The Naval Yard shootings caught us with our pants down. How could a gunman penetrate through a U.S. Naval Base? How did he acquire the gun? Why did he do it? How do we respond? These are all valid questions, with very few answers. But of course, Vice President of the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre gave it a shot. His diagnosis for the shootings? “There weren’t enough good guys with guns.”

You’ve heard it here. A naval installation in the heart of our fortified capital doesn’t have enough people with guns. I doubt LaPierre has ever seen the large police officers with scary looking machine guns virtually everywhere on The Mall. The National Rifle Association’s diagnosis of the Navy Yard shooting is totally out of touch with reality, but at its’ core, the “good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun” argument is just plain wrong.

First, it is totally unwarranted. There is no proof good guys with guns prevail over bad guys with guns. In spite of our high rates of gun ownership, we have very high rates of violent crime- bad guys with guns often win. If we have good guys with guns, why haven’t they been able to bring the crime rate down? Well, maybe because bad guys usually have their guns drawn already, have bigger guns or come in big, scary gangs.

But even when good guys do have guns, they often don’t use them during acts of violence. The Tucson Shooting in 2011 ended when the shooter, Jared Loughner, dropped his gun’s magazine while reloading. Civilians on the scene had guns. But understandably, they didn’t want to fire into a crowd and misidentify the shooter. They hit Loughner with a chair and tackled him to the ground instead. Good guys had guns, but did not fire them.

Finally, even if I’m wrong, the argument places all of the blame for gun violence on the victims. After each massacre, the National Rifle Association (N.R.A.) pleads, “if someone in the crowd had a gun, they’d stop the shooter.” But no one can predict when or where the next mass shooting will be occur because it could happen at any time or at any place. So if you choose not to arm yourself, and a mass shooting takes place, the National Rifle Association would argue that you are responsible, because you could have brought a gun and stopped the shooter yourself, but instead you chose not to.

Out of this blame game, it is clear the N.R.A. does not support your right to bear arms. They argue that you are culpable if you choose not to arm yourself should a mass shooting occur. Consequently, it follows that you must bear arms all the time. But this isn’t a right, this is an obligation. Since you have a right to bear arms, you must have an equal right to not bear arms. But according to the N.R.A., you don’t have a choice. You have to arm yourself, or suffer the consequences.

The N.R.A. loves pretending they are the last hope against an out of control Frankenstein government, ready to steal your guns. So too, they believe putting gun in the hands of every citizen is the only solution to violence. They could not be any more dishonest. We have good guys with guns, but we still have a high violent crime rate and gun massacres go uninterrupted.

The N.R.A. would rather blame those who don’t own guns and make bearing arms a duty. But our second amendment right goes both ways; I can choose to arm or not arm myself. They would rather not give us a choice and put a gun in our hands instead. Maybe it’s time to reflect and realize that the only out of control group who is ready to scare you, lie to you and take away your freedom isn’t the government.

It’s the N.R.A.