Lars Larson on Gun Control
Lars Larson (or someone using his name) is circulating an e-mail concerning guns on school grounds and fuctions. Take a look (this e-mail is a straight copy containing all original errors & omissions).
Lars Larson is now circulating the e-mail below. Just thought you'd like to know:
Sorry to bother you. You're probably as busy as I am. But there's an issue you should be concerned
with no matter how you feel about 2nd Amendment rights.
The Oregon School Boards Association is planning to ask the legislature to ban legal, licensed concealed
carry on all school grounds and at all school functions.
This is foolish...and I'll list the reasons why I believe that.
1. Oregon has a successful concealed carry program that's more than 12 years old.
2. More than 100,000 Oregonians are licensed to carry a gun.
3. There have been no incidents of firearms assaults in Oregon in all that time by anyone licensed to carry.
4. Some Oregon teachers carry concealed weapons...yet they're afraid to even mention it.
5. Oregon law allows concealed carry on school grounds.
6. At least three school shootings in the past five years have been stopped by citizens licensed to
carry a gun.
7. Banning concealed carry on school grounds and at school activities is a bad idea.
1. schools that now have teachers who carry concealed will be at greater risk without them
2. parents who come to school (planned or unplanned trip) must either
a. leave their concealed carry pistol at home (Oregon law supports concealed carry)
b. leave it in a locked car...which is the place where most gun thefts occur
c. violate the law to be able to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights .
8. Parents would be banned from exercising a right they have everywhere else in Oregon
1. coming to schools on unplanned trips to deal with a problem involving their child
2. coming to schools on planned trips to visit a teacher
3. going to football games, school dances, etc.
frequently, planned trips like this involve attending events at night...and leaving
to a parking lot after dark. for those who choose to exercise their Second
amendment rights and carry...this is a bad time to be defenseless.
bottom line...this policy fails to make kids any safer...and in fact puts schools at greater risk.
Let me remind you that the so-called "Portland Seven" convicted terrorists discussed plans to
take the semi automatic weapons they practiced with and shoot up a local school. This plan
by the OSBA would guarantee that any school some future terrorist picks will be left
Economist Dr. John Lott ( http://www.johnrlott.com/) has written numerous articles showing that concealed carry states have lower rates of violent crime in general...because crooks, while stupid in many cases, are
afraid of being met by an armed citizen capable of protecting himself.
This policy is foolish, feel-good that won't do anything good for anyone...and is only an extension
of the anti-gun policy of people who don't understand that it's bad guys with guns who
If another Kip Kinkel came to a school...would you like him to be influenced by knowing that he
might meet up with an armed parent or teacher...or WOULD YOU LIKE HIM TO BE
CONFIDENT THAT NO ONE AT THE SCHOOL WILL HAVE A GUN?
concealed carry permit holder
listed below is the osba's website link and the e mails of all OSBA members. I urge you to contact them
and calmly make your point. Just remember...the only good gun control is putting all your shots inside
the ten ring
firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Published Sunday, July 13, 2003, in The Los Angeles Times < http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-oe-lott13jul13193420,1,3029716.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary>
Letting Teachers Pack Guns Will Make America's Schools Safer
By John R. Lott Jr.
John R. Lott Jr., a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of the newly released "The Bias Against Guns" (Regnery, 2003).
Banning guns from schools seems the obvious way to keep children safe. Utah, though, is doing the opposite, and is stirring up debate across the nation.
Acting under a new state law, school districts across Utah have started drawing up regulations allowing teachers and other public employees to carry concealed guns on school property. Opponents are still trying to fight the law, and at first glance their concern about firearms in schools is understandable. Last Sunday in New Jersey, an attack by armed teenagers against three fellow students and randomly chosen townspeople was narrowly averted.
But that's not the whole picture. Consider an analogy: Suppose a criminal is stalking you or your family. Would you feel safe putting a sign in front of your home saying, "This Home Is a Gun-Free Zone"? Law-abiding citizens might be pleased by such a sign, but to criminals it would be an invitation.
In 1985, just eight states had right-to-carry laws - laws that automatically grant permits for concealed weapons once applicants pass a criminal background check, pay their fees and, when required, complete a training class. Today, 35 states do.
Examining all the multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1999 shows that on average, states that adopt right-to-carry laws experience a 60% drop in the rates at which the attacks occur, and a 78% drop in the rates at which people are killed or injured from such attacks.
To the extent such attacks still occurred in right-to-carry states, they overwhelmingly take place in so-called "gun-free zones." Indeed, the attack last week in Meridian, Miss., in which five people were killed took place in a Lockheed Martin plant where employees were forbidden to have guns.
The effect of right-to-carry laws is greater on multiple-victim public shootings than on other crimes for a simple reason: Increasing the probability that someone will be able to protect himself improves deterrence. Though it may be statistically unlikely that any single person in a crowd is carrying a concealed handgun, the probability that at least one person is armed is high.
Contrary to many people's impressions, before the federal law was enacted in 1995 it was possible for teachers and other adults with concealed-handgun permits to carry guns on school property in many states.
Many of the concerns about accidents and other problems are unwarranted. The real problems at schools occurred only after the ban. The rash of student shootings at schools began in October 1997 in Pearl, Miss.
Public reaction against guns is understandable, given the horrific events shown on TV. But the more than 2 million times each year that Americans use guns defensively are never discussed. In more than 90% of those cases, simply brandishing a weapon is sufficient to cause a criminal to break off an attack. My research also shows that citizens with guns helped stop about a third of the post-1997 public school shootings, stepping in before uniformed police could arrive.
Last year, news broadcasts on the three main TV networks carried about 190,000 words on gun crime stories. Not one segment featured a civilian using a gun to stop a crime. Newspapers are not much better.
Police are extremely important in deterring crime, but they almost always arrive after the crime has been committed. Annual surveys of crime victims in the United States by the Justice Department show that when confronted by a criminal, people are safest if they have a gun.
Just as the threat of arrest and prison can deter criminals, so can the fact that victims can defend themselves.
For multiple-victim shootings, the biggest factor determining the amount of harm is the length of time between when an attack starts and when someone with a gun can stop the attack. The longer the delay, the more are harmed.
Good intentions do not necessarily make good laws. What counts is whether the laws ultimately save lives. Unfortunately, too many gun laws primarily disarm law-abiding citizens, not criminals.
add a comment on this article
add a comment on this article