As is often the case with ideologues on the defensive, Wayne LaPierre's defense of Second Amendment rights was full of self-righteous moralizing about the "real" causes of gun violence. More important than his attempt to shift the conversation away from high-powered assault weapons, however, was the much-publicized proposal for placing armed guards in every school.
The notion that an armed society is a safe society, that the best way to handle a "bad guy with a gun" is with a "good guy with a gun," defines the essence of what the NRA is about. Reflecting on this idea as it would play out in a real-world mass shooting exposes it as more than just a risky social experiment. It is in a very real sense sick, twisted, and delusional.
Columbine High School had an armed guard, who failed to stop Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold from murdering 12 of their fellow students in 1999. In a situation such as played out last month in Newtown, Conn., a quick and effective response by the good guys would be very unlikely. People would have died before the shooter was disabled—and that's assuming guards or gun-toting teachers could have succeed in taking down a well-armed gunman possessing the element of surprise and ample time to plan an assault.
Arming school employees would not dissuade determined sociopathic, suicidal or mentally ill persons from planning and carrying out a massacre. Knowing what they would face, such individuals could take steps to safeguard themselves with bullet-proof vests, accomplices, hostages or shields. They likely would expect to die—but not before getting a number of rounds off, going out in a "blaze of glory." They might even relish the fight, looking forward to a Call of Duty-style shootout as innocent victims are caught in the crossfire.
To even be discussing this is sheer insanity. Essentially, LaPierre is arguing that Americans' right to buy assault weapons without restrictions is worth the lives of a few kids every now and then, or a few moviegoers, or a few citizens assembled to meet their member of Congress, or a few bystanders at a mall.
Banning firearms outright would not succeed in disarming criminals any more than drug prohibition tamps down the drug trade. But, as with alcohol and tobacco, reasonable restrictions are in order. LaPierre's "solution" is a desperation move, a distraction, a red herring that firearm fundamentalists can run—or at least shield themselves—with.
For a voice of sanity, read former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell's recent op-ed piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer. We may never change the NRA, but we can insist they stop bullying lawmakers into doing nothing about a problem for which they have no solution.
