If I Were The NRA, This Is What I’d Say.
Like many Americans, I grew up with guns. My father was an avid hunter, and from a very young age he taught my older brother and myself the responsibility that comes with handling a weapon. Everything you did with the gun – from carrying it to cleaning it to firing it – was to be done safely. My dad (and later my brother) were members of the NRA. We got the magazine every month, and while there were a few articles about gun rights, most of it was about hunting, sport shooting, and safety. That was decades ago, though, and while I don’t know yet how the NRA has or will respond to the Colorado massacre, here is how I (in the spirit of the organization I once knew) would respond:
“Following the recent terrible events in Aurora, Colorado, the name of our organization has come up many times already. Some people wish to demonize us or assign blame, and some simply want to hear what we have to say about the tragedy. This, then, is what we have to say. We agree with the President and other commentators that now is not the time to politicize this incident. In fact there will never be a proper time to politicize such an unspeakable act. Now is also not the time to debate gun laws. This might seem surprising coming from an organization such as ours, but we feel that now is the time to mourn the dead, tend to the wounded, and reflect upon this terrible tragedy.
In time, the debate over gun laws will no doubt resume, and you can be certain that we will vigorously defend the rights of law-abiding American citizens to be safe and responsible gun owners. In the meantime, we hope that people will reflect upon what it means to be safe and responsible gun owners. Firearms should be used for hunting, sport shooting, as collectible items or decoration, and – as an absolute last resort – for self defense. Safe and responsible gun owners never point a firearm in the direction of another human being. Safe and responsible gun owners do not discharge firearms in such a way that endangers the safety of other citizens, especially in public places. No safe and responsible gun owner would use or allow their firearm to be used in the commission of even the smallest crime. Safe and responsible gun owners comply with laws and law enforcement, and should whenever possible advocate for the safe and responsible use of firearms by others.
When sufficient time has passed, and the debate over the role of guns in our society begins again, we will strive to advocate all the more emphatically for the safe, responsible, and lawful use of firearms by responsible, law-abiding citizens. We will redouble our efforts to teach gun safety, responsible handling of firearms, and the potential dangers that come with the ownership of a weapon. We will still defend the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but will also remind Americans that with the right to keep and bear arms comes a solemn responsibility to use them in a safe and legal manner.”
That is what I would say if I were the NRA. I doubt the official response from that organization will bear any resemblance to what I’ve written, but I can hope.
*The image is where the author grew up.
Share This
this post is by a first time writer at TMV. Thoughtful comments are welcomed. TMV long standing rules are no attacking writer or other commenters.
Thanks
Archangel/ dr.e
more and more and more, EJ’s article of a few days ago is coming to pass. We are following the same post-shooting script we always follow:
– initial shock
– promises to “not politicize”
– warm & fluffy memorial services, editorials, speeches, Presidential visits
– NRA lobbying kicks in (starting with trite press releases like this)
– people forget or grow disinterested
– gun laws become more liberal
– rinse & repeat
Maybe it’s time that we politicize the sh&t out of these events. Maybe then we’ll actually do something instead of just wishing it will all go away.
I am sick and tired of these incidents. Is anyone else? Or are we programmed to act like a Pavlov’s Ostrich and put our head in the sand every time a kid gets shot?
Attack? I would not attack a reasoned, logical argument such as this post. It is, actually, the primary reason why I support (at least to some extent) the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution in the first place.
Barky,
Having the discussions (imho) are good. Public airing of emotion / outrage / ideas are good. Making policy, though? Not so much. Emotional legislation is not an adult approach.
I am a parent. Not only that, but my kid was at one of the Batman premieres Thursday night. My shock and horror were vast, and my emotions are still running high.
But they were also running high after the Amish school shooting, and nothing under current discussion would have prevented that at all.
I still have not heard a good explanation of why private citizens need assault weapons with 100 shot clips? What limitations should be placed on the 2nd amendment right to bear arms? 50 caliber machine guns? Machine pistols like the MAC 10′s with big clips? RPG’s? Mortars?
What limits should be placed on “the right to bear arms”?
Thank you for posting at TMV, Mr. Mills. Your thoughts strike me as “moderate” in both tone and substance. I look forard to getting to know you better as I read more of your pieces going forward.
Excellent point, Jdledell. I think there is a line that both parties can draw… those gun enthusiasts and those that really believe the constitution revolves around the right to bear arms.
6000 rounds purchased off the internet.
AR15 rifle with a 100 round clip used (similar to an M16)
A glock
A shotgun
Three military personell. If anyone should be carrying a concealed weapons permit, it should be those three… yet, they are dead.
We have voted on this on emotion before… it was called the Brady Bill, after Reagan was almost assasinated.
60 Mass Shootings since Gifford.
It’s time we have a discussion about what it is that we hold so dear…
One thing I find interesting about this case is that, even with the regulations on who can purchase a gun being as stringent as possible, this young man would still have been able to purchase weaponry. By all reports, he was an excellent student, a bit shy, but not someone that people thought was “off” or headed down a spiral that would end in a bloody masacre. There is no regulation or waiting period that could or should be implemented that would have prevented this young man from getting weapons.
Save, of course, banning certain types of weapons, or firearms altogether. There’s definitely no reason that private citizens need semi-automatic assault rifles. In my mind, there are very few reasons that anyone would need guns at all, but I do understand that’s not a politically feasible possibility.
The reason that most anti gun spokesmen bring up the idea of passing new legislation right after a tragedy is that that is when the public’s fickle attention span is focused on the subject and most open to some kind of reform. As no sane politician would buck the NRA in this era, any reform would necessarily have to take place in the form of a referendum-which is why most anti gun activity is grass roots.
