The NRA unveiled their sleazy PR strategy of using school shooting death to stop any potential gun control legislation this morning on both ABC and CNN.
The NRA’s Asa Hutchinson went on both ABC’s This Week and CNN’s State of the Union to try to narrow the debate about gun control by turning into a discussion about school safety.
Video of Hutchinson on CNN’s State of the Union:
Transcript of Hutchinson on ABC’s This Week:
STEPHANOPOULOS: You say it should be part of the solution. I guess one of the questions, should it be a complement to other efforts or a substitute for other efforts? Even strong NRA supporters, like Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, have argued that everything should be on the table. He has got a big piece in the Washington Post today. I want to read part of it. He says, “if you think the problem of mass violence in our country is about just guns, you’re wrong. If you think it’s about just an entertainment industry that markets violence to kids, you’re wrong. If you think it’s just about insufficient security in our schools, you’re wrong. If you think it’s just about the lack of mental health services for troubled young people and adults, you’re wrong. We need to address all of them.”
Is Senator Manchin right?
HUTCHINSON: Well, I think you need to have a broader debate. Part of that debate that I’m focused on is the safety in the schools, but absolutely, you have a mental health issue and component to this.
I would make the point when it comes to more restrictions on firearms in our society, that if we go down that path, we’re going to miss the focal point of providing safety. I think that is really the wrong debate to have. We’ve had an assault weapon ban previous in our history. You had school violence continue. It’s not restricted to weapons. You think of Timothy McVeigh, he used fertilizer to conduct his mayhem. So I would rather focus on the safety side, what can we do to better secure and protect our children at school.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But then are you saying that the gun control debate shouldn’t be part of this at all?
HUTCHINSON: Well, it’s — sure, I mean, Congress is going to debate this. I just think it’s not part of the ultimate solution on this.
When you think about bringing together nationwide experts to provide some solutions for the schools, that really is what I think is most important. Right now you’ve got states introducing laws that would mandate teachers to carry guns. You’re having a whole potpourri of solutions, and I think if we get our experts together that could provide some things, that’s a better direction to go that’s thoughtful, that provides some solutions in terms of safety.
What is not being talked about are the sleazy motives behind the NRA’s public relations push back. The NRA is trying to narrow the policy discussion. They don’t want the country to think about the broader role of the gun culture in our society. They are ridiculously suggesting that part of the problem isn’t easy access to weapons. It’s school safety. They are trying pull at the nation’s heartstrings by talking about the safety of school children.
It is all a giant smokescreen designed to get America to talk about anything other than the role of guns in our society. The NRA doesn’t want us to talk about how easy access to guns could possibly play a part in the culture of violence that plagues our society.
This isn’t about protecting Second Amendment rights. It’s all about protecting profits for gun manufactures, and these sleazy individuals will sink to any low to protect their profits.
Nothing is off limits for the NRA, including using the victims of school shootings to carry out their agenda.
PoliticusUSA
G+
Facebook
Anne
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Following the Connecticut, massacre, the NRA has made it abundantly clear that their priority is the profit from gun sales and not sensible gun control. I thought that no one could stoop any lower than Wayne LaPierre with his arrogant speech touting a “solution” that would cause infinitely more problems than it could solve. But this is a new low, even for them. It’s painfully obvious that they have nothing of value to contribute to a serious and necessary discussion about finding ways to prevent and greatly reduce gun-related violence.
loading...
old guy
Dec. 24th, 2012 at 7:53 am
per John Horgan’s 12/21 blog on the Scientific American website titled: More Guns Have Not Produced More Killings, But We Still Need Gun Control
“The number of guns in the U.S. surged from
192 million in 1994 to 310 million in 2009.
That includes 114 million handguns, 110
million rifles and 86 million shotguns. There
are now about as many firearms in the U.S. as
people. These stats have been widely reported. What has not been so widely reported is that
the number of firearm-related homicides fell from 17,073 in 1993 to 9,903 in 2011 (up
slightly from 9,812 in 2010). Per capita, the gun-related murder rate has dropped by more
than 50 percent over the past two decades.”
As the above data make clear, if the issue is gun violence, it’s not at all plain that gun control is either needed or would work.
