Brookhaven University Prez: We Don't Agree With NRA's Position

Oglethorpe University's Lawrence Schall responds to the NRA's call for 'armed security' around schools.

The president of the Brookhaven, GA-based university who is leading a coalition of academians who support gun control legislation doesn't agree with Friday's NRA announcement.

"My sense of what the NRA is proposing is that we have police in every school and more guns," said . "I've only seen news reports of what exactly was said, and I haven't studied it, but overall, we don't agree with that approach."

In an open letter released late Wednesday afternoon, Schall was joined by more than 160 college and university presidents nationwide in ending the so-called gun show loophole, which they said allows for the purchase of guns from unlicensed sellers without a criminal background check; banning military-style semi-automatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammo magazines; and requiring consumer safety standards for all guns such as safety locks.

In a Friday morning press conference in Washington DC, the NRA broke its weeklong silence following the horrific shooting of 26 people at a school in Newtown, CT and called for a surge of gun-carrying "good guys" around American schools.

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre called for a new kind of American domestic security revolving around armed civilians, arguing that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

"We care about our president, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents," LaPierre said. "Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by Capitol Police officers. Yet, when it comes to our most beloved, innocent, and vulnerable members of the American family, our children, we as a society leave them every day utterly defenseless, and the monsters and the predators of the world know it, and exploit it."

Schall said his effort has exceeded his initial expectations.

"When we wrote the letter, I thought I'd be encouraged if we got 25 signatures," he said. "Now we're at more than 300 signatures, which tells me there's something different about this effort."

The website www.collegepresidentsforgunsafety.org is calling for more college and university presidents to join the effort.

LaPierre's speech was a call to supporters to mobilize around a new vision of American domestic security, at a time when voices for gun control are steadily rising. On Friday morning before the press conference, President Obama released a video (above) citing a petition by hundreds of Americans calling for swift action.

At the grassroots level, groups like Newtown United, a group of Newtown neighbors, are working to address major issues related to the tragedy, including gun control, violent media, mental health and legislation.

Newtown locals responded to the NRA press conference. Suzy DeYoung, a Newtown resident for nine years who has three children, said LaPierre's speech was playing to people’s fears.

“People are much smarter than this,” DeYoung said. “He is saying we need to be protected from guns by more guns. This lack of logic speaks for itself, and I truly believe the response you are abut to see from parents all around the world will offer better commentary than I ever could."

Joanna Zachos, a mother in Sandy Hook, CT said that while she supports an increase in gun control and personally does not believe in guns at all, that the larger problem goes "way beyond that."

"The problem we have is our immunity to violence as a society as a whole," she said. "Violent video games, violent movies, addiction to horror films. We've developed immunity to violence and violent images."

LaPierre also lamented violence in video games, music videos and "blood-soaked" films. But his central solution seemed to be a great mobilization of gun-carrying "good guys," a term he used repeatedly but did not define, who might be more present and respond more quickly than police.

"If we truly cherish our kids, more than our money, more than our celebrities, more than our sports stadiums, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible," LaPierre said. "And that security is only available with properly trained, armed 'good guys'."

LaPierre, who was interrupted twice by protesters who held signs in front of TV cameras, made a direct call for local action.

"I call on every parent. I call on every teacher. I call on every school administrator, every law enforcement officer in this country, to join with us and help create a national schools shield safety program to protect our children with the only positive line of defense that’s tested and proven to work," he said.

Related Items:

Oglethorpe President Leading Gun Control Effort.

