Don't miss this: Last day to save up to 83% on a Hartford Courant digital subscription
CT Now

Whose side is the NRA on?

Terrorism, whether practiced in the U.S. or overseas, can be defined as a deliberate act of violence to instill fear in a target audience. We fight terrorism when we stay calm but resolute; we abet terrorists when our response is to panic or try to foment panic in others.

This past weekend, the CEO of the National Rifle Association stood up on a stage in Houston and chose to follow the latter route, linking the recent bombings in Boston with gun ownership — or a lack thereof. "How many Bostonians," the NRA's Wayne LaPierre asked, "wish they had a gun two weeks ago?"

He then painted a portrait of Boston as a city quivering in fear during the marathon bombings and the manhunt that followed. Many of those innocent families living in a big city where firearm ownership is discouraged, Mr. LaPierre insisted, lacked the means to defend themselves from "whatever may come crashing through the door."

Surely, alleged Boston Marathon bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev could not have hoped for a better accomplice after the fact. We don't know what Massachusetts community Mr. LaPierre was observing, but what we saw were people standing up to terrorism, following directions to stay indoors when necessary, and providing investigators with vital information where possible.

As for firearm ownership, we don't recall armed private citizens repelling the suspects. Had the brothers' carjacking victim had a gun in his vehicle, for instance, would that have made a difference? The driver was text messaging at the moment they arrived and hardly in a position to do much more than comply with their wishes. If anything, it might have put him at greater risk.

What we did see were law enforcement agents — as legally armed in Massachusetts as they are anywhere else — respond with impressive courage and overwhelming force. If there was a piece of technology that deserves a nod, it wasn't any firearm but a more benign example of modern ingenuity called "the video surveillance camera" that appeared to do much of the heavy lifting in this particular criminal investigation.

How many Bostonians wished they'd owned a gun two weeks ago? No doubt some. But it's difficult to believe a single one of these private gun-owners would have made a difference. Or that this sudden desire to have a gun at hand was anything close to the majority view. Many of us recognize the hidden cost of gun ownership — accidental shootings and deliberate suicides, or the risk that it will be used in a domestic dispute or be stolen and ultimately fall into the hands of criminals.

Yet there was Mr. LaPierre in Texas once again painting the nation's circumstances as extraordinarily dire with the only hope being the proliferation of firearms in every apartment, home, college dorm and coffee shop. This may be the message of gun manufacturers and sellers, it is not what the United States of America is all about.

Responsible people — aside from criminals and the seriously mentally ill, for instance — have a right to own a gun. And anyone, Mr. LaPierre included, has a right to speak their minds. But the rest of us also have a right to observe the consequences of free speech and seek reasonable limits on ownership of certain types of weapons, like requiring background checks.

Wasn't it just a few months ago that this same man was scolding those who favor restrictions on gun ownership for "taking advantage" of Newtown shooting victims? Clearly, it's only "exploiting" tragedy when it's done in the name of gun control.

When London was facing a bombing blitz, Winston Churchill didn't advise its citizens to panic and buy more guns. President Franklin D. Roosevelt didn't suggest the answer to "fear itself" was to keep a gun by the door. And after 9/11, even George W. Bush wasn't looking for a civilian militia but for justice. "We will not tire, we will not falter, we will not fail," he said.

When 80 percent to 90 percent of Americans favor background checks for gun ownership and the NRA uses its considerable influence to thwart the public's will, and when that same organization is quick to suggest a terrorist attack is a lesson of fear and victimhood, one has to ask: What is the agenda here? Whose side are they on?

Copyright © 2015, CT Now
Related Content
  • How to reduce gun violence

    How to reduce gun violence

    At a time when Baltimore could desperately use some good news when it comes to the prospects of reducing violence, research from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health suggests we may already have taken a key step toward preventing gun homicides — it just may take a few years for us...

  • NRA selectively interprets 2nd Amendment

    NRA selectively interprets 2nd Amendment

    As sure as nine people have been butchered by yet another gun-wielding maniac, there will be an outcry for more laws controlling the sale and registration of firearms, and the NRA will again claim they are heroically upholding the Second Amendment rights of every American citizen by opposing such...

  • Do concealed guns reduce crime? Let's find out

    Do concealed guns reduce crime? Let's find out

    Despite expert opinions, statistics and moral condemnations, the debate on gun control continues. Until the law permits everyone who wants to carry a concealed weapon to do so legally, there is insufficient data to decide for or against ("How to reduce gun violence," June 12).

  • Gun laws aren't enforced

    Gun laws aren't enforced

    The people screaming for more gun control and more gun laws and all the other useless ideas should be finding out why the laws now in place are not being enforced. The last maniac to shoot up a theater should have never been able to purchase a gun but evidently some judge did not do her job ("Gunman...

  • Another mass shooting, and who's responsible?

    Another mass shooting, and who's responsible?

    I am a cinema buff, and I went to the Charles Theatre recently to see a wonderful film. While there I realized that another mentally ill person decided to vent his furies in a movie theater. This time in Lafayette, La. ("La. shooter a drifter with 'hate in his heart,'" July 25). This is the USA,...

  • Fix the background check

    Fix the background check

    As inspiring and overdue as America's reassessment of the Confederate battle flag has been since last month's Charleston shootings, those who wish to truly honor the victims need to set their sights to an even higher purpose. Late last week, FBI director James Comey acknowledged that alleged shooter...

Comments
Loading
70°