If Americans can focus on the fact that there are 30,000 gun deaths in this country every year and rationalize that no serious hunter is going to go into the woods with a semi-automatic and a 100 round magazine, it may be possible to enact some reasonable changes.
I’m still trying to understand how so many Americans believe their right to bear arms should have no restrictions and that those rights outweigh the demands of public safety. No civilized country has these statistics — are they run by tyrants???
“I’m still trying to understand how so many Americans believe their right to bear arms should have no restrictions and that those rights outweigh the demands of public safety. ”
The argument goes that the biggest threat to public safety is the government, and if the government has automatic weapons, so should the public. I, of course, strongly disagree, but that’s the argument I’ve been given from those who think that automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be available to us all.
@206Hunter. You wrote: “Three military personell. If anyone should be carrying a concealed weapons permit, it should be those three… yet, they are dead.”
review the rules of conduct for officers, enlisted military and reservists…. at their level for carrying loaded weapons on r and r/ free time, under any circumstances.
First off let me say thanks to TMV and Dr. E for posting this. It isn’t every day that an non-columnist gets to have a column, and the fact that this is the second time they’ve afforded me this opportunity is deeply appreciated.
Also thanks to everyone for the comments. Here’s a few replies to some of the good points made.
Barky: I’d counter that the reason we’re at an impasse on issues like this is because people instantly “politicize the sh&t” out of them. When something terrible happens, with few exceptions we retreat into our perspective political corners, and then come out swinging.
What I tried to accomplish with this piece is to imagine what it might be like if the NRA did something different. It is unrealistic to expect them to come out in favor of an across the board assault weapons ban, but if they’d give an inch…well again, one can hope.
jdledell:
Good questions. I’d like to corner Wayne LaPierre and see if he thinks grenades and mortars should be legal, since the 2nd Amendment broadly refers to “arms” and not just guns.
I think the way to frame the issue is that every right – including the right to keep and bear arms – is limited in some way. Even our most basic right is regulated and requires registration before you exercise it at the polls.
The question is not whether the right is inalienable, but rather what constitutes alienation. Is demanding gun registration any more onerous than requiring voter registration?
roro80:
I think what needs to change, in addition to reconsidering the laws, is the culture. A difficult task, to be sure, but it has been done before. Remember that a certain region of the country had to be dragged kicking and screaming into desegregation, drunk driving is rapidly becoming passe’, and just a few weeks ago a major television personality came out as gay and the collective response was “so what?”
Change can happen.
I think the NRA has a unique opportunity here.
They can be the politician crying “segregation now, segregation forever” as the tide rises against them, or they can be like the beer distributors, who attach “always enjoy responsibly” to every ad. They can dig in their heels, or get out in front of the issue for a change.
Sadly, I doubt very much this will happen, and the reason is two-fold. One is the current leadership of the NRA, and the other (as bluebelle alluded to) is their considerable political clout. They own literally half of our political system, and the other half dare not challenge them directly.
Yet I’m still looking for glimmers of hope.
Cjjack, I didn’t realize this was your article – super cool.
I agree that the culture of violence needs to change, but I also need to point out that changing the laws – forcing desegregation – was one of the major factors in the culture changing. Think about cigarettes. Dangerous, high death numbers, and culturally entrenched. It’s taken a long time, but the numbers are way down, and even smokers know they have huge potential to kill you and those around you. What if, in 30 years, the cultural narrative around guns were changed, through regulation, education, and taxation, from “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” to “guns kill people”. The numbers are there. Having a gun in your home greatly increases your chance of being wounded and/or dying. Countries where people cannot have guns have rates of violent death something like 27 times less than the US. This goes even for countries like Australia, where they have histories and cultures of violence in a similar vein to the US.
just some fyi realities in ref to conceal carry comments:
*** For readers unfamiliar, here (Colo) CC: Conceal carry license which requires extensive training, range testing, written exam, affirmation then by Sheriff of your county before issuance.
General rules are dead set against emotionality, bragging, swagger: Dont flash your weapon as ‘deterrent’ to anyone for any reason like you’re some kind of Wyatt Earp of the west. You’re not. Dont think a weapon is an adjunct to your peevishness, your anger, your rage. It isnt. A weapon is not proof of your toughness or manhood or womanhood. It’s a weapon of destruction that you by yourself in your own body do not have the power to equal. You are not ‘more important’ because you CC. You are not trained as a police officer, law enforcement, security officer, para military or military because you have CC only. You are a private citizen who has passed training for only this. If you misuse CC, your carrying will be vacated by the Sheriff of the county you live in, and likely in criminal charges from the State DA.
If you travel across state lines, you may be required to separate ammo from firearm and place one in glove box and other in trunk of car.(which effectively leaves a person with CC defenseless).
CC is illegal in certain states, and in certain environs and buildings and public spaces. Know the laws in each state.
ONLY pull your firearm in order to kill. It is not CSI, not COPS on TV, not used to deter, deflect. It is a killing weapon.
This is the way we were trained by NRA qualified personnel for CC. Just saying. You see braggadocio, you see swagger about CC; it’s likely that person is either not certified and blowing smoke, or else isnt conforming to the ethics and laws re CC to the letter, as well trained people are disciplined to do. Discipline is the keyword in CC.
Cjjack, you’re welcome. Keep them coming. The even-handed is welcome.
Re: the imagined NRA letter. Wrong. Now IS the time to talk about it. They’ve been cut wayyyy too much slack. The NRA is very much part of the problem when it comes to the culture of firearms violence we suffer from in this country. People need to stop being timid and milktoast when calling them to account for their record of advocating weapons no civlians needs to own.