Subscribe via RSS Feed

The Words of Wayne LaPierre

[ 284 ] December 21, 2012 |

Wayne LaPierre at the National Rifle Association press conference this morning:

And here’s another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal. There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people. Through vicious, violent video games with names like “Bullet Storm,” “Grand Theft Auto,” “Mortal Combat,” and “Splatterhouse.”

And here’s one, it’s called “Kindergarten Killers.” It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research staff can find it, and all of yours couldn’t? Or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it? Add another hurricane, add another natural disaster. I mean we have blood-soaked films out there, like “American Psycho,” “Natural Born Killers.” They’re aired like propaganda loops on Splatterdays and every single day.

1,000 music videos, and you all know this, portray life as a joke and they play murder — portray murder as a way of life. And then they all have the nerve to call it entertainment. But is that what it really is? Isn’t fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography? 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. Every minute, every day, every hour of every single year.

A child growing up in America today witnesses 16,000 murders, and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18. And, throughout it all, too many in the national media, their corporate owners, and their stockholders act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators.

Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize gun owners

Rather than face — rather than face their own moral failings the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws, and fill the national media with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action, and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away.

The media calls semi-automatic fire arms, machine guns. They claim these civilian semi-automatic fire arms are used by the military. They tell us that the .223 is one of the most powerful rifle calibers, when all of these claims are factually untrue, they don’t know what they’re talking about.

Worse, they perpetuate the dangerous notion that one more gun ban or one more law imposed on peaceable, lawful people will protect us where 20,000 other laws have failed.

As brave and heroic and as self-sacrificing as those teachers were in those classrooms and as prompt and professional and well- trained as those police were when they responded, they were unable — through no fault of their own, unable to stop it.

As parents we do everything we can to keep our children safe. It’s now time for us to assume responsibility for our schools. The only way — the only way to stop a monster from killing our kids is to be personally involved and invested in a plan of absolute protection.

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away or from a minute away?

Now, I can imagine the headlines, the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow. “More guns,” you’ll claim, “are the NRA’s answer to everything.” Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much less in our schools.

But since when did “gun” automatically become a bad word? A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting our president isn’t a bad word. A gun in the hands of a soldier protecting the United States of America isn’t a bad word. And when you hear your glass breaking at three a.m. and you call 9/11, you won’t be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you.

So, why is the idea of a gun good when it’s used to protect the president of our country or our police, but bad when it’s used to protect our children in our schools? They’re our kids. They’re our responsibility. And it’s not just our duty to protect them, it’s our right to protect them.

You know, five years ago after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in every school, the media called me crazy. But what if — what if when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday, he’d been confronted by qualified armed security? Will you at least admit it’s possible that 26 little kids, that 26 innocent lives might have been spared that day? Is it so important to you (inaudible) would rather continue to risk the alternative? Is the press and the political class here in Washington D.C. so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and American gun owners, that you’re willing to accept the world, where real resistance to evil monsters is alone, unarmed school principal left to surrender her life, her life, to shield those children in her care.

No one. No one, regardless of personal, political prejudice has the right to impose that sacrifice.

No comment necessary.

Comments (284)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. ruviana says:

    Feel vindicated, Erik. You were right all along.

  2. Leeds man says:

    Rarely have I felt such a need for a shower. No stick, pikestaff or bayonet deserves the fucker’s putrid head.

  3. Ruby says:

    Oh Jesus fucking Christ!

    I have no words beyond that.

  4. JKTHs says:

    What an exemplary human being!

  5. reckoner says:

    “Isn’t fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?”

    Funny, that’s just the question I would ask of many NRA members.

  6. tonycpsu says:

    Money means never having to say you’re wrong.

  7. Brenda Johnson says:

    Wow. I expected something objectionable, but wow.

  8. JKTHs says:

    If we create a national database for the mentally ill, can LaPierre be the first one entered?

    • Scott Lemieux says:

      Fortunately, the NRA has already done the heavy lifting by compiling a membership list.

      • Speak Truth says:

        Not once, not once in these threads has anyone blamed the shooter, or if he’s not responsible because of his mental issues, those who were responsible for him access to their weapons. They knew he was crazy.

        It’s back to the same old personal responsibility vs no-one’s-to-blame argument.

        And if you wish to take an even larger macro view of the problem, you might want to ask yourself why this obviously crazy and dangerous person was not in an institution.

        Everyone of these mass murderers have mental issues. All of ‘em. Part of a comprehensive solution is a move toward profiling crazies and forced hospitalization instead of the current trend of mainstreaming all.

        Another facet might include suing those who allow these crazies access to their legally purchased weapons, or their estates if they’re dead as well.

        While I’m willing to discuss gun control, no one here wants to discuss anything *but* gun control. They’re not really serious about solutions and, instead, look at this as an opportunity to politicize this tragedy and push their long held desire for more gun control.

        • Malaclypse says:

          And if you wish to take an even larger macro view of the problem, you might want to ask yourself why this obviously crazy and dangerous person was not in an institution.

          Fucking hell, Jennie. We know why. We are not as woefully ignorant as you.

          While I’m willing to discuss gun control

          You seem to be laboring under the mistaken assumption that we are talking to you, rather than laughing at you.

          • Speak Truth says:

            Good LAWD!

            You’re an old fat queer with no job that’s also an admitted commie and you think the laughter is directed at others?

            Really?

  9. Uncle Kvetch says:

    Pure, unadulterated evil.

  10. mds says:

    So actual firearms such as Ronnie Barrett’s .50-caliber civilian sniper rifle, 30-bullet magazines for semi-automatic rifles, etc, etc, are the very fount of safety, decency, and liberty; but imaginary firearms on a computer screen are a horrifying, corrupting influence that must be stopped? Good thing the First Amendment isn’t a suicide pact, eh, Wayne, you blood-drenched psychopathic monster?

  11. Kurtyboy says:

    I watched almost the whole presser, and just a few moments in I asked myself, “They had a whole week to put together a response and have LaPierre rehearse, and this is the best they can do?”

    Train wrecks, all the way down. LaPierre sounded shaken, confused, and cranky–senile I guess. What the hell was the reference to hurricanes contributing to violence, at least twice? How does an organization improve its favorability with the public by flinging out-and-out insults at the very conduit to the audience, the press? Why in the world did they decide to show the kindergarten killer Flash (TM) game and call the press out on underreporting its existence, ten years after the fact?

    And when you get down to it, why address hurricanes, movies, television, and video games–imaginary violence (hell, throw in graphic novels while you’re at it, Wayne. In for a dime…)–when the issue is real violence done to real people just one real week ago?

    I think Erik might have just got what he was asking for a few days ago. Wayne LaPierre hoist his his own head upon a stick for all the world to see. The PR disaster that was his press conference will have eroded support from even his membership that I don’t believe he’ll last very long in his current position.