If the issue is school safety Anne, please tell me exactly how having armed police at a school “would cause infinitely more problems than it could solve”? Usually gun control advocates say that we don’t need guns because we have the police. Is that your position too? If so, how could it be good for us to rely on the police for our own safety, but not let them protect our kids ???
No, I don’t belong to the NRA & I don’t own shares of any gun company, so I don’t care about their profits, and few of the gun owners I know do either either.
I’m hoping that you or others will reply with something “of value to contribute to a serious and necessary discussion” of the topics at hand.
loading...
Anne
Dec. 24th, 2012 at 10:59 am
Their solution to everything is “more guns.” Besides, while Bill Clinton was president, he had a program called COPS in place that addressed precisely what you are talking about. A conversation of value about this subject would address a number of subjects, including extensive background checks for prospective gun owners. An effective background check would focus not only on criminal records but also one’s mental stability. There are also gun owners whom I would call criminally negligent, since their carelessness has resulted in needless deaths, especially those of children. The mother of the shooter in Connecticut was especially negligent in having lots of guns and not securing them. She knew her son had serious problems and was apparently in denial. For that, she paid with her life, and so did more than 2 dozen others, mostly children. Simply saying “more guns” doesn’t cut it–not to mention the fact that the NRA leadership has been effective in blocking common sense gun control legislation.
loading...
old guy
Dec. 24th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Anne,
Sorry, I’m not sure what you have in mind as “common sense gun control legislation,” since it sounds like you agree with the NRA on a great deal.
The NRA doesnt have a cow about background checks and the guy they had on one of the network news shows with David Gregory complained that there were a number of states that still were not reporting their psych cases to whatever data base it is that does the checks.
And if she were still alive, Lanza’s mom WOULD quite rightly be arrested in many states (maybe all, I’m not a legal scholar but do know about a few states) for precisely the reasons you lay out.
The NRA apologists I’ve heard over the past few years have said we need to implement and enforce the laws we have rather than pass new ones and that sounds like what youre saying too. What am I missing? other than that you obviously don’t like the NRA.
loading...
Reynardine
Dec. 24th, 2012 at 12:25 pm
For a policeman’s account of this issue, please refer to my comment under the article, “The Idea that an Armed Good Guy…”.
loading...
KatzKids
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 12:27 pm
They’re after not only increased assault weapon money flying into their coffers, they are also claiming to have the premiere gun safety training in the US. Just think how much a government contract to do that training would bring in. They’re licking their lips & rubbing their hands together in delight at the thought.
Sleazy, despicable, anti-American, fascist slimeballs.
loading...
harris stein
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 12:32 pm
There are 3 reasons for someone to own a gun.
1. Hunting
2. Sport and competition shooting
3. Self defense
Applying this logic would mean that someone would want or need only 3 guns. But that isn’t how it is in the real world. But, how many guns would a serious sportsman need. Ten? Twenty? Thirty? With 300 million guns and a population of 300 million plus the US has almost 1 gun for every person. Only 47% are gun owners. Where are all the guns? Legitimate collectors of rare and antique firearms might own hundreds.
The gun manufacturers and their lobbyists in the nra have created, by using fear, a desire among a segment of the population to own more and more guns. A legitimate hunter needs guns. How many? Two or three shotguns, 2 or 3 rifles, a long barrel revolver maybe. Competition shooting is similar. Self defense needs are even less.
The gun manufacturers and the nra have created an atmosphere of fear that is so thick it can be cut with a knife. That is what is driving many gun owners to buy more and more modern firearms until they are all over the house for anyone to pick up. All this while the gun lobby fights laws to mandate safe keeping if children are in the house. All this while the trolls at the extreme right of the political spectrum say they need the same weapons the military has so they can defend their freedom. Freedom from what? The black commie president? He isn’t the one who is going to come for your guns. It will be the unfettered, unregulated, free marketeers (Koch brothers and their ilk) who want to enslave the hoi poloi in their dystopian vision of a capitalist paradise.
loading...
RX7
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Very spot on, sir. The culture of fear is widely explored in the documentary Bowling for Columbine. And it’s sad that the NRA still hasn’t changed since the film’s release.
loading...
