NRA: There Should be Armed Officers in Every School

National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre calls on Congress to pass a law putting armed police officers in every school in America during a news conference at the Willard Hotel Dec. 21, 2012 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

In its first news conference since last Friday’s deadly mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school, the National Rifle Association said that schools should have armed police officers to deter the threat of violence.

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said Friday, according to the Washington Post. Congress, he said should act ”to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school in this nation.” 

LaPierre, who took no questions from reporters, said that schools are a target for gunmen because there are no armed security personnel, unlike other government institutions.

“Politicians pass laws for gun-free school zones, they issue press releases bragging about them … in doing so they tell every insane killer in America that schools are the safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk,” he added.

His speech was interrupted twice by protesters. One woman shouted: “The NRA has blood on its hands! … Ban assault weapons now!” She was escorted out of the room.

LaPierre focused his attention on the media’s coverage of the Connecticut mass shooting and similar incidents, saying they were partially to blame for the attack. He also blamed movies, video games, and music for the rise in America’s violent culture. 

“In a race to the bottom, many conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate, and offend every standard of civilized society, by bringing an even more toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty right into our homes,” LaPierre said, reported The Associated Press.

He asked: “How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame from a national media machine that rewards them?” according to NPR.

Before today’s press conference, the NRA had remained relatively silent, only issuing a short statement five days after the attack.

In the United States on Friday, church bells were rung 26 times in memorial the victims who died in the attack. Twenty of them were school children.

Over the week, President Obama indicated that the White House would pursue policies to strengthen gun control in the U.S., potentially supporting an assault weapons ban that will be introduced by Democratic lawmakers next month.

Nearly 200,000 people have signed a pro-gun control petition on the White House’s “We the People” website.

The Epoch Times publishes in 35 countries and in 20 languages. Subscribe to our e-newsletter.

• http://twitter.com/bengrinberg2 ben grinberg

  It’s all about the political bottom line. The NRA has valid points and so do the anti-gun people. No one dares to look at themselves or compromise because they’re not in it for the greater good, they’re in it for their own agendas. The NRA could, for instance, support legislation to mandate background checks at any point of sale of a firearm, as opposed to excluding gun-shows where a lot of people buy their guns without having to do a background check. The NRA, could support efforts to include mental health data in such a background check. This would comply with the idea of responsible citizens having the right to owning firearms. But the NRA (from my understanding) fights just about any restriction on guns tooth-and-nail. Is it any wonder that liberal groups then see the NRA as complicit in the nation’s gun-violence? Some liberal groups, on the other hand, refuse to accept that a large portion of the nation sees the idea of owning a firearm as a personal right, despite the inarguable pitfall of the wrong people getting their hands on them. Maybe even all the more so. Instead of recognizing these people’s point of view, they refuse to concede any respect for the principle of the second amendment, at least that’s the impression some of the left-wing groups give. So then instead of compromising on points that are, at least acceptable, better background checks, not dismissing the second amendment outright, etc., each is invested solely in the supremacy of the totality of their agenda or worldview. Maybe one side is actually 100% right. But without compromise, it won’t do anyone any good. Even if there is no sound logic for people to own guns, millions of people believe there is. Unless they can feel that their point of view is respected, it will be difficult to convince them to step back from some of their freedoms. And the same with showing respect for those who fear private ownership of guns, whether or not it’s a justified fear. It’s not (only) about being right. It’s about doing things that benefit ourselves and others. By simply insisting on being right, each side casts an image of itself as being extremist and dangerous to the other side, creating even more extreme views and unwillingness to recognize the other side’s views. Like a life-and death struggle. It’s not. People aren’t all that different. Now bring in lobbyists, talking-heads, various “non-profit” organizations’ fund-raisers and (well-paid) leaders, politicians, etc., who are rewarded very handsomely in either monetary or political capital for getting people stirred up and inflexibly fervent about something, and while it may be to the benefit of the nation to compromise, it may not be to the economic or political benefit of many “decision-makers”. So it really is up to the people themselves to change their attitudes. Our nation’s leaders will only reflect the nation, they won’t, in general, be themselves the change that needs to happen. Apply this too any conflict. The war on drugs, the war on terror. The Arab-Israeli conflict. Every conflict simply reflects the morality or lack thereof of those affected. The more intractable a conflict, the more compromised the morality of those involved. In a general sense, of course. Not all things being equal. Each person being judged within the sphere of his or her own available recourses.

• http://www.facebook.com/russianfrederick Frederick Russian

  The Second Amendment, that reads, ” A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed “.[ The first ten Amendments [Bill of Rights] were ratified effective December 15,1791 ] At the time of this conceived necessary right I am under the impression that the Musket Mussel Loader was still the most advanced weapon for personal protection available. This loaded from the end of the barrel, gun powder, a packing wad then a steel ball ramrodded to the flint-lock trigger-controlled spark firing mechanism. The large caliber weapons of this era such as cannons were similar in operation. The Framers of the Amendments to the constitution could not possibly have had the insights of what 200 years into the future would bring about.

• http://twitter.com/bengrinberg2 ben grinberg

  good point. But no one can tell what they would say if they were alive today. That’s not the point. It doesn’t matter how outrageous other people’s views are. It’s that if we’re to live with them, we must try to understand their beliefs or root thereof. Neither political nor pugilistic gridlock is fun. No one likes drama. A good soldier I met said of his time in Iraq “War is fun.” It may be. But that’s not a good way to spend one’s life. And it may be that to have peace, in any context, the best thing is to lay down one’s own agenda and try to be as accommodating as possible while retaining integrity. And, realistically, I don’t think there’s another way to it. It actually feels pretty nice.