    I won’t miss him.

  12. Murc says:

    You know, whenever I hear Wayne LaPierre endorse something I think might maybe be a good idea (qualified armed security at schools) I then immediately re-evaluate it. Fully.

    • Dan Nexon says:

      He’s not endorsing it, really, unless he advocates a biggish VAT on guns to pay for it. ;-)

      • mpowell says:

        That’s not such a bad idea. Just keep increasing the VAT and the corresponding security quality until things adjust to an acceptable level. If that level is: hardly anyone has a gun, fantastic!

    • mark f says:

      His crony suggested a George Zimmerman on every playground:

      In my home state of Arkansas, my son was a volunteer with a local group called Watchdog Dads (ph) who volunteer their time at schools, who patrol playgrounds and provide a measure of added security. President Clinton initiated a program called Cops In School, but the federal response is not sufficient for today’s task.

      Whether they’re retired police, retired military, or rescue personnel, I think there are people in every community in this country who would be happy to serve if only someone asked them and gave them the training and certifications to do so.

      • Murc says:

        See, without context, that doesn’t sound like a bad idea.

        Off-duty cops, retired or off-duty military personnel, rescue workers… these are guys who are well-trained pros, and encouraging them to volunteer their time watching over kids in public spaces sounds okay to me.

        (Assuming they aren’t walking around in full riot gear.)

        • rea says:

          From Wikipedia, the key to understanding these people:

          The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes

        • ajay says:

          Off-duty cops, retired or off-duty military personnel, rescue workers… these are guys who are well-trained pros, and encouraging them to volunteer their time watching over kids in public spaces sounds okay to me.

          “That’s fine, Mr McVeigh. You can park your truck right over there.”

      • Djur says:

        I remember reading a Tea Party group explicitly invoking George Zimmerman in that context. Insane.

  13. SP says:

    Again Loomis engages in the dirty politics of quoting a conservative’s own words. Have you no shame?

  14. David W. says:

    Moloch wept.

  15. J.W. Hamner says:

    I honestly don’t get the bits about the Secret Service, police, soldiers, etc. Those guys are highly trained and have very strict accountability for using their guns! I think most liberals would do back flips if average gun owners had do undergo similar training and had their gun use under such scrutiny.

    • Karate Bearfighter says:

      As an additional point: the highest priority of Secret Service agents isn’t whipping out their guns and returning fire; it’s getting their protectee away from the shooter.

      The attempt on Ronald Reagan is a perfect example. As soon as you hear the shot, the Secret Service agent in the center of the frame is running forward to push Reagan into the car. Off camera, other agents are already tackling — not shooting! — Hinckley. Reagan is loaded into the limo so fast that the camera doesn’t even catch it; by the time it swings back from the dogpile on Hinckley, the car is pulling away.

      • Lacking Moral Fiber aka Useless Muthfucka frmly Nemesis says:

        That tackling part was learned from the Kamakazie Kommando Kiddies coached by McMegan.

        • Karate Bearfighter says:

          She’d be right about the tackling part, if we could only get our elementary school students to be physically fit adults with years of hand-to-hand combat training and lightning-fast reflexes. The feminization of American society strikes again.

          • slightly_peeved says:

            Didn’t the shooter of Gabby Giffords get tackled as he was reloading?

            And then nearly get shot by one of the other people carrying?

            McMegan’s idea is a black hole of stupidity, but tackling spree shooters while they’re reloading or otherwise occupied has a better track record than shooting back.

            • Karate Bearfighter says:

              Agreed; tackling has a much better record than shooting. The guy who tackled Giffords’ shooter actually had a concealed carry permit, and was carrying, but he had the good sense to realize that shooting back at the shooter would just create chaos and probably get him shot. The perfect NRA straw man hypothetical, ruined by common sense.

              The big problem with tackling as a solution is that we, as a society are willing to accept that a bunch of highly compensated adults can choose to lay down their lives to protect the president. Fucking McMegan can’t be bothered to think about that part of the equation.

    • Halloween Jack says:

      Shit, you’re almost making it sound like a, a… well-regulated militia or something. That’s crazy talk.

  16. BigHank53 says:

    Wayne’s just doing his job. Every minute of tv bloviation and every column-inch of editorializing about him is time and space not spent on Bushmaster, Colt, Ruger, etc. He’s acting like a pinata because he’s well-paid to act like a pinata. Who cares if the NRA gets turned into a smoking crater? Firearms manufacturers will love a long, bitter fight about assault rifles, ’cause they’ll sell every single one they make at full retail–and if you don’t think there’s going to be a price jump on January 1 you’re smoking something.

    • Yuhp

      The word “divestment” needs to be included in every conversation about guns from now until ever

    • John Protevi says:

      Yesterday’s Baton Rouge Advocate front page story: “BR gun sales rise on fear of upcoming restrictions”: http://theadvocate.com/home/4726081-125/br-gun-sales-up-on

      Face it: for gun manufacturers and retail outlets, Newtown was good for business.

      • Leeds man says:

        Slaughter has always been good for business. A certain kind of human sees it, and his first, instinctive response is “opportunity!”.

      • Speak Truth says:

        Face it: for gun manufacturers and retail outlets, Newtown was good for business.

        The core issue that’s driving gun sales is the longstanding fear of the gun-grabbing Democrats and the knowledge that they will politicize and use the murders in Newtown to achieve their longstanding goal of gun control.

        • STH says:

          Yes, that’s obviously the real tragedy here.

        • Leeds man says:

          The core issue that’s driving gun sales is diaper-wearing paranoid little freaks like you.

        • Indeed. Your sick little cause just took a devastating hit.

          In your shoes, or LaPierr’s, I’d be panicky, too.

        • Malaclypse says:

          Speaking as a liberal, nothing fills me with dread quite so much as the idea that LaPierre will start a massive campaign against both Democrats and gun control. Once you combine LaPierre’s near-Romnney’like ability to connect with the populace with the common-sense notion that everybody needs to fire off 30 rounds without reloading, there will be no way at all the Democrats don’t lose the Senate in 2014, with Obama’s impeachment sure to follow. This message is a winner, and we should fear it.

        • sharculese says:

          Yeah duder, we get it. You wet your bed at the idea of the democratic process. It does not make you look like nearly the tough guy you seem to think it does.

        • Lacking Moral Fiber aka Useless Muthfucka frmly Nemesis says:

          What a pussy.

        • DrDick says:

          Yep. The Merchants of Death are playing you like the chumps you are. I hope you keep wasting all your money on weapons you do not need, do not know how to use, and will eventually shot yourself or a family member with.