GES December 24, 2012 at 02:19 AM
I agree with you here Eddie, "There are already adequate punishments for those possessing firearms they are not qualified to own." You hit the nail on the head there, and that is why I am against any new Gun Control measures! I am sure you see the need to take measures against the mentally Ill in this Country so Sandy Hook does not happen again!
Eddie E. December 24, 2012 at 02:25 AM
ges, Now you are also a mental health expert. Just how many fields are you 'expert' in? Adding a (estimate) of $200.00 for a detailed background check, permit and transfer tax to a weapon costing (estimate) $1,200.00 is not in any way an unrealistic 'burden'. There is already a clear differentiation in the weapons with limited 'sporting' use although I am sure a firm definition would be met with substantial, heated discussion. Expansion of detailed background checks should have started years ago, but the insane years of the ray-gun administration prevented numerous, common sense, Constitutional initiatives from coming to pass. Do you have any shred of evidence to support your baseless, histrionic blabber?
Eddie E. December 24, 2012 at 02:28 AM
Of course I do. And I think the funding generated from expanding licensing and transfer taxes should be the 'seed money' for the fund to expand mental health. I am firmly interested in preventing the mentally ill from having possession of firearms in any situation. I also want to see the State rise to it's obligation of properly regulating the 'militia' so as to ensure adequate protection of the Citizens.
GES December 24, 2012 at 02:31 AM
Poor Eddie enlighten me then! This is straight of of the Dictionary under Socialist--- "In the late 20th century, the term "socialist" has also been used by Third way social democrats to refer to an ethical political doctrine focusing on a common set of values emphasizing social cooperation, universal welfare, and equality." If that is not a definition of a Progressive Liberal, then I do not know what one is!
GES December 24, 2012 at 02:33 AM
Are you serious? "invent a race component." You are in the deep end of the pool and do not even know it, how sad!
GES December 24, 2012 at 03:05 AM
Poor Eddie, Really, you are truly mentally ill if you think Congress would ever pass anything like the above! LOL Our Constitution would have to be changed first, that means it would have to go to the States to be voted on first. It is just not going to happen. You are clearly delusional and off somewhere in Space or living in your own Fantasy World. Enough Said! You are just going to have to get comfortable with Guns as they are here to stay. I carry (GFL) a legal gun just about everywhere I go, and have a carbine locked in the trunk of my car when I am in it. I am sure you pass people everyday with guns as you walk around here in Georgia and you never notice! There is really nothing to be scared about! I'm not scared of any of all this. I already got Mine!
Eddie E. December 24, 2012 at 03:09 AM
It is not a definition of a Progressive/Liberal. Apparently you do not know what one is. Of course, which of the real items in the 'definition' you provided do you find so abhorrent? But please, we have no elected officials in this state who tiptoe anywhere near 'Socialist', but I wish we did.
Eddie E. December 24, 2012 at 03:13 AM
Nothing I have suggested would require any modification to the Constitution at all. For instance, what Constitutional modification was required to institute the Class III Licensing in the '30s? I do believe Congress is coming to understand the needs and wishes of the Citizens and will learn to prioritize those needs and wishes in comparison to the needs and wishes of the gun manufacturers and distributors. I am comfortable with guns, as I have passed the highest level of scrutiny for firearms ownership. I'm sorry you are so insecure that you have to strap your little popgun on you 'everywhere you go', you might try behaving like a Citizen and find it diminishes the likelihood you will come to a bad end.
Eddie E. December 24, 2012 at 03:17 AM
Who else mentioned 'banning ownership of by blacks' on this thread? The cost of the stamp is a fraction of the cost of the weapon. Do you propose 'means testing' on the price of firearms? And, I forgot to mention, I have been to plenty of Class III 'shoot's in the last couple of decades.
"E Pluribus Unum" December 24, 2012 at 05:13 PM
ges and Eddie, here is my sense of what's going on with this entire discussion. It reminds me of the run up to the Presidential election. The right wingers were smelling their own exhaust in the sense they were buying the FoxAllegedNews sounds bites, ignoring facts, and basically concocting their "new reality" which was out of touch with reality. So much of their spin was irrational, fear bating. When President Obama won, they were stunned and couldn't believe it happened. They convinced themselves that MR was going to win in a landslide. So now, different (yet somewhat the same topic), and in addition to Fox, the NRA are cranking out the sound bites, the fear baiting, and another "new reality." So many have Again dumbed themselves down and become tone death to their blind denial to consider any gun reform (not ban).
Eddie E. December 24, 2012 at 05:50 PM
EPU, Understood. That's why I am simply attempting to cast a light on expanding the system that is already in place to a slightly less dangerous category of weapons. That these weapons are already in broader dispersal with ease of access similar to bread should be enough to give everyone pause. The existence of the Second Amendment should also give everyone an understanding that there better be a darn good reason for modification to access rules and a limited degree of restrictions to speak directly to that good reason. Otherwise, we are stuck with the ban guns vs. guns in church argument.
"E Pluribus Unum" December 24, 2012 at 09:16 PM
Eddie E, you are suggesting something very reasonable and doable.
electric123 December 25, 2012 at 09:04 AM
Instead of condoning your gun rights to bear arms, what would you do in the moment a crazed gunman confronted you and you had a split second to think whether you had a firearm or not handy?
GES December 25, 2012 at 03:37 PM
The upside of something like that happening is, the next election cycle would be a landslide for the Republicans just like what happened after the do nothing 1994 Gun Ban. It would be nice to purge DC of it's Progressive filth!
"E Pluribus Unum" December 25, 2012 at 05:52 PM