Jim Wetherell
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 5:09 pm
Harris , ty for your article and I get the point you are trying to make but your lack of knowledge is apparent. For a serious hunter who hunts all game on earth, he has a need of at least 5 different guns, minimum. Competition shooting could have at least 5 guns depending on how many different types of competition. Self defense also is multiple gun, what I carry concealed is different from what I have in my car to car defense and different for what I have for house defense. ( My main defense at home is 4 Great Pyrenese dogs that are in the house at night.)
My purpose here is to give you more info. If you would like more details, I would be happy to fill this out.
thank You
Jim
loading...
harris stein
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 7:57 pm
Your condescending attitude is not appreciated. If you would like to have a meaningful discussion without your condescending attitude, I am open to that.
loading...
Debra Vermaas
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 12:51 pm
What the NRA doesn’t get is since the Newtown shooting, the gun control genie is totally out of the bottle, and it’s not going back in any time soon. There are 300 million of us, and ony 4 million of them.
Gun control might not happen right away, but Wayne LaPierre’s days of keeping the narrative on his side are over. Americans are outraged. It’s about damn time.
loading...
RonK
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Unfortunately, those 4 million members pay dues that the NRA uses to buy and intimidate legislators, local, state, federal.. and once elected, those legislators could care less about their so-called constituents. Hell, they just voted to kick 300K kids off food stamps to pay for millionaire’s tax cuts.
loading...
robyn ryan
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Sounds like the NRA is big Obamacare supporter.
If America needs a more robust mental health system, the NRA needs to tell its hired help (Congress) to fund single payer, universal access to healthcare.
We can fund it with taxes on non-sporting ammo and stock transactions.
loading...
RX7
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Those NRA kooks will feel right at home in the Old West. But they have no right to drag the whole US population along.
loading...
Sabyen91
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 5:29 pm
They usually had to check their guns with the Sheriff before entering a town in the old west. They had better gun control back then.
loading...
harris stein
Dec. 24th, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Excellent point. That’s because in the western US of 100-150 years ago most of the people coming through town were cattle drivers who carried guns to protect the herds from predators and rustlers and would not need firearms when coming to town for rest and recreation.
loading...
Sharin Khosa
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 12:55 pm
When is the world going to take the gun/weapons manufacturing industry to task? They are the sponsors to NRA etc…Any profit from the sale of gun/weapons is blood money. When is the world going to wake-up and realise since WW1 weapons manufacturing industry has been a major agitator for world conflict, ie, to begin and prolong conflict to ensure continuous profit. When are we going to become citizens of the world and stand up and say enough killing, enough blood has been spilled and enough profit made from killing and murdering human beings, enough is enough.
loading...
Paws
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 12:55 pm
The NRA exists to make money and to help the gun industry make money and the only way they can do that is to make it as easy as possible for a person to buy any kind of weapon and ammunition that person wants. It will do what it can to defend and deflect; it will say that banning guns is a violation of the 2nd Amendment and it will convince gun owners that any kind of gun control debate is just a disguise for the government to come and get all their weapons. The NRA knows this is not true but again, if it can make people THINK that’s what will happen, then gun owners will not support any kind of gun control legislation. They won’t support the banning of assault weapons or any reasonable legislation that might at least stop *some* of the violence because they get on a slippery slope and say if the government bans a certain type of weapon, then that means they’re on their way to banning all weapons. None of that is true. The NRA is also very good about making people so afraid that they feel they must have a personal arsenal under their beds just so they can sleep at night.
So they make them afraid of their government, afraid of monsters – hell, half these people are probably afraid of their own shadow – and then they convince people that the only way they stand a chance, is with a stockpile of weapons.
It’s what the NRA is good at. In fact, they are deadly good at it and they will not change.
WE, however, can change…and we can make the NRA irrelevant.
loading...
Grung_e_Gene
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 1:32 pm
The NRA, The Publicists for the Merchants of Death will use everything and anything to ensure their Masters, the Gun Makers have a free and unregulated Market to flood with their Weapons of Mass Murder.
loading...
luciboo
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 1:34 pm
We need to keep the horror of Sandy Hook alive and keep the pressure on. We can’ t just turn away and let the NRA win.
If we don’t demand change this time I am afraid we never will.
loading...