  17. NotOnScript says:

    Shorter Wayne LaPierre:

    We need community watch volunteers in every school.

    (What can possibly go wrong?)

    • tonycpsu says:

      Congress should announce that they’ll be voting on LaPierre’s idea on Monday morning. I can’t imagine it would get votes from anyone to the left of Louie Gohmert.

  18. drkrick says:

    Kurtyboy – I’ll be interested to see what this does to LaPierre’s standing with his own. My prediction is that the NRA/Gun Owners of America true believers fall right in line behind him, but they’re going to get a bit of a lesson in how much less effective all that money becomes if the rest of the country is opposed and starts to really care about the issue.

    • wengler says:

      Other than the blame video games/blame movies part, this is basically boilerplate gun nut. They would especially like the part where he references media people mixing up semi-auto and auto and bullet caliber.

  19. Malaclypse says:

    Now, I can imagine the headlines, the shocking headlines you’ll print tomorrow. “More guns,” you’ll claim, “are the NRA’s answer to everything.” Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much less in our schools.

    For once, I hope LaPierre is right.

    • Sherm says:

      And, throughout it all, too many in the national media, their corporate owners, and their stockholders act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators.

      Hopefully, this will help spur them on.

  20. Tom says:

    “It would be better if the mentally ill wore a badge on their clothing so that we can prepared to shoot them.” -Wayne LaPierre, probably

  21. Speak Truth says:

    …what if when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday, he’d been confronted by qualified armed security?

    Maybe he’d have stopped shooting others and shot himself, instead.

  22. I’d say he shot himself in the foot.

  23. david mizner says:

    The NRA is doing an amazingly bad PR job; they should just offer compassion-exuding platitudes, blame the mother for allowing her son to get to her weapons, and quietly kill arms control legislation behind the scenes. You’d think they’d get better PR consultants with their bijillions of dollars.

    • tonycpsu says:

      Please to be explaining how this hurts them with anyone who wasn’t against them already.

      • Motivation.

        It encourages their existing enemies, and turns convincible people in the middle against them.

        • tonycpsu says:

          It also galvanizes support among the true believers, and there are at least 218 of those in the House right now. This was really about firming up legislative support, not about public opinion.

          • This was really about firming up legislative support

            Hence, the public press conference.

            Huh?

            • tonycpsu says:

              Yes. Why would that not be appropriate?

              This was a show of force. The fact that they’re willing to be this belligerent in a public press conference tells Congress that they don’t fear the public response.

              • wengler says:

                Heh.

                Kick the widows and orphans to show you mean business.

                So Republican.

              • I’m going back to an observation I made a couple days ago: the gun lobby is using a trolling strategy. They want us to talk about Wayne LaPierre biting the heads of chickens by the side of the road, instead of talking about the issue of military hardware being in the hands of, well, anybody who feels like it.

      • david mizner says:

        Then why are they out there at all if opinion is so locked in?

        • tonycpsu says:

          Because this show of belligerence puts Congress on notice that there will be hell to pay if they so much as propose restrictions on what color the death machines can be painted.

          • david mizner says:

            That message can be delivered without making yourself look like lunatics before the public. It didn’t take a speech to deliver the message to Joe Manchin.

            They’re trying to do damage control and worsening the damage.

            • tonycpsu says:

              My hunch is anything they lost in the middle they gained two-fold among their base. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I just don’t see this hurting them in any tangible way.

              • mds says:

                Yeah, World Net Daily is running with the article I was expecting, that Sandy Hook was an Obama Administration Reichstag Fire. The only surprise twist was that rather than asserting that Obama will now simply seize firearms, it was all staged to enable ratification of that UN arms trafficking treaty which explicitly exempts domestic firearm policy from any meddling. (Guess I wasn’t drinking sufficiently-strong Birch beer beforehand.) This is exactly how present-day NRA supporters think (for lack of a better word). Ginning up hysteria amongst their base to generate more sales and more pressure on potentially-wavering politicians is the NRA’s M.O.

          • mds says:

            It also signaled that Congress is on the “right” track by gearing up for hearings about goddamn video games instead.

            • wengler says:

              Seriously, why the fuck don’t video games have some Congresspeople in their pocket by now? It’s not as if they don’t have money.

          • Michael H Schneider says:

            …what color the death machines can be painted.

            Want: http://www.glamguns.com/hk47.html

          • mpowell says:

            I don’t think that’s how things work. Probably they just feel like they need to respond and then form a response based on the internal consensus. Organizations like this are not nearly as crafty as you would imagine. Probably this will help with the gun sales, though. And that’s all they care about anyways.

          • Hogan says:

            Do you think they didn’t already knnow that?

        • Malaclypse says:

          They were out there for the same reason Romnney was sure of victory, and JenBob thinks he’s not a moron – epistemic closure.

          Everybody they know wants to see a vigorous defense of gun culture.

          • david mizner says:

            That makes sense. And they’ve got “polling” to prove it.

          • Jeremy says:

            And if their PR advisers tell them they sound like extremist nutjobs to most people, they don’t tone down the rhetoric, they find new PR advisers who tell them what they want to hear. I think there’s an entire industry of people getting paid to come up with “facts” that comfort the right wing.

      • Kurtyboy says:

        Please explain to me why they held the presser in first place, if they had naught to gain. With this performance, they’ve only soldified the perception that they are out of touch with popular sentiment–excepting, of course, their own membership.

        But I think there are an awful lot of NRA members with some sense who just might reconsider sending in next year’s dues.

        NRA and Wayne LaPierre have a lot of explaining to do WRT their public affairs expenditures. As someone said upthread, what the hell was the PR department thinking?

        • tonycpsu says:

          I already explained it above. It fires up their base and shows Congress they’re not fucking around. The only reason it would fail would be if there were a more powerful lobby on the other side, or a public that cared about the issue enough to exert significant pressure on Congress.

          • Kurtyboy says:

            The only reason it would fail would be if there were a more powerful lobby on the other side, or a public that cared about the issue enough to exert significant pressure on Congress.

            Therein lies the NRA’s epic miscalculation.

            • tonycpsu says:

              I wish you were right, but the only calculation we need to keep in mind is that the NRA’s budget is some 30-40 times the Brady Campaign’s, and I don’t see that changing now that we know that Wayne LaPierre is the dick we always knew he was.

              • Oddly enough, I haven’t seen much of a Brady Campaign presence on this. I may have missed it, or maybe they think it would be in poor taste. A mistake if it is the latter, I think.

              • A lot of people are learning the name Wayne LaPierre today. I don’t think many of them are developing a favorable first impression.

                • tonycpsu says:

                  I’d be shocked to see those people sending 1/10th the money the NRA will get once they send out their next fundraising appeal with pull quotes from his comments today.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  I’d be shocked to see those people sending 1/10th the money the NRA will get once they send out their next fundraising appeal with pull quotes from his comments today.

