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.
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.
The idea of arming school security officers is not altogether new. Districts in cities including Albuquerque, Baltimore, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami and St. Louis have armed officers in schools, either through relationships with local police departments or by training and recruiting their own staff members.
The idea of arming school security officers is not altogether new. Districts in cities including Albuquerque, Baltimore, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami and St. Louis have armed officers in schools, either through relationships with local police departments or by training and recruiting their own staff members.
A federal program dating back to the Clinton administration also uses
armed police officers in school districts to bolster security, and Mr.
LaPierre himself talked about beefing up the number of armed officers on
campuses after the deadly shootings in 2007 at Virginia Tech.
But what the N.R.A. proposed would expand the use of armed officers
nationwide and make greater use of not just police officers, but armed
volunteers — including retired police officers and reservists — to
patrol school grounds. The organization offered no estimates of the
cost.
Mr. LaPierre said that if armed security officers had been used at the
Newtown school, “26 innocent lives might have been spared that day.”
The N.R.A. news conference was an unusual Washington event both in tone
and substance, as Mr. LaPierre avoided the hedged, carefully calibrated
language that political figures usually prefer, and instead let loose
with a torrid attack on the N.R.A.’s accusers.
He blasted what he called “the political class here in Washington” for
pursuing new gun control measures while failing, in his view, to
adequately prosecute violations of existing gun laws, finance law
enforcement programs or develop a national registry of mentally ill
people who might prove to be “the next Adam Lanza,” the gunman in
Newtown.
Mr. LaPierre also complained that the news media had unfairly “demonized
gun owners.” And he called the makers of violent video games “a
callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and sows
violence against its own people,” as he showed a video of an online
cartoon game called “Kindergarten Killer.”
While some superintendents and parents interviewed after the N.R.A.’s
briefing said they might support an increased police presence on school
campuses as part of a broader safety strategy, many educators,
politicians, and crime experts described it as foolhardy and potentially
dangerous. Law enforcement officials said putting armed officers in the
nation’s 99,000 schools was unrealistic because of the enormous cost
and manpower needed.
At a news conference Friday, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California
Democrat who is leading an effort to reinstitute a ban on assault
rifles, read from a police report on the 1999 shootings at Columbine
High School in Colorado, which detailed an armed officer’s unsuccessful
attempts to disarm one of the gunmen. “There were two armed law
enforcement officers at that campus, and you see what happened — 15
dead,” Ms. Feinstein said.
Ernest Logan, president of the Council of School Supervisors and
Administrators, called the N.R.A.’s plan “unbelievable and cynical.”
He said placing armed guards within schools would “expose our children
to far greater risk from gun violence than the very small risk they now
face.”Officials in some districts that use armed security officers
stressed that it was only part of a broader strategy aimed at reducing
the risk of violence.
But Ben Kiser, superintendent of schools in Gloucester County, Va.,
where the district already has four police officers assigned to patrol
schools, said it was just as important to provide mental health services
to help struggling children and families.
“What I’m afraid of,” said Mr. Kiser, who is also president of the
Virginia Association of School Superintendents, “is that we’re often
quick to find that one perceived panacea and that’s where we spend our
focus.”
In Newtown, Conn., the N.R.A.’s call for arming school guards generated
considerable debate among parents and residents on Friday — much of it
negative. Suzy DeYoung, a parenting coach who has one child in the local
school system, said she thought many parents in town and around the
country would object to bringing more guns onto school campuses.
“I think people are smarter than that,” she said.
source: nytimes.com
No comments:
Post a Comment