Reynardine
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 2:16 pm
It isn’t just about profits from guns. I think they are arming Mean White People, aka Ril uhMericuhns, to get behind an insurrection against eevil libruls, godless atheists, uppity, baby-killing wimmins, and the Black Man in the White House that is actually not in their own interest. It helps them when everyone is terrified. Gahd love dead children, you know. Why not more incidents like this?
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 3:35 pm
I am really getting tired of this mental health issue. Mental patients as a whole are far less likely to commit mass murders than a normal person. The real problem here is people who are unstable who cannot deal with their problems and use a gun to solve the problems. I was a problem solved? I’m glad you asked. It’s all because they know they are going to kill themselves when they are done. And as they are going to kill themselves they can’t do it without taking a few other people with them.
So let’s work on a culture of solving, and helping young people solve the problems that young people have, not mental health. That’s nothing more than a strawman as far as I’m concerned
The government and the NRA are determined to lead us away from the real problem. We certainly have a lack of mental health help in this country overall, but that doesn’t mean that it increases the likelihood of murder
loading...
46A9MA
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 7:36 pm
Lots of mentally impaired people are harmless individuals who can’t even hurt a fly. Can children with Down Syndrome or autism be classified as such too?
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Not sure if they can. I look at people like the shooter as people with deeper seated problems who can still function when required to. I think he was incapable of solving his internal stress’s and chose what he was most familiar with. A gun
loading...
Reynardine
Dec. 24th, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Several forensic psychiatrists have ventured that, because of Lanza’s youth, the onset symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia were misdiagnosed as those of Asperger’s Syndrome, potentially a fatal mistake, especially when the patient’s mother had a few paranoid delusions of her own, with which she was priming her son. I’m inclined to concur. If it’s true that he shot each victim repeatedly in the face, it’s likely he was seeing another face superimposed on each of them- likely the same face every time, which he could not obliterate because the image was coming from inside his own mind.
loading...
Anne
Dec. 24th, 2012 at 11:48 am
There are different degrees and types of mental illness. Many are harmless to themselves and others, while there are others who harm only themselves. But there can be no denying that there are those who are a danger to themselves and others. Addressing mental health issues as well as the use of common sense among gun owners in locking up their weapons would not eliminate all gun-related deaths, but would go a long way toward cutting down on so many needless deaths.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 24th, 2012 at 11:55 am
True, beucase the largest number of gun deaths are suicides
But the media and representatives have went all out on Mental illness and trying to put the other white meat, the gun, back in the closet
loading...
Anne
Dec. 24th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
I agree, because they are contributing to the continued stigmatization of mental illness that keeps so many affected in this way from getting the help they need. Attempting to put guns back in the closet is the very last thing we need, in addition to making mentally ill folks afraid to get help.
loading...
Bruce
Dec. 23rd, 2012 at 3:42 pm
For me, it’s pretty simple now. Screw the NRA and the Gun Owners Assoc. I’m sick of the slaughter that goes on every day in this country. They consider the slaughter of 20 children in Newtown as nothing more than “collateral damage…too bad for them. They got in the way of the 2nd amendment”. SCREW THE NRA! IT’S TIME FOR SOME MEANINGFUL, EFFECTIVE LEGISLATION BY CONGRESSMEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE NOT OWNED AND BRIBED BY THE NRA!!!
loading...
old guy
Dec. 24th, 2012 at 7:30 am
Wow! All the venomous comments about the NRA and gun owners make me glad that none of YOU own guns. Your anger has plainly so clouded your minds that you can’t even do simple arithmetic! 300mm guns or about 1/person but only half(47%) own guns so that means the average gun owner owns two and is not out buying more and more guns to stock an arsenal.
For what claims to be a liberal website, comments sure display a lot of prejudice & bigotry against those who may have a different perspective on some issues. Venting your spleen may feel good, but hardly contributes to an intelligent discussion, esp. when many posts display an appalling ignorance of the facts.(see my reply to Anne above)
No I don’t own a gun and am not a member of the NRA, but reading the irrationally phobic comments of so many posted here, and hearing all the anti-gun demagoguery from so many politicians makes me wonder if I should reconsider on both matters.
loading...
harris stein
Dec. 24th, 2012 at 11:27 am
What? I’m sorry to tell you but I own 12 guns if I count my black powder rifle. I fact I just recently purchased a Thompson Center Contender. For the uninitiated like you, it is a single shot pistol used for competition and hunting. I also own a Ruger Mini-14. For the uninitiated like you, it is a semi automatic rifle in 223 Remington. Not unlike the AR-15 used by Adam Lanza.