                  If the Romney candidacy taught us nothing else, it taught us that you can’t always cover up an appallingly bad message with cash.

                • I’d be shocked to see those people sending 1/10th the money the NRA will get once they send out their next fundraising appeal with pull quotes from his comments today.

                  No doubt, the NRA will make money off of this, but I’m more concerned about Congress. How about letters? How about votes? The gun lobby’s voters are a small group, and mobilizing normal people is a real threat to them.

              • Kurtyboy says:

                Wayne LaPierre, as I noted above, just crapped on the press he depends on to get his message out. That little move is what a military strategist might call a force multiplier for the NRA’s opposition.

                Wayne LaPierre should have never taken the podium–he’s no Chuck Heston, after all. This national exposure will be played and replayed, and relived again on Sunday morning, and that tape will get played and replayed. If I were the PR decider at the NRA, I’d cancel LaPierre’s MTP appearance as soon as I could think up a plausible reason.

                And by the way, I knew LaPierre was a dick–you’re right–but I didn’t know he was a senile-souding dick who couldn’t direct better use of his organization’s millions for message management. I really expected something slick after a week of self-imposed exile, and instead I heard a disorganized, rambling, poorly-rehearsed old man avoiding a responsible discussion of the issues. It really did look like they are “fucking around” at the NRA. I don’t reckon any of the fence sitters in Congress got pushed the way the NRA wants.

    • DrDick says:

      But this is just proof that we should be civil and try to engage them in productive discussion.
      /stifling gag reflex

  24. bradP says:

    Well. I know I don’t find this as gross as everyone else, but even I’m surprised by the “Guns don’t kill people, the media kills people” argument.

    • Malaclypse says:

      Why are you surprised? Were you expecting contrition?

      • bradP says:

        Certainly not.

        But I did expect him to paint gun control supporters as emotional overreactors, and that events like Newtown being random and largely unpreventable.

        Calling out media violence only strengthens to desire to start throwing out regulatory responses to Newtown, and if he thinks it will stop with violence on television, he’s crazy.

        What’s more, this is very much “biting the hand that feeds” over the long term. Does the NRA really want to take a stand against gun-glorifying media?

      • DrDick says:

        More to the point, has he been living on Mars for the last 40 years?

    • Speak Truth says:

      I’m looking for a gun that pulls its own trigger. Others here at LGM keep telling me they exist.

      • Leeds man says:

        Here‘s one for you.

      • Dr. Waffle says:

        And I’m looking for a conservative who can argue without having to resort to cliches, hypotheticals, and assumptions.

      • J.W. Hamner says:

        Can you at least concede that the gun helps?

        Stabbing 20 kids to death in ten minutes would presumably be a tad bit more difficult.

      • wengler says:

        I keep looking for a nuclear weapon for Christmas, but they appear to be restricted. Why? Nuclear weapons don’t kill people, and excepting those unfortunate couple of times in 1945, even people with nuclear weapons don’t kill people.

        So why can’t I have my goddamn nuclear weapon?

        • JKTHs says:

          I know. How the fuck else am I supposed to fight the government if I don’t have a nuke?

        • Malaclypse says:

          Scalia, in his infinite wisdom, has pointed out that you cannot bear nukes.

          I want the shoulder-held missile launcher that is my God-given right as an American. If you outlaw SAMs, only outlaws will have SAMs.

      • Trollhattan says:

        Am pretty sure Joseph Loughrey will tell you they do, if you’d care to give him some of your valuable time.

        A seven-year-old boy was shot to death when his father’s handgun went off in the parking lot of a western Pennsylvania gun store. The boy, Craig Loughrey, was settling into his safety seat in the back of his father’s car when the gun accidentally went off and pierced his chest, reports the Associated Press. The boy died at the scene. Joseph Loughrey, 44, had gone to the gun store to sell a rifle and his 9mm handgun but the owner wasn’t interested, reports the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Although he had unloaded the gun at home, Loughrey failed to realize there was still a bullet in the chamber.

      • DrDick says:

        I am just looking for a finger that can kill large numbers at a distance without a gun in the hand.

    • Dave S. says:

      I know I don’t find this as gross as everyone else

      Can you please explain why? I read the transcript and would be interested to hear what you did not find gross.

      The stated willingness to take questions only starting Monday next week (Christmas Eve) was a delightful cherry of cowardice atop the pile of fudge. OK, not my best prose but I’ll stick with it.

    • Cody says:

      Guns don’t kill people, watching other people with guns kill people kills people.

  25. Boots Day says:

    There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people.

    “We call this violent beast ‘the assault-weapon industry.’”

  26. Scott S. says:

    I’m a little surprised he didn’t jump on the PING PONG BALLS ARE DEADLIER bandwagon…

    • sharculese says:

      That story reminded me of a game my brother and his idiot friend used to play in high school. It was called sting pong. The rules were simple – first to five wins. Winning a point got you a shot from across the table at the other guy’s naked back. Winning the set got you five shots in a row.

      They’re still alive. I’m the same would be true if that had played with guns.

  27. [...] until I listened to Mr. LaPierre’s shit-flinging sidewalk nutjob shrieking session press conference this morning that I realized that it wasn’t the knife, or my ancestors, or me, or especially [...]

  28. Joe says:

    “The media” means federal judges, Ronald Reagan, pols with “A” ratings from NRA etc.

    The guy is a caricature. Did he delay speaking to craft this work of art? Okay.

    The Stephanie Miller Show, btw, took up the whole violent video game stuff. She got push back from her own news anchor and producer. But, the NRA has been far from libertarian on things other than guns. Their “tough on crime” rhetoric, e.g., underlines why liberals and libertarians who support sane gun ownership should look elsewhere.

  29. Njorl says:

    So he wants armed guards in every school. That’s about 150,000 – 200,000 armed people who are currently unable to get jobs as armed guards or police officers for some reason, possibly psychological. A George Zimmerman in every school would be just wonderful!

    • Joe says:

      Not just armed guards. Armed POLICE too. Strange. That doesn’t sound like the sort of “militia” they usually support. Sounds more like a standing army.

      • What’s wrong with armed police in schools?

        We have resource officers assigned to the public schools here, and it’s proven to be a good idea.

        But, then, they’re not there for spree shootings, which are not a problem in urban schools. I’m not sure how much protection an assigned officer in the building, with a sidearm on her hip, thinking about the kids and duties she has in the school, would be against someone who comes charging in with a couple of high-capacity, semi-automatic weapons.

        • Murc says:

          I’m not sure how much protection an assigned officer in the building, with a sidearm on her hip, thinking about the kids and duties she has in the school, would be against someone who comes charging in with a couple of high-capacity, semi-automatic weapons.

