In a Friday morning press conference, the National Rifle Association broke its weeklong silence following the horrific shooting of 26 people at a school in Newtown, CT, and called for a surge of gun-carrying "good guys" around American schools.
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre called for a new kind of American domestic security revolving around armed civilians, arguing that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
"We care about our president, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents," LaPierre said. "Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by Capitol Police officers. Yet, when it comes to our most beloved, innocent, and vulnerable members of the American family, our children, we as a society leave them every day utterly defenseless, and the monsters and the predators of the world know it, and exploit it."
Prince George's County police and the Montgomery County Police Department increased police presence in schools in the wake of the shootings, though police have no indication of a threat to any schools.
Earlier this year, Montgomery County officials, police and parents called for the fiscal 2013 operating budget to allow the county to increase police staffing in public schools.
In 2010, the county began to face budget pressure and the $2.6 million program was cut to nine officers. In 2011, it was cut again to six officers, leaving one per police district, and renamed the School Resource Officer program.
In Prince George's County Public Schools, each high school has two resident investigator/counselors, one school resource officer, and two or more security assistants. Regional investigators are assigned to middle and elementary schools, special centers and administrative offices by educational zone. At least one security assistant is assigned to each middle school.
LaPierre's speech was a call to supporters to mobilize around what he said was a new vision of American domestic security, at a time when voices for gun control are steadily rising.
On Friday morning before the press conference, President Obama released a video (above) citing a petition by hundreds of Americans calling for swift action for gun control.
At the grassroots level, groups like Newtown United, a group of Newtown neighbors, are working to address major issues related to the tragedy, including gun control, violent media, mental health and legislation.
In stark contrast, LaPierre called for a great mobilization of gun-carrying "good guys," a term he used repeatedly but did not define, who could be more present and respond more quickly than police.
"If we truly cherish our kids, more than our money, more than our celebrities, more than our sports stadiums, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible," LaPierre said. "And that security is only available with properly trained, armed 'good guys.'"
LaPierre, who was interrupted twice by protesters who held signs in front of TV cameras, made a direct call for local action.
"I call on every parent. I call on every teacher. I call on every school administrator, every law enforcement officer in this country, to join with us and help create a national schools shield safety program to protect our children with the only positive line of defense that’s tested and proven to work," he said.
In his speech, LaPierre also accused the media of selling "violence against its own people" through violent video games, music videos and "blood-soaked" films. He did not take questions from reporters, and did not acknowledge the protesters.
The NRA totally gets it - obviously, we should be mimicking Iraq and Somalia and have armed militias patrol schools. It makes it a way safe and stable environment, especially compared to that dumb European model. Those Euros are so dumb - don't they know more guns means they'd be safer?! It's so obvious and logical and based on fact and reason....or none of those things, but whatever. I'm sure completely uneducated people will think it's a great idea.
Of course, if the teachers were also armed, they could intervene right then and stop this misguided “armed volunteer” by firing off a few more rounds in the school hallway. And when the police arrived, well, they would need to figure out who are the good guys and who are the bad guys and may need to fire off a few rounds themselves to sort it all out. Yes, indeed, that is the safe school I want my kid to attend.
Where are you libs with your anti-war and peace sensibilities? WHY IS A GAME LIKE CALL OF DUTY - a war game that engages the user in a life-life WAR and DEATH simulation allowed to be sold, pretty freely, to kids as young as 9-10? How does this not affect us? Why are you protesting the NRA but not the Electronic Arts of the companies that profit by exposing young men to simulated violence in a lifelike setting? WHY?
I am sure that you have very good judgment and can safely own an assault rifle with large ammunition clips. I also have to believe that Mrs. Lanza, up in Connecticut felt that she had good judgment. And I concede to being at least somewhat heartless to confessing that I do not care that the error in her own assessment of her judgment contributed to her own demise. But I do care a lot that her error contributed to the demise of 26 additional lives – 20 of them, little children. So that even though you and I think that your judgment is sound, the possibility that we might be wrong is not worth to me the risk that your guns and ammunition could some day take innocent lives.
I understand why some would think placing armed guards in schools might be an answer, but has this even been really thought through enough? What if a student or staff member having mental issues gets a hold of that weapon? Not to mention the environment for those kids. I can just can't visualize an elementary aged child not being frightened just because of the presence of an armed guard? They would think, Why do we need an armed guard? Is it because we have something to fear? Is this environment conducive to a good education? I do wish however, that the media stop glorifying these incidents. It only gives incentive for the next one to kill more innocent victims. I don't have an issue per se with guns but do take issue with anyone really needing an assault weapon or clips that can hold countless rounds to kill more? Make it a little more difficult and inconvenient for those that want them. I'm not naive enough to think that if they really wanted one they could find one, but lets not make it so easy for them to do so.
1. On the upside, there would need to be serious training, on the use of arms (and, presumably less lethal weaponry) for the "good guys" that the NRA envisions. That would mean setting up schools, manufacturing plants for pistols, tasers, uniforms, etc. There would be employment opportunities for thousands of currently unemployed individuals (think about the numbers involved, including guards not only during school time, but after school, evening programs, etc.). Of course large schools, such as middle schools, High Schools, would require multiple guards. 2. The primary downside would be...co$t. The total cost would be well into the billion$, if not trillion$, annually. That would mean serious increase in, oh wait I know, TAXE$. There is always the possibility that the NRA would be willing to use its budget, including having Mr. LaPierre cutting his salary by maybe a million dollars, and raising dues for its members to cover the costs. Think that'll wash?