Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times
WASHINGTON — After a weeklong silence, the National Rifle Association
announced Friday that it wants to arm security officers at every school
in the country. It pointed the finger at violent video games, the news
media and lax law enforcement — not guns — as culprits in the recent
rash of mass shootings.
Multimedia
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a
gun,” Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A. vice president, said at a media event
that was interrupted by protesters. One held up a banner saying, “N.R.A.
Killing Our Kids.”
The N.R.A.’s plan for countering school shootings, coming a week after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School
in Newtown, Conn., was met with widespread derision from school
administrators, law enforcement officials and politicians, with some
critics calling it “delusional” and “paranoid.” Gov. Chris Christie of
New Jersey, a Republican, said arming schools would not make them safer.
Even conservative politicians who had voiced support this week for
arming more school officers did not rush to embrace the N.R.A.’s plan.
Their reluctance was an indication of just how toxic the gun debate has
become after the Connecticut shootings, as gun control advocates push
for tougher restrictions.
Nationwide, at least 23,000 schools — about one-third of all public
schools — already had armed security on staff as of the most recent
data, for the 2009-10 school year, and a number of states and districts
that do not use them have begun discussing the idea in recent days.
Even so, the N. R. A’s focus on armed guards as its prime solution to
school shootings — and the group’s offer to help develop and carry out
such a program nationwide — rankled a number of lawmakers on Capitol
Hill.
“Anyone who thought the N.R.A. was going to come out today and make a
common-sense statement about meaningful reform and safety was kidding
themselves,” said Representative Mike Quigley, an Illinois Democrat, who
has called for new restrictions on assault rifles.
Mr. LaPierre struck a defiant tone on Friday, making clear that his
group was not eager to reach a conciliation. With the N.R.A. not making
any statements after last week’s shootings, both supporters and
opponents of greater gun control had been looking to its announcement
Friday as a sign of how the nation’s most influential gun lobby group
would respond and whether it would pledge to work with President Obama
and Congress in developing new gun control measures.
Mr. LaPierre offered no support for any of the proposals made in the
last week, like banning assault rifles or limiting high-capacity
ammunition, and N.R.A. leaders declined to answer questions. As
reporters shouted out to Mr. LaPierre and David Keene, the group’s
president, asking whether they planned to work with Mr. Obama, the men
walked off stage without answering.
Mr. LaPierre seemed to anticipate the negative reaction in an address that was often angry and combative.
“Now I can imagine the headlines — the shocking headlines you’ll print
tomorrow,” he told more than 150 journalists at a downtown hotel several
blocks from the White House.
“More guns, you’ll claim, are the N.R.A.’s answer to everything,” he
said. “Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in
society, much less in our schools. But since when did the gun
automatically become a bad word?”
Mr. LaPierre said his organization would finance and develop a program
called the National Model School Shield Program, to work with schools to
arm and train school guards, including retired police officers and
volunteers. The gun rights group named Asa Hutchinson, a former
Republican congressman from Arkansas and administrator of the Drug
Enforcement Agency, to lead a task force to develop the program.
Mr. LaPierre also said that before Congress moved to pass any new gun
restrictions, it should “act immediately to appropriate whatever is
necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this
nation” by the time students return from winter break in January.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com
No comments:
Post a Comment