          It probably couldn’t hurt, tho, and while I am highly skeptical of cops in general, I would support hiring on and training more police who are being explicitly trained to protect and deal with on a personal basis our most vulnerable members of society (children) rather than riding around in cruisers all day.

          • Malaclypse says:

            Except given that tax increases to pay for this will be unpossible, I’d expect we will pay for the two armed guards per school by eliminating, say, history from the curriculum.

            I’d like my kid to emerge from school both alive and educated.

            • Brandon says:

              Fund it entirely via a VAT on all firearms and ammunition.

              • spencer says:

                Yup. That way, there are no externalities. The people who benefit (the gun nuts, by getting to keep all their guns) are the only ones who pay for the policy.

            • given that tax increases to pay for this will be unpossible

              Good point. Lowell has about 250 officers. Assigning resource officers to the schools is a question of priorities – they have the people available to assign those shifts. It’s a staffing decision.

              For smaller towns, it could mean increasing police staffing by, what, 25%?

              The DOJ’s COPS program – which provided grants for police departments to hire community police – could be a model for funding, if we were serious about it.

              • PSP says:

                In my home tome in Western Mass, it would mean hiring full time police officers for the first time. That is going to go over just great at town meeting.

              • swearyanthony says:

                Take an idea from Gingrich. Arm the poor children as guards (after they’ve finished their janitorial shift, of course)

            • marijane says:

              I’m trying to imagine how this would work in Oakland. The PD is arguably understaffed by 400-500 officers, there is a list of 44 crimes — including burglary and theft — that the PD has not been able to respond to since 2010 because of said understaffing, the department is at risk of going into federal receivership, and there are 120 schools in the district. Where are they going to find 240 officers to station in the schools?

              Combine this with the fact that the PD faced protests after an officer shot an unarmed high school student earlier this year, LaPierre’s proposal becomes one of the dumbest fucking ideas I have ever heard in my life.

              • Combine this with the fact that the PD faced protests after an officer shot an unarmed high school student earlier this year

                That’s another problem. Lowell has been a real leader in the community policing movement, and the school resource officers grew out of that. Lowell police are trained and instructed to foster positive interactions in the neighborhoods, to get to know the people in their territory and become known by them. If you’ve got a Darryl Gates-style occupying army of a police department, putting Stacey Koons in a school full of people he sees as “the problem” isn’t a good idea.

          • It probably couldn’t hurt

            No, but it’s certainly not a solution to the problem, or even a remotely good-enough way to manage it.

        • DrDick says:

          It might make some marginal sense to have armed police in schools with a history of violence (Chicago used to do this,, but I do not know about now), but most of these mass killings occur in schools with no such history. I do not think that the tax payers would support the cost of officers in every school for very long.

        • Joe says:

          You suggest the limits to the policy but that wasn’t my concern. It is that adding more police officers, the sort of “select militia” the 2A of the NRA worries about, is a somewhat ironic proposal.

        • witless chum says:

          In my part of Michigan, school resource officers were very common until recently. A few were holding on until the Republicans started shouting for budget cuts in the middle of a recession and refused to even consider extending the stimulus which included funds to keep cops and school employees(many districts had a cost share plan with the local cops for their officer).

          It’s a good idea in high schools, because high school students commit a fair amount of the crime going on in your average small town and it probably helps to have a cop familiar with the little monsters.

          That said, Columbine High School had a school resource officer who exchanged fire with the mass murderers there as he returned from lunch and they were headed inside. Even trained cops on scene aren’t proof against these kind of things. Faced with the same situation, a cop would act differently today than that guy did, hunkering down and calling for backup, but it still isn’t proof against mass shooters.

          • Stan Gable says:

            I’m not so sure it plays out that differently today. Unless the cops are wearing body armor and have comparable weapons as the shooter, there’s not much good that they can do.

            This isn’t a new issue – the shootout in LA was nearly 20 years ago, right? It took like half of the LAPD something like an hour to bring those guys down.

          • DrDick says:

            We have maybe a couple of those in a city of almost 70,000, with three high schools.

        • Sherm says:

          Besides the cost factor, there is also the question of the type of society we want to live and raise our kids in. Does any rational person want to send their children to a school designed to resemble a jail with armed guards simply because we lack the wherewithal to pass effective gun control legislation?

          • So one of Lowell’s 100-year-old schoolhouses, or one of the award-winning school buildings from the past couple of decades, becomes “a school designed to resemble a jail with armed guards” when there is a police officer in it?

            • Malaclypse says:

              No, but Lowell has better architecture than your typical exurban school.

              • No kidding. From Stan Gable, below:

                All of the schools that I attended as a ute were multiple detached buildings with a chain link fence perimeter.

                Have a nice day, honey! Don’t fight in the yard!

              • But seriously, you pass armed police walking beats in the most humane, civilized, enlivening city neighborhoods on earth. I just don’t buy the claim that the presence of police officers turns places into armed camps.

                It is a bit jarring the first time you see a police officer walking down the hallway in a school, because your brain goes “Gun! Armed man! I a school! Call the police!” but then you remember that it is the police, and you get used to it. The resource officer just doesn’t seem out of place in a school setting.

                • Stan Gable says:

                  So I doubt that having an actual cop is feasible, most departments are strapped as it is. We’ve got probably 15 schools in my city of ~120k. I don’t think there’s any way that the local PD can afford to have that many cops sitting around doing nothing all day long.

                  If you went this route, I’m sure you’d be looking at mall cops in short order – I would imagine that the kind of person who wants to hang around (armed) at a high school all day long for low pay is precisely the sort of person you’d prefer to keep away from schools in general.

                • Stan Gable says:

                  Figured I’d look it up – my city has 24 different schools and a total of 220 police personnel. There are only a little more than 100 who are classified as “officers.”

                  I don’t know how many cops are on duty at any given time, but am I that far off in assuming that means that somewhere around 50% of officers would need to be assigned to school supervision?

                • We’re a little smaller, but have more than twice as many officers.

                  And they don’t sit around all day. They aren’t there to sit around and wait for spree shooters.

                • Stan Gable says:

                  But I don’t think we’re talking about School Resource Officers – we’re talking about what kind of cop presence is required to deter rampage killers. I think by definition you are talking about a full-time, onsite role.

                  There may be enough to do at a high school (but again 1 cop isn’t going to cut it at a suburban campus) but what the hell is a cop going to do for 7 hours at an elementary school?

                • But I don’t think we’re talking about School Resource Officers – we’re talking about what kind of cop presence is required to deter rampage killers.

                  If you take a look at Sherm’s comments, he’s going quite a bit beyond that. I ask him specifically about resource officers, and he comes back to me with national guardsmen carrying machine guns in the subways.

                • Stan Gable says:

                  If you take a look at Sherm’s comments, he’s going quite a bit beyond that. I ask him specifically about resource officers, and he comes back to me with national guardsmen carrying machine guns in the subways.

                  I think there’s two different discussion topics – one is whether or not it’s useful for police to be engaged in high schools (and middle schools to a lesser extent) and the other is whether police presence is a viable response to school shootings.

                  I’ve got no beef with the idea of school resource officers from what I’ve read but I don’t see how that has much relevance to spree/rampage shootings. I’d imagine that the constant police presence wouldn’t be a positive but it’s so cost-prohibitive that it just doesn’t matter anyways.

            • Sherm says:

              In some respects, yes. I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing heavily-armed cops and national guardsmen on the subways, at the toll booths, at the train station, at the airport, etc.. Enough already. We don’t need to cave in to fear and to permit the gun nuts to win by doing the same thing with our schools. Plus, you know damn well that it’s a slippery slope. After the armed guards will come the bullet proof glass and doors and the metal detectors. No thanks.

              • Tell me, Sherm, just how “heavily armed” are the National Guardsmen you’ve seen at toll booths?

                Spill.

                And what, exactly, is your discomfort with “heavily armed police and National Guardsmen” supposed to have to do with a school resource officer who has a standard-issue sidearm?

                Plus, you know damn well that it’s a slippery slope. After the armed guards will come the bullet proof glass and doors and the metal detectors.

                You know what, Sherm? I live in a city that has had resource officers for more than a decade, and absolutely nothing like that has happened. How about you, Mr. “You know damn well?” How extensive is your experience with resource officers in schools?

                OK, now let me share my actual experience with you: I worked in the most recently-built school in Lowell, a school with a resource officer, and it was the most humane, human-scale, inviting modern school building I have ever been to.

                You don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re just projecting your own problems onto the question. Your “slippery slope” is as bogus as that of the gun nuts who think machine-gun bans will lead to armed camps.

                • Sherm says:

                  Don’t have time to fully respond, but the officers and national guardsmen in NYC “defending” the transit system are routinely carrying fucking machine guns. We have made enough concessions to fear since 9/11, and I am not prepared to make any more. I’d rather my children not be raised in a new “normal” where armed officers are required at schools. There are better alternatives.

                • Don’t have time to fully respond, but the officers and national guardsmen in NYC “defending” the transit system are routinely carrying fucking machine guns. We have made enough concessions to fear since 9/11, and I am not prepared to make any more.

                  And you think that school resources officers are kinda sorta the same thing as national guardsmen carrying machine guns on the subway.

                  I am not prepared to make any more.

                  What you’re not prepared to do, Sherm, is think beyond a very beloved talking point, whether it reasonably applies to the situation or not.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  And you think that school resources officers are kinda sorta the same thing as national guardsmen carrying machine guns on the subway.

                  Not speaking for Sherm, but I think that people carrying submachine guns is pretty much exactly what LaPierre is proposing. And I’m not sure why you keep assuming reasonableness on the part of the NRA. Do you think that “Let’s make America’s schools more like Lowell’s” was what was proposed today?

                  I love you, but your mistake is in generalizing from a reasonable policy in a reasonable city in a reasonable state, and applying that generalization to Wingnutstan.

                • I didn’t write anything in favor of LaPierre’s proposal, and I didn’t write anything about wingnuttia.

                  I wrote about school resource officers, asked what was wrong with that – not LaPierre’s proposal – and got national guardsmen in subways in response. (Were national guardsmen part of LaPierre’s proposal? Are you going to have a word with Sherm?)

                  There is such a thing as “too far,” and Sherm is taking a potentially-reasonable argument way, way too far by applying it to school resource officers.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  I didn’t write anything in favor of LaPierre’s proposal, and I didn’t write anything about wingnuttia.

                  That I know. But I see you extrapolating from Lowell, and I just don’t see that happening in exurbia. So I think Sherm is discussing LaPierre’s vision, and you are discussing a reasonable part of real life, and you are talking past each other.

                  I mean, I know that you know that what works in Lowell is a function of density, of transportation, of a host of things that you can name better than I, most of which are not replicated in the places these things happen. You yourself say what would be needed elsewhere, and it does sound a lot like Sherm’s fears.

                  Maybe I’m just not understanding what the argument is over.

                • Sherm says:

                  “And you think that school resources officers are kinda sorta the same thing as national guardsmen carrying machine guns on the subway.”

                  Where did I say that? You asked me a question about the national guardsmen, and I answered the question. Stop playing games and grow the fuck. And if stating that we don’t need armed guards and cops stationed at our schools to defend against the very infrequent mass-shootings in schools when it would be far superior to pass gun control legislation is a simple talking point, then so be it.

                • Sherm says:

                  “Maybe I’m just not understanding what the argument is over.”

                  Agreed Mal. And with pretty much every other observation you just made. Let’s move on, Joe.

                • Where did I say that?

                  Here:

                  So one of Lowell’s 100-year-old schoolhouses, or one of the award-winning school buildings from the past couple of decades, becomes “a school designed to resemble a jail with armed guards” when there is a police officer in it?

                  In some respects, yes. I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing heavily-armed cops and national guardsmen on the subways, at the toll booths, at the train station, at the airport, etc..

                  Just so it’s absolutely clear, I editing nothing out in between those passages. That was your direct response to my question.

                  And that’s just fucking nuts. This can be over when you acknowledge, or least stop arguing against, that observation that equating community resource officers with National Guardsmen carrying machine guns is bullshit.

                • Mal,

                  But I see you extrapolating from Lowell, and I just don’t see that happening in exurbia.

                  There are suburban towns that have school resource officers, who operate like school resource officers. There are a lot of things that work in a city that cannot be replicated in the burbs, but school resources officers are not among them. Putting a resource officer in a suburban high school would be no different from putting one in LHS, and it is nucking futs to think that doing so would be like having national guardsmen carrying machine guns.

                  The argument is about whether school resource officers can be reasonably considered part of the post-9/11 security state, akin to police in body armor with submachine guns patrolling public places. Sadly, there seems to be a disagreement on this point.

                • Sherm says:

                  Question: “Tell me, Sherm, just how “heavily armed” are the National Guardsmen you’ve seen at toll booths?”

                  Answer: “Don’t have time to fully respond, but the officers and national guardsmen in NYC “defending” the transit system are routinely carrying fucking machine guns.”

                  So, I did not answer that “I think that school resources officers are kinda sorta the same thing as national guardsmen carrying machine guns on the subway.”

                  Enough Joe.

                • I quoted you where you said it. Want to see it again?

