Wayne LaPierre suggests fighting firearms with firearms

gun nut
Yesterday was one week since the tragedy at Sandy Hook. The nation observed a moment of silence Friday morning and about 90 minutes later The NRA made their long awaited statement. Wayne LaPierre said the “only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.” He made no excuses or concessions. His tone was defiant and he took no questions. He blamed everything including violent video games, movies and our culture, but he did not blame guns, and that’s the real tragedy. No one is advocating eliminating guns, but some guns should not be in your home unless you are an inhabitant of a war zone. Last week when the evil killer took his mom’s assault rifle and mowed down 20 innocent children and 6 heroic adults he turned that school into a war zone and there has to be an answer for this, and I might know the answer, but I do know more guns is not the answer.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • Bill  On December 22, 2012 at 9:46 pm

    “It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”

    ― Ronald Reagan

  • elogam  On December 24, 2012 at 6:27 am

    EM, you say LaPierre didn’t blame guns. Please tell me, how exactly is this the fault of “the gun”? We could discuss how banning a semi-auto weapon because it looks menacing is a waste of time, we could discuss how mental illness is the major problem, we could even discuss how criminals in prison have stated that if they know someone has a gun they won’t break in; they’ll go elsewhere. But none of that will lead to profitable discourse until you can explain how “THE GUN” is to blame. Because I’m not tracking with you on that. Automatic weapons are already illegal, and the NRA supports that ban. Let’s forgo “feel good” legislation and go with what works: permitting law abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals and making sure people with mental issues don’t have access to firearms that could hurt them or others.

    • Spanish Inquisitor  On December 24, 2012 at 4:11 pm

      Don’t fall into the trap of arguing semantics. Of course guns don’t get up and walk around and shoot themselves into peoples bodies.Of course you can’t blame an inanimate object and place human responsibility for the death it inflicts, without noting that it’s the person behind the gun, pulling the trigger that is responsible, and must be given ultimate blame.

      The argument is never that guns are to blame. That’s the way the NRA likes to re-frame the argument, so we get into these circular discussions, and then, as time passes and we get more frustrated with the lack of solutions, we simply give up. That’s the way it works with the NRA.

      Never, ever listen to the arguments from an organization that shills for gun and ammunition manufacturers. Don’t listen to someone who receives 30 billion dollars a year to say it. It’s a pointless exercise. You know what side of the bread their butter is on.

      It’s not guns, it’s people who use guns. But (and this is the but around which the whole discussion should focus) those people don’t pick up bricks, or baseball bats, or hammers, or feathers, or cars, or toothbrushes or…you get my drift. They pick up, by and large, in all instances, guns. And rarely do they use guns that the sportsman, or the homeowner trying to protect themselves, uses (although on occasion they do – we’re not trying to eliminate gun violence, just reduce it). No, they pick up a Bushmaster .223 AR semi-automatic (Newtown), or a Glock 9mm semiautomatic with a 30 round clip (Gabby Giffords) or a 9mm Intratec semiautomatic pistol (Columbine) or a .223 Smith and Wesson M&P semiautomatic with 6000 rounds of ammunition (Aurora), etc, etc.

      What we need to do is keep people who invariably are attracted to these guns, and shouldn’t have them, from getting their hands on them. To do so, you have to focus on the guns themselves, even though they are not to blame, per se, they are the tools that erratic, unstable people use. Sure, focus on all the other factors, if you want, like mental illness, and violent video games (incidentally, they have violent video games in other countries where this doesn’t happen), but right now, right here, we have the ability to do something what will not affect law abiding citizens, who should have the ability to hunt and protect themselves, one bit.

      So we have to talk about guns. Take the emotional (some might say, unhealthy) attachment to guns out of the discussion, and focus on the practicalities, and how the guns are actually affecting us. Stop talking about “slippery slopes” and how a little bit of regulation will ultimately lead to Big Brother forcibly taking your gun away from you (oh, boo hoo!) and start talking about the brains of children splattered on the floor.

      • elogam  On December 24, 2012 at 8:16 pm

        S.I., we are not too far apart on this. EM said the guns were the problem and I called her on that. I need evidence to back up assertions and in this case it just isn’t there. I think you and I agree GUNS are not the problem it is the sick people wielding them. Let’s say you pass “feel good” legislation to ban “weapons that look menacing”. The disturbed group we are talking about will reach for a less menacing-looking weapon with the same characteristics (magazine fed, semi automatic weapon) that hasn’t been banned. Or they’ll do a Tim Mcveigh and load some fertilizer and gas into a truck and drive into a nursery. Never underestimate the tenacity of the criminally determined. In a pinch, they could take a .22 pistol and go on a shooting spree and be just as effective, because a .22 round can kill just as effectively as a 9mm. Using a speed loader, someone can take a .38 revolver and put about 20 rounds out effectively in the same amount of time as someone with a .40 handgun. So now there are calls to ban THAT gun and THAT gun. You may call that “slippery slope” but I call that action and reaction. Slippery Slope implies a logical progression. Action and Reaction comes from knee jerk jumping from one “solution” to another in a haphazard fashion. The Left hates guns in general, I get that. In keeping with their mantra of “not letting a crisis go to waste” they will try to eliminate their favorite target, the so-called assault gun. No matter how rationally you try to discuss this, every single outspoken gun critic on the Left will harp on “The bodies of dead children!” to keep things on the emotional track, because if you lose sight of the emotional you may react rationally, not emotionally. “Feel good” legislation does not result from rational deliberation.

        The MAIN problem is a combination of the mental mindset of these people and their ability to access lethal weapons. Until we effectively address that, NOTHING will change.

  • sevesteen  On December 27, 2012 at 6:39 am

    Many feel that the real cause of most of these shootings is the media–If they didn’t report nearly endlessly on past mass murderers, the next one wouldn’t have near the incentive to go out in a blaze of glory. For the sake of dead children, the media must be controlled–the bill of rights isn’t a suicide pact. The government should license media, with minor restrictions on the details they may report–Not a ban on news, nobody is calling for that…merely common sense training and testing to prevent irresponsible people from spreading rumors, sedition and information likely to cause copycat crimes.


    I believe that the media are more to blame here than guns–but a free press is essential, as is the government obeying the constitution. (and to be clear, the parts of the above paragraph calling for a news ban are parody)

    Even if we could manage the near total ban on guns it would take to stop gun crimes like this, there are lots of other lethal weapons. Eventually some nutjob will find one that works, and the media will report on it in exacting detail so the next nutjob won’t have to start from scratch.

    You say that no one is advocating eliminating guns, but at least some the bans I’m seeing proposed are close to total–no semiautomatics, no 11 round magazines…basically nothing allowed if it was invented after the Spanish-American war.

    Something else to think about–almost all public mass shootings (all but 1 or 2, depending on specifics of the definition) in the US are where guns are specifically banned. While a nationwide ban might have some limited chance of success , banning guns in only some places merely makes those places attractive targets. I suspect a ban on handguns and concealed carry would eliminate this distinction–but not by reducing shootings, but rather by increasing the number of soft targets. Assuming that we could come up with a training and licensing regimen where carry license holders screwed up with guns no more than police–would it still make sense to ban them from schools?

%d bloggers like this: