Guns, Smoke and Mirrors
By Charles M. Blow, The New York Times
December 21, 2012
Seriously, what was the National Rifle Association performing on Friday? I thought it was going to be a press conference. It wasn’t. I really don’t know how to describe it. A soliloquy of propaganda? A carnival of canards? A herding of scapegoats?
Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.’s executive vice president, blamed gun violence in general, and mass shootings in schools in particular, on everything except for the proliferation of brutally efficient, high-capacity guns and his organization’s efforts to resist virtually any restriction on people’s access to those weapons.
It was an appalling display of deflection and deception. So much smoke and so many mirrors.
He blamed American culture, and the media, and video games and even natural disasters. But not a society saturated with guns that spray bullets the way that Super Soakers spray water and have made us the embarrassment of the developed world.
He blamed “every insane killer,” “monsters and the predators,” and “people that are so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can ever possibly comprehend them.” It is true that America has those types of people, but so do other countries. The difference here is that help can be too hard — and guns too easy — to come by.
The simple truth is that more guns equal more death.
An analysis this year from the Violence Policy Center found that “states with low gun ownership rates and strong gun laws have the lowest rates of gun death.” The report continued, “by contrast, states with weak gun laws and higher rates of gun ownership had far higher rates of firearm-related death.” According to the analysis, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut had the lowest per capita gun death rates. Each of those states had “strong gun laws and low gun ownership rates. On the other hand, “ranking first in the nation for gun death was Louisiana, followed by Wyoming, Alabama, Montana, and Mississippi.” Those states had “weak gun laws and higher rates of gun ownership.”
What’s more, deaths may be a misleading statistic that minimizes the true breadth of gun violence. Another report this year by the Violence Policy Center, using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that while gun deaths remained relatively flat from 2000 to 2008, the total number of people shot went up nearly 20 percent since 2001. Why the difference between rates of shootings and deaths? “Advances in emergency services — including the 911 system and establishment of trauma centers — as well as better surgical techniques,” the report said.
Just because more people aren’t dying doesn’t mean that more aren’t being shot. And the report points out that survivors’ injuries are “often chronic and disabling.”
LaPierre didn’t talk much about the broad societal implications of all this. Instead, he kept his “solutions” (if you want to call them that) to school safety. His big thought: Put armed guards in school. As LaPierre said: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
That seems to be quite an apocalyptic gun policy, especially since lax gun regulations pump an ever-increasing number of guns into our country, thereby increasing the chances that “bad guys” will get them.
How about taking the opposite approach and better regulating guns? How about not giving up on so many children that we label “bad boys” so that they grow up without hope or options and become “bad men?”
As the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association said in a joint statement on Thursday:
“Guns have no place in our schools. Period. We must do everything we can to reduce the possibility of any gunfire in schools, and concentrate on ways to keep all guns off school property and ensure the safety of children and school employees.”
The statement continued:
“But this is not just about guns. Long-term and sustainable school safety also requires a commitment to preventive measures. We must continue to do more to prevent bullying in our schools. And we must dramatically expand our investment in mental health services. Proper diagnosis can and often starts in our schools, yet we continue to cut funding for school counselors, school social workers, and school psychologists. States have cut at least $4.35 billion in public mental health spending from 2009 to 2012, according to the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors. It is well past time to reverse this trend and ensure that these services are available and accessible to those who need our support.”
It’s time to call out the N.R.A.’s sidewinding and get serious about new set of sensible gun regulations.
***
I invite you to join me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter, or e-mail me at .
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on December 22, 2012, on page A25 of the New York edition with the headline: Guns, Smoke and Mirrors.
ALLREADER PICKS NYT PICKS:
Comments Closed
Kenneth BergmanAshland, ORNYT Pick
President Obama said that he is committed to increasing the regulation of firearms in the U.S. But he's likely to be opposed by those in Congress, especially Republicans but also some Democrats, who are in thrall to the gun lobby and the NRA. I'm not optimistic that sensible national gun control legislation will be able to get through Congress next year. The NRA thinks the solution is to put armed guards in schools and, by implication, in other public places so that the good guys can shoot it out with the bad guys. That would further the NRA's goal of selling more firearms!