                  So one of Lowell’s 100-year-old schoolhouses, or one of the award-winning school buildings from the past couple of decades, becomes “a school designed to resemble a jail with armed guards” when there is a police officer in it?

                  In some respects, yes. I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing heavily-armed cops and national guardsmen on the subways, at the toll booths, at the train station, at the airport, etc..

                  This is not me making up your response, or misrepresenting it.

                • Hogan says:

                  Sherm, how about this: When you responded to joe, you also had in your mind LaPierre’s full vision for our schools, and that informed your response more than (or at least as much as) joe’s specific question. Would that be accurate?

                • Sherm says:

                  Yes hogan. As well as what a friend told me transpired at a school board meeting in his town two nights ago.

            • Hogan says:

              That’s not all LaPierre was talking about.

              The NRA is gonna bring all its knowledge, all its dedication and all its resources to develop a model national schools shield emergency response program for every single school in America that wants it. From armed security to building design and access control, to information technology, to student and teacher training, this multifaceted program will be developed by the very best experts in the field.

              I don’t imagine the schoolhouses in Lowell would meet the rigorous standards of the NRA’s expert and highly credentialed vision.

              • Malaclypse says:

                The NRA is gonna bring all its knowledge, all its dedication and all its resources to develop a model national schools shield emergency response program for every single school in America that wants it.

                “Do you want the NRA changing your school’s curriculum? Do you want to bring guns into your child’s school, or keep them out? Democrats want to keep your schools under your control. Vote [Name of Democrat] in 2014.”

                All royalties for this idea to the AFSC, please.

    • Murc says:

      I’m actually kinda-sorta in favor of this.

      Qualifying someone to use firearms responsibly is a long and arduous process, assuming you do it right. Basic training ain’t beanbag. Neither is the policy academy. And it would put a lot of people to work.

      And I’m not that uncomfortable with the idea of armed security at schools; my own school had a pair of armed security guards (they swapped shifts, I don’t think I ever saw them both at once) and they were an ex-cop and ex-soldier respectively. They basically wandered around campus and gave directions to people and once or twice broke up fights. One of them helped me get a guy out from under a fallen fresnel once.

      Of course, I would bet a lot of money that LaPierre think a ‘qualified’ armed guard is someone who took a weekend course and got handed a uniform and a sidearm. If I’d spent four years in the presence of some Paul Blart guy who also was armed maybe I’d feel differently.

      • delurking says:

        I’m kinda sorta opposed to this, because of how I’m imagining it would play out down in Arkansas.

        We had a cop taser and then arrest a 12 year old who sassed her mama here last year. (And most of our lovely citizens applauded him, I might add.) Putting a couple of armed cops in the schools sounds like a seriously bad plan to me.

        • Having actually worked in schools with resource officers, I think that’s exactly backwards.

          A resource officer who specializes in working in schools full of kids, gets to know them by name (or at least recognize them), becomes one of the adults the kids know from school, and otherwise operates as an adjunct of the school staff is much less likely to handle a situation inappropriately than some beat cop who got a call in his cruiser to go to the middle school, after having spent the morning doing regular cop stuff.

          • Hogan says:

            And it’s no bad thing for children and teenagers to have regular interactions with the police that aren’t centered on “boy, are you in trouble now.”

  30. Lacking Moral Fiber aka Useless Muthfucka frmly Nemesis says:

    More guns and a national crazy person database. How does one become part of said database and once the databse is populated, what then?

    Hoping LaPierre gets a nasty flu this winter season.

  31. Bill Murray says:

    I think ol’ Wayne missed bigger fish in the entertainment industry. I’m talking about reruns of old detective shows — Columbo, The Snoop Sisters and Murder, She Wrote. Each of those shows had a murder or so each episode rerun a few times a day every day gets to thousands of murders a year

  32. GiT says:

    And of course, as Wayne speaks, another mass shooting takes place, this time in Pennsylvania:

    http://www.wjactv.com/news/news/sources-1-trooper-shot-another-injured-blair-co/nTcf5/

    • Spud says:

      WTF? This month is fucking crazy with these!

      How many mass shootings can we have before Christmas!

      • Speak Truth says:

        Obama administration, Congress quietly let school security funds lapse

        Government officials told the Washington Guardian on Friday night that two Justice Department programs that had provided more than $200 million to schools for training, security equipment and police resources over the last decade weren’t renewed in 2011 and 2012, and that a separate program that provided $800 million to put police officers inside the schools was ended a few years earlier.

        Meanwhile, the administration eliminated funding in 2011-12 for a separate Education Department program that gave money to schools to prepare for mass tragedies, the officials said.

        A nationally recognized school security expert said those funds had been critical for years in helping schools continue to enhance protections against growing threats of violence. But they simply dried up with little notice as the Columbine and Virginia Tech school shooting tragedies faded from memory and many Americans and political leaders had their attentions diverted to elections, a weak economy and overseas dramas.

        • spencer says:

          “Safeguarding your money, security and freedom”?

          Interesting …

        • Spud says:

          Riiight because Obama is shilling for people to have greater access to weapons which make mass shootings easier. Oh wait no he isn’t.

          Of course its the conservatives who have been talking about reducing as much funding for public school as possible. Attacking teachers unions, diverting funds to private school voucher programs and trying to make curriculum as stupid-friendly as possible to feed their agendas.

          Nice try Jenny.

        • Matt says:

          That article is pretty convenient – manages to bring up “liberals” a couple times, while making it sound like earmarks (which funded the program) were eliminated by magical anonymous elves in Congress.

          Funny, anybody with any understanding of Congress in 2010 knew EXACTLY who eliminated earmarks. Try posting news from a place that’s not so blatantly slanted next time.

  33. Halloween Jack says:

    I totally love that he tries to throw a big chunk of the video game industry under the bus. I’d guess that there’s probably a big intersection between the NRA’s younger membership and people who really love their Call of Duty and Red Dead Redemption (not to mention Fallout: New Vegas and Mass Effect). Good luck placating that bunch, Wayne.

    • Brandon says:

      I totally love that he throws a bunch of games and movies from the 1990′s under the bus. Mortal Kombat? Really?

      • Djur says:

        Splatterhouse is from 1988 (although I guess there was a remake in 2010).

        • CaptBackslap says:

          I rented that POS for Genesis way back in the day. Even at 13 or whatever, I recognized that it was a terrible game, but it’s only now that I wonder if they added the extra pixelated gore because they knew it sucked and needed a hook to get people to play it.

      • Stan Gable says:

        Might have been intentional. Picking on the weak and irrelevant sort of thing, knowing full well that if he attacks CoD and Halo, he’ll lose 75% of his audience.

