hire lots more shrinks. This must be the long-promised jobs program.
Delete2. We must treat citizens without convictions and without adjudications as good people. That's the nature of our legal system.
Why would you say, "of course not"? Do you think if you give individuals this power it won't be abused? Maybe it won't be what they know about you, it will be what they don't know about you. Like you're not on their donors list. We see what happens with "may issue" permits. They are routinely denied even though the sheriff knows nothing bad about the applicant.
DeleteTS: "They are routinely denied even though the sheriff knows nothing bad about the applicant."
DeleteNow, how could you possibly know that?
Answer: you don't. You're just repeating bullshit you're read on the pro-gun blogs.
The bad guy with the gun, after killing his victims, turned the gun on himself and killed himself, becoming a good guy with a gun.
ReplyDelete