ges, I believe you're still in denial that the world has flipped for hard right reublicans. Please go back and review the key demographics trends that put President Obama back in the WH. These same groups want stricter gun control legislation...Latinos (70%), women (60%) and blacks (68%). These same trends track higher educated and younger Americans. Heck, even 75% NRA members support required background checks on all gun purchases. Ges, it appears you're following the same information bubble that created shock on the night of 11-06/12 for hard line, tone deaf republicans. The RP needs to change and not allow the NRA, bigots, Christian wackos, angry, afraid, old white men to put them out of business. The RP is less than one generation away of extinction. Finally, the discussion is about reform, smart control and restriction and not about throwing the Second Amendment out the window.
GES December 25, 2012 at 06:32 PM
America still does not have a large enough amount of Crazy Socialist progressive liberals like you to do the things that you want to do. Your Brady stats do not hold water. And you will not touch the group of people who commit 2/3 (CDC 2011 study) of all violent crime with a 10 foot pole! "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." You just will never understand what "shall not be infringed" means! Just wait and see what happens to your stats, if Obama actually does anything to Control legal guns more than they are! Obama will drive most Democrats over a cliff if they take that ride on his happy train!
Eddie E. December 26, 2012 at 01:52 AM
ges, Now you expose yourself as a sad, frustrated old man.
GES December 26, 2012 at 04:32 AM
E, Please give a source for your statistics for stricter gun control legislation as i do not believe them. I really think you are pulling them out your butt!
Eddie E. December 26, 2012 at 01:12 PM
ges, Apparently, you lack comprehension of the concept of a 'well regulated militia'. It is time that portion of the 2nd Amendment was implemented.
GES December 26, 2012 at 06:52 PM
Eddie it is you that do not have the ability to comprehend such a simple thing! "Well regulated" means "well armed with the ability to use your arms in a competent manner" "militia" means all males between the ages of 18-40 ish. not sure of the exact age off the top of my head. There is no need to discuss what this means, just go read the articles of confederation (Google it), that will answer most of the misunderstandings you have ! So, if you want to bend things you could say men over the ages of 40 something & all women, do not have a Constitutional right to own a firearm, however, just because you do not have a Constitutional right to do or have something, does not mean you can't have or own it!. This is the main problems with Liberals today, they take something simple then try to bend the words to make it fit their own agenda.
Eddie E. December 26, 2012 at 07:32 PM
ges, Now you are both a mind reader and Constitutional Scholar! I bet you are one of those 'Original Intent' kooks who don't comprehend the evolving nature of definitions in the Constitution (why else would we need a Supreme Court). It is probably time they revisit exactly what 'well regulated militia' means and allow for proper regulation. You hold tight to your NRA instructions and watch the Country move forward into more effective, Progressive civilization!
"E Pluribus Unum" December 26, 2012 at 10:12 PM
Eddie E and ges...has anyone referenced the SCOTUS ruling regarding District of Columbia vs Heller? If so, I've missed it. It's my understanding however that the Court ruled in favor of individual right to posses a firearm 'unconnected with service in a militia' and use of that arm for traditional lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home. The ruling was also decoupled from 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Additionally 'militia' means the same thing today as when the BoR was adopted. So here is the kicker to the SCOTUS ruling...the term 'arms' is understood to mean weapons 'not specifically designed for military use and not employed in a military capacity." In other words we Do Not have the right to possess a fully automatic AK-47 under the guise to track down Bambi. So the SCOTUS overturned the District of Columbia's law that place an unconstitutional burden on Second Amendment right of citizens to bear arms for legitimate purposes. It DID NOT overturn laws restricting the types of weapons citizens may own. There seems to be a lot of confusion or memory lapse of the laws Not overturned. Thoughts?
Eddie E. December 26, 2012 at 11:12 PM
The key terms yet to be defined by the SCOTUS in the current discussion are 'well regulated'. Heller was yet another ridiculous decision in this abomination of a Court we have suffered under since 2005. I do so look forward to substantial changes over the next 4 years.
Eddie E. December 26, 2012 at 11:13 PM
ges, frank luntz did a nice study last summer that suggested even my fellow NRA members have seen the light.
GES December 26, 2012 at 11:54 PM
epu, You seem to be confused by the definition of the difference between an Automatic and Semi-automatic weapons. That is why you failed to actually grasp the concept of the Heller ruling.
HamBurger January 05, 2013 at 03:11 AM
For consideration . . . http://tinyurl.com/a355edy My kind of gal . . . I want my wife and children to survive me. Please pass the yellow mustard!
GES January 05, 2013 at 04:09 PM
Most People just do not understand how often Guns Actually Save Lives. It happens every day, you just don't read about it! To me a Dirt Bag death or even a Suicide should not count as a gun death in the statistics game the Government plays! If she had used a 10mm, 40 S&W or even a 45 acp and shot center mass the public would not have to worry about that dirt bag again! If you ask a Dr they will try to tell you the scum bag did not deserve to be shot, they think the criminals should have more rights than Law abiding American citizens!
HamBurger January 05, 2013 at 04:20 PM
GES, yes, someone at the AJC slipped up. This is not the kind of story they like to print. Special hamburger and a Cheerwine?
Lori Titzburgh January 05, 2013 at 04:55 PM
Emptied a .38, five rounds, head and neck and he survived? Wow, I did not think that would be possible.
GES January 05, 2013 at 08:05 PM
Lori, a normal 38 Special load out of a short barreled pistol is not that powerful, it can kill if it goes into the right place, but the front of the skull can be very tough as many loads will tend to hit then glance to the side! If using a 38 Special for defense you really need +P loads made for short barreled pistols, or just buy a 357 Mag! Neck shots will not do much unless you hit the spine or sever an artery. Center mass going into the heat lungs and liver would be an optimum hit.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something