As Charles Blow points out, the statistics speak for themselves. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths and injuries; those with lax regulation have more gun casulties. What could be clearer? Also, compare the U.S. with other leading countries such as Canada or European nations that have stricter gun laws. As a result, fewer people own guns in those countries, and the number of gun-related fatalities is much smaller. About 30,000 people are killed by firearms each year in the U.S.; over half of them are apparent suicides. Just having a gun at one's disposal allows people to carry out rash acts that they would be less likely to do otherwise.
The other point that Blow makes is the sorry state of mental health facilities in this country. Many facilities have been closed; others have had their budgets cut. We're often not giving our mentally ill citizens proper care.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:23 a.m.RECOMMENDED80
Perrin LamSan FranciscoNYT Pick
The schools I went to were a city block square. The security guard, or Superman, would of course be able to travel at hyperspeed to each entry point, fence post, corner, gate and building during school hours instantaneously. Fortunately, being Superman, he wouldn't have to worry about the shooter firing armor-piercing bullets so readily available now, since bullets bounce off Superman. Wayne La Pierre lives in a fantasy world of superheroes. He has no understanding of the logistical impossibilities of mortal security guards and their lack of psychic abilities to pre-determine when, where and what weaponry a shooter comes with. In short, Wayne La Pierre demonstrates a total lack of an adult thought process in thinking through a problem and its solution to its logical conclusion. Did the presence of a security guard at a bank stop robberies or bystander deaths in the commission of a robbery? After all, a bank is a much smaller building than a school and most importantly, a bank has one entrance for the security guard to concentrate on...and that still didn't work, did it? Does Wayne La Pierre think that if he doesn't think about what he suggests for a solution, nobody else will and accept his proposal?
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:25 a.m.RECOMMENDED147
wysiwygUSANYT Pick
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
It seems to me that Mr. La Pierre's statement proves that he is actually living in the violent fantasy world of film and video games that he decries so loudly. Only on the screens at theater and computers do the "good guys" overcome the "bad guys" through force of assault weapons and evasion of socially approved "enforcers." Rather than place the blame on the guns themselves, he prefers to find the media, along with parents, unarmed teachers, and anyone not allied with his delusional thinking responsible for the daily carnage that occurs in this nation.
At a time of year when the darkness is overcome by a celebration of the light of love and sense of the brotherhood of man, Mr. LaPierre's words stand as a stark contrast and reminder that the dark forces of man's fear, suspicion, and personal insecurity remain the basis for the power that the NRA exerts.
It is time for us to recognize that it is indeed "guns that kill people" and not simply the "bad people" wielding them that is the overriding threat to our civilization. We must stop the sale of assault weapons immediately as an initial step to stopping the madness of a gun-crazy society. Then we can begin to place other much-needed restrictions on the sales of remaining guns to those who would only use them sanely, carefully, and appropriately.
If we truly want to stop this madness, then let's vote out anyone with an "A" rating from the NRA!
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:26 a.m.RECOMMENDED175
Rob ZBoylston, MANYT Pick
This is one of the most ineffective and ill-considered proposals in reaction to Newtown. Our schools should not become a wild-west, gun-toting, free for all. We have to consider why schools have become a locus for violence. Bullying is one factor. There are many others to be considered. However, this failed PR and shaky political ploy that blames everything on earth but the guns themselves should be summarily dismissed for what it is; The desperate voice of a failing lobbyist.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:27 a.m.RECOMMENDED96
East EndEast Hampton, NYNYT Pick
Wayne LaPierre is the poster boy for all the gun crazies. Really? Is this the man before whom all our elected representatives cower? This is the face of irreversible power? This is the character who should over-rule all common-sense approaches to the "well-regulated militia" called for by our founding fathers? Please.
After hearing him I would have to conclude that he is a bad guy with a gun. So, by his logic, the only way to stop him is for a good guy with a gun to get him. While the cynical side of my thoughts entertain the irony of Wayne LaPierre meeting his end with the same form of wanton carnage that he and his band of thugs would have all of us embrace as a way of life, the better angels of my nature can only pity him and the untold sorrow that his brand of universal gun play for all has already visited upon our woeful nation.
There comes a time when people reach their limit of tolerance for certain things. I believe that the massacre of children in Connecticut recently is that time for this nation to rise up and resolve itself to setting this right. We the people are more powerful than the delusional freaks running the gun lobby. We must make it our duty to cause politicians to quiver in their shoes more so than can the NRA. Our collective anger is the ammunition our members of Congress need more than bullets or the money of gun manufacturers.