    • Ben F says:

      My initial though was to compare this throwing under the bus to (Mad Men Spoiler)

      Don Draper’s anti-tobacco letter that ended up backfiring on him. But, one major difference; that occured only after Lucky Strike had ditched SCDP. LaPierre’s betrayal would be like Draper writing that letter while still in the good graces of Lucky Strike and receiving their money. For that matter, Lucky Strike as a company probably has ethics more in line with gun manufacturers than video game companies (not that the latter are necessarily the most ethical companies).

  34. PSP says:

    Can I suggest that the President (or any number of governors) should step right up and agree that there should be a police officer in every school. Then turn it around, and propose paying for these officers with a user fee for a gun license or an excise tax on guns.

    This would cost, say, $100K per officer. If there were 1000 gun owners in a town, and 3 officers for the elementary, middle, and high school, that would be $3K per year for a license.

    Imagine the NRA foaming at the mouth response.

    • Stan Gable says:

      All of the schools that I attended as a ute were multiple detached buildings with a chain link fence perimeter. One rent-a-cop isn’t going to cut it.

      • CaptBackslap says:

        That sounds like a lovely learning environment. By comparison, what happened to my elementary school (an ugly modernist expansion, capped by the addition of Lovecraftian-scaled, garishly-colored atria at the entrances)

        When did America become a place with so few public spaces worth caring about?

      • spencer says:

        Yeah, that was the urban Florida style as well.

        And we did have one solitary resource officer. On a campus with nearly 2000 students.

        It’s a wonder that things weren’t worse, but then again, it was the 1980s. A much simpler time.

        • Stan Gable says:

          I don’t remember having cops around at my CA high school in the late 80s – early 90s. We did have a pretty decent gang problem, so it’s possible they were there and I just didn’t notice.

  35. Ed K says:

    My Freudian roots (repressed, sublimated, or whatever through Deleuze and Guattari, etc.) are gonna come out now. Fair warning.

    All this bullshit about fantasizing and pornography is pure, unadulterated projection on Wayne-o’s part. Nobody, and I mean nobody, was talking about all of this in even vaguely sexual terms *before* dude made it the centerpiece of his little extended parapraxis. Suddenly we’re supposed to be more horrified by some set of unrealized desires, by various imaginary formations and so forth that we are by a culture which promotes the constant, direct engagement with the real goddamn fucking thing? And all because it’s ooooh sooo sexy? Why ever do you think that, Wayne? It wouldn’t be because of how those guns make you feel or anything, would it?

    The thing about Fascist attacks on images instead of realities is that they always telegraph the nature of the real investments they’re trying to divert attention from.

    Luckily, it’s pretty transparent, too.

  36. the_iron_troll says:

    Well, the solution here is obvious. If only LaPierre had been volunteering in Sandy Hook school at that time, guarding those children. With his well-trained firearms skills, he could have prevented this tragedy. It is truly sad that LaPierre did not see fit to save those 26 lives.

  37. Major Kong says:

    I grew up watching Wile E. Coyote and I have yet to attempt dropping an anvil on anyone’s head.

    I really don’t think it’s TV and video games.

  38. Darkrose says:

    You were wrong, Erik.

    I don’t want La Pierre’s head on a stick.

    I think a pointy stick needs to be inserted somewhere else. For once, I think Vlad Tepes had the right idea.

    • Spud says:

      The trick is to use a blunt stake so he doesn’t die instantly from puncture wounds and hemorrhaging but instead has his internal organs slowly crushed by his own weight.

      [I learned that from Anno Dracula by Kim Newman]

    • DrDick says:

      Yep, and I want all the rest of the NRA board and their political lickspittles lined up along side him at the entrance to the Capitol Building.

      • Darkrose says:

        Only the NRA board. Their Congresscritters can go on cleanup detail.

      • Speak Truth says:

        NRA is the oldest civil rights organization in the US and one of the best examples of democracy.

        It’s easy to embrace democracy and free political speech when you agree with them.
        The difficult part is understanding that the principle is more important that your particular viewpoint.

        For instance, I truly believe socialists and communists are the enemies of America, but I tolerate them because of the principle.

        And that’s what makes me better, yes BETTER than you.

    • Ben F says:

      Oh noes! You used… a metaphor! How violent of you!

      /ok, even I can’t keep a straight face.

  39. Anonymous says:

    LaPierre forgot to mention shock metal and The Basketball Diaries. Jesus Christ, is it still 2000?
    “Grand Theft Auto” is from the United Kingdom and “Mortal Kombat” is from Japan. What the fuck they have to do with US culture is beyond me.

    • past contingent says:

      No, Mortal Kombat is Midway Games. Street Fighter II done…Chicago style.

      Am I going to get flying monkeys for the words “FINISH HIM”?

  40. Robert M. says:

    What. The. Fk.

    “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Okay, even granting the premise:

    1) Does he really not see any difference between a law enforcement professional and a private citizen with (maybe) a weekend’s worth of certification classes?

    2) Does he really mean to imply there’s no difference between a bad guy with a breech-loading shotgun and one with a 30-round magazine attached to a semi-automatic rifle?

    3) If you take the guns away from both the good guys and the badguys, doesn’t that solve most of the problem? After all, there are a lot of ways to stop a bad guy with a knife or a baseball bat.

    4) Finally and most importantly, when both are armed and neither one has yet committed a crime, how do we tell the good guy and the bad guy apart?

    • Ed K says:

      That number 4 is a doozy, ain’t it? These morons really think that five to ten people brandishing weapons without any clear sense of who’s who would be an improvement.

      Astonishing.

      • Hogan says:

        Buffy: Does it ever get easy?

        Giles: You mean life?

        Buffy: Yeah, does it get easy?

        Giles: What do you want me to say?

        Buffy: Lie to me.

        Giles: Yes. It’s terribly simple. The good guys are always stalwart and true. The bad guys are easily distinguished by their pointy horns or black hats, and, uh, we always defeat them and save the day. No one ever dies and… everybody lives happily ever after.

        Buffy: Liar.

    • Matt says:

      Re: #4 – I’m pretty sure the typical NRA member thinks they know how to do that. See also George Zimmerman.

  41. Anonymous says:

    Gun Buying Frenzy Photos

    “The gun buying frenzy is in full swing. Gun stores all over the country are reporting record sales. Stephen emailed us these before and after photos from the store he works at. This week his store has been selling 1,000 each day.”

  42. Restoration of your vintage handbag could be preferred over replacement.
    Buy Michael Kors Wallet Clutch from the Apple Store for $79.
    Handbag maintenance can run between 100 and up depending around the brand of handbag and the make from the handbag.

  43. Nice blog here! Also your web site loads up fast!
    What web host are you using? Can I get your affiliate link to your
    host? I wish my site loaded up as quickly as yours lol

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site