I believe that the government should do all it can to get guns out of the hands of people who don’t respect guns and who would use them for nefarious purposes. That doesn’t mean I believe the government should ride roughshod over our rights.
I believe that in homes where children under the age of 18 are present guns should be kept locked up. All of them, all the time except when removed for educational purposes and legitimate use. For self defense there are one gun safes available for parents who want the knowledge that a firearm is readily available. The nra is fighting this tooth and nail. Why?
It doesn’t sound like the saying, “a little older and a little wiser,” applies to you old guy.
loading...
Anne
Dec. 24th, 2012 at 11:41 am
More gun owners like you need to speak out loudly and clearly. It’s quite obvious that you get it, and that you also appreciate the need for greater gun safety. Parents, teachers, politicians, and gun owners, among others, need to be part of this discussion. Owning guns and the safety of people do not need to be mutually exclusive issues, but the safety issue needs to come first. It’s quite telling that many NRA members have much more sense than the NRA leadership when it comes to this topic.
loading...
old guy
Dec. 24th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
harris,
Aside from successfully one upping me since you DO own guns and have considerable experience with them, what was the point of your post?
No one is worried about single shot hunting weapons and few would buy one for self defense.
All the gun owners I know are hyper about gun safety.
I’m well aware that there are gun safes. Unfortunately, requiring people to have one won’t assure their use, and other folks may be in situations where one is either superfluous or problematic.
Your various posts on this topic appear to be thoughtful attempts to add information to the discussion. But it seems to me that many by others are simply venting. I’d thought about adding a ;-) at one point in my post but there seemed to be so much anger reflected in some that I thought better of it since perpetually angry people tend to “fly off the handle” and actually are probably the sort of people who should NOT have access to guns. So I was actually half serious in my necessarily broad brush statement.
It seems to me that most everyone on all sides is looking for the proverbial silver bullet, some “easy” solution where none exists, or at least an excuse to blame someone we don’t like for all that is wrong in the world. Do you disagree?
loading...
Reynardine
Dec. 24th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
What makes you think we don’t?
loading...
Jon
Dec. 30th, 2012 at 6:17 pm
The only way for anything constructive to actually happen on this issue is for both sides to sit down and actually talk about what could ACTUALLY work. However, both sides are grand standing and acting as if their answer is the only answer. Reporters have broken gun laws just to make a point on national television. The NRA is calling for something close to another TSA. Somewhere in all this real people are losing the real voice on the issue. I have yet to see one demonstration by either side for the high capacity magazine (mag) issue. Very few actual knowledgeable shooters have come out on the side of banning the larger mags. Why is this? Is it because once you know your rifle and understand how to load it you can still accomplish what is needed. I can load my pump shotgun just as fast as I can empty it and that shotgun at close range is more deadly than a 5.56mm round which has been used in recent sensationalized killings. When I was in basic training I can remember being told the army had gone to the 5.56 mm round because 1) the weight saving for the soldier, and 2) the idea that it would create large wounds but not kill the man shot. The idea behind it, we were told, was to injure an enemy fighter resulting in two other enemy fighters to take him from the battle field which effectively removed three from the fight. If you killed the enemy fighter, which would have happened if he/she was shot with the older 7.62mm, then his comrades would just leave the body till later.
I can remember having a small .22 that my dad, uncle and I would shoot prairie dogs with (more like tried to because we seemed to miss more then hit the fast moving little guys). It held 18 bullets in a tube on the front of the gun and loaded through a slot. If found using a small piece of cheap aluminum tubing to hold my bullets in the same manner the gun held them allowed me to drop the new rounds into the tube on the gun quickly and I was ready to shoot again. Much like an M1…
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 30th, 2012 at 6:27 pm
And you are a proponent of banning them all now that you can mass murder just as fast as an M1?
Or is it just that you dont care how fast or with how many bullets it takes to kill a child?
loading...