The pen is mightier than the sword. And a tsunami of public opinion is mightier than the gun.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 5:28 a.m.RECOMMENDED166
Beverlee JobrackCenterburg, OhioNYT Pick
For those who think that an armed principal or guard at a school would have made a difference at Sandy Hook, just imagine the scene for a second. School morning in a safe school. Kids are settling in. The guard never has anything to do so he or she is talking to the office admins. If and when the shooting started, instead of brandishing a weapon, the guard's intention would have been just to find out what is happening. These events are not choreographed movies where everyone knows who the bad guys are and what their intention is. How could anyone have predicted that someone would break into an elementary school and kill first graders for no reason? No one was expecting an assault. Nor should they since it is incredibly rare. It's confusing. You wouldn't shoot first especially in a public place. The guard would have gone out to see what was going on and like the principal and school psychologist would have been shot, too. Then what would the answer be? More guards? More guns? No, the answer has to be limited access to assault weapons. It wouldn't have happened if these weapons weren't readily available to the shooter.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:57 a.m.RECOMMENDED109
JP HickeyWareham, MANYT Pick
LaPierre's comments don't even make logical sense. Where does it end? What sort of firepower would be required for armed guards at each school to ward off a modern terrorist arsenal? Why stop at the schools, why not hospitals, libraries, town halls, parks, beaches, churches and places of worship, malls, movie theaters, gyms, sport complexes, etc, wherever groups of people congregate whether organized or not. To suggest an armed response without examining its real causes and broader solutions would escalate the problem and not help solve it. What also of the collateral damage to be considered by LaPierre's proposal. I believe in second amendment rights, but not at the risk of creating a militaristic Gotham City.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.RECOMMENDED57
IshmaSaratoga Springs, NYNYT Pick
Let's see. As a teacher, when there might be a gun emergency situation in my school, I am supposed to gather my young students to safety, remain with them to calm them, find my gun (which has to be secured), leave my students, face down the crazy intruder, shoot to disable (I cannot imagine ever killing anyone, much less in school where there are children), all this while controlling an adrenaline crescendo? Insanity. Training in handling a gun? Don't want it. Oops, missed. Now I live the rest of my life having made a fatal mistake? I can't believe this is even a conversation.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.RECOMMENDED128
agarose2000LANYT Pick
If my child came to me as a father and told me that the only way to be a safer society is to mandate guns in school because "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" I would consider myself to have profoundly failed as a father, role model, and educator.
The fact that it comes from an adult leader of a powerful organization is far worse.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:50 a.m.RECOMMENDED114
thomas burkeclearwater, flNYT Pick
We had an armed, trained, school officer at Columbine high school named Neil Gardner. He took 4 shoots at one of the killers,Eric Harris, from his .45 hand gun and missed all 4 shots (this is described in detail on the internet). Yet over a dozen high school students lost their lives and a similar amount were shot, even with a 15 year deputy firing back. So the approach by NRA was a massive failure in this case and would likely not solve this horiffic problem in the future. Mr LaPierre`s solution was to completely ignore the issue of the easy availabilty of firearms -----rather amazing and disingenuous in my view.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.RECOMMENDED167
JimmyJDCNYT Pick
I think the NRA response was more politics than anything. The media has jumped on the anti-gun rant with a passion and it is to the point where they will let anyone speak about the issue on air even those that have no knowledge about the issue but just want a soap box to stand on. Nothing worse than unintelligent debate.
Dec. 22, 2012 at 8:55 a.m.RECOMMENDED19
Pete TBernardsvilleNYT Pick
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” Mr. LaPierre said.
If the bad guy has a semiautomatic AR-15, then the good guy needs one also.
With self-defense, you always want to be better armed than your assailant. That translates into having a Glock gun a few years ago.
But now, this means having a semiautomatic rifle, an AR-15. If the killer at Newtown was able to get and use one, then in the light of the right of self-defense, all law-abiding citizens should be able to get one.
This is the ante upping of gun self-defense. (Note, I'm not sure how this affects law enforcement, guards at schools, etc. Will they have to upgrade their weaponry?) I think it is be the unspoken logical reason why the NRA and its supporters favor not banning automatic and semiautomatic weapons.
As an aside, if you know your Supreme Court history on the Second Amendment, there was the case of United States v Miller in 1939. This case pertained to the 1934 National Firearms Act, which was a result of the public outcry over the 1929 Thompson submachine gun killings, the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre. The law banned "gangster" weapons. (Interestingly, I just read that they originally were going to include pistols and revolvers).