http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/columns/hawpe/hawpe.html
CONCEALED-CARRY IN THE CLASSROOM
DAVID HAWPE
YOU HAVE to talk straight when you talk about firearms. Especially in a state where gun violence so recently has been visited on school kids, with tragic results. And where a commonwealth's attorney died defending himself and his family from a seedy intruder.
What I want to do is explain the argument that gun advocates make and see whether you buy it. And if you buy it, I want to know just how far you would go in applying it.
The argument is made by John R. Lott, a fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law and author of a treatise called "More Guns, Less Crime."
He notes that two school tragedies were "stopped by a citizen displaying a gun." In the 1997 shooting spree at a Pearl, Miss., high school, where two died, an assistant principal ran to his car, got his gun and held the shooter until police came. In Edinboro, Pa., a shooting that left one teacher dead was stopped by a bystander leveling a shotgun on the perpetrator as he began to reload.
"Who knows," asks Lott, "how many lives were saved by these prompt responses?"
In order to explore the issue scientifically, Lott and his colleague William Landes assembled data on all the multiple-victim shootings reported in this country between 1977 and 1995. They factored out gang-type incidents and those related to other crimes, such as robbery.
They looked at gun laws, including mandatory waiting periods prior to purchase, and various methods of deterrence.
But, he concludes, "only one policy was found to reduce deaths and injuries from these shootings: allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns."
The findings, he says, are dramatic. When states pass laws giving adults (except those with a criminal record or history of mental illness) the right to carry concealed, multiple-victim public shootings drop by 84 percent. Deaths in such incidents drop 90 percent, and injuries 82 percent. And for good measure, he reports, concealed carry laws also deter other violent crimes.
Now my question is, if you believe this research, why haven't you demanded that those who represent you in Frankfort make sure we have guns in the schools? If they deter mass shootings and other crime, why not insist that every principal and teacher get a permit, training and a gun?
If you think this is a silly argument, think again.
In the latest issue of the highly respected Education Week magazine, Jessica Portner reports that a loophole in federal law, allowing guns in schools, has become the object of widespread concern.
President Clinton signed a law that calls for suspension of any students who bring weapons onto school premises. But, says Portner, most adults "are legally free to carry handguns and rifles into classrooms, through crowded hallways and to football games . . . and they do."
In Danville, Ala., the principal of a high school toted a loaded .22-caliber pistol in his back pocket, explaining that he needed it to defend himself against student threats. He was fired.
In Milwaukie, Ore., a janitor carried a loaded handgun with him onto the night shift for self-protection. He was fired, too.
But if Mr. Lott is right, then the head of Oregon's 14,000-student North Clackamas school district is wrong. Supt. Ron Naso says, "While we understand (the janitor) was doing this for his own protection, we don't believe weapons, particularly guns, should be on our campuses in any form. We are working hard in our community to make it clear to students that weapons in school are not to be tolerated. The same holds for adults."
Doesn't Mr. Naso understand that violent crime goes down when the shoulder holsters are strapped on?
And what about the chief of police for Los Angeles schools, Wesley Mitchell? Why doesn't he understand? He opposes teachers and principals carrying weapons. He says, "There's already concern about trained professionals using (a gun) at school. What happens to the security of that firearm if a principal is caught trying to break up a fight? What if it's taken away from him by students?"
Congress is similarly misguided. It has passed several laws over the past decade in an effort to stop the carrying of guns onto school property. The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 threatens states with loss of federal funds if they lack rules to suspend for a year students who are caught bringing a weapon to school.
My question is, if you believe Lott is right, and if a teenager has taken the training and knows how to handle a gun, why not allow him to strap it under his shirt? Why not not let her tuck one into her purse? In fact, if Lott has analyzed his results correctly, superintendents are guilty of gross negligence for failing to insure that every responsible person in every school has a weapon.
Every school an armed camp. And why not?
If it's true that the prospect of encountering an armed victim really does keep the bad guys from doing bad things, this is the only logical course.
Yet the 1996 federal Gun-Free School Zones Act bars adults from carrying a gun within 1,000 feet of a school, unless they are law enforcement officers, traveling across the premises toward hunting land, participating in a school-approved program or hold a state-issued concealed-weapons license.
My question is, if the much-heralded Lott study means what its fans say it means, why does the federal law limit concealed weapons in this way? And why do state laws, like those in Kentucky, prevent even people with concealed carry permits from bringing guns into schools?
If concealed carry works, it works. And if doesn't . . .
Copyright 2000 The Courier-Journal.
CONCEALED-CARRY IN THE CLASSROOM
DAVID HAWPE
YOU HAVE to talk straight when you talk about firearms. Especially in a state where gun violence so recently has been visited on school kids, with tragic results. And where a commonwealth's attorney died defending himself and his family from a seedy intruder.
What I want to do is explain the argument that gun advocates make and see whether you buy it. And if you buy it, I want to know just how far you would go in applying it.
The argument is made by John R. Lott, a fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law and author of a treatise called "More Guns, Less Crime."
He notes that two school tragedies were "stopped by a citizen displaying a gun." In the 1997 shooting spree at a Pearl, Miss., high school, where two died, an assistant principal ran to his car, got his gun and held the shooter until police came. In Edinboro, Pa., a shooting that left one teacher dead was stopped by a bystander leveling a shotgun on the perpetrator as he began to reload.
"Who knows," asks Lott, "how many lives were saved by these prompt responses?"
In order to explore the issue scientifically, Lott and his colleague William Landes assembled data on all the multiple-victim shootings reported in this country between 1977 and 1995. They factored out gang-type incidents and those related to other crimes, such as robbery.
They looked at gun laws, including mandatory waiting periods prior to purchase, and various methods of deterrence.
But, he concludes, "only one policy was found to reduce deaths and injuries from these shootings: allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns."
The findings, he says, are dramatic. When states pass laws giving adults (except those with a criminal record or history of mental illness) the right to carry concealed, multiple-victim public shootings drop by 84 percent. Deaths in such incidents drop 90 percent, and injuries 82 percent. And for good measure, he reports, concealed carry laws also deter other violent crimes.
Now my question is, if you believe this research, why haven't you demanded that those who represent you in Frankfort make sure we have guns in the schools? If they deter mass shootings and other crime, why not insist that every principal and teacher get a permit, training and a gun?
If you think this is a silly argument, think again.
In the latest issue of the highly respected Education Week magazine, Jessica Portner reports that a loophole in federal law, allowing guns in schools, has become the object of widespread concern.
President Clinton signed a law that calls for suspension of any students who bring weapons onto school premises. But, says Portner, most adults "are legally free to carry handguns and rifles into classrooms, through crowded hallways and to football games . . . and they do."
In Danville, Ala., the principal of a high school toted a loaded .22-caliber pistol in his back pocket, explaining that he needed it to defend himself against student threats. He was fired.
In Milwaukie, Ore., a janitor carried a loaded handgun with him onto the night shift for self-protection. He was fired, too.
But if Mr. Lott is right, then the head of Oregon's 14,000-student North Clackamas school district is wrong. Supt. Ron Naso says, "While we understand (the janitor) was doing this for his own protection, we don't believe weapons, particularly guns, should be on our campuses in any form. We are working hard in our community to make it clear to students that weapons in school are not to be tolerated. The same holds for adults."
Doesn't Mr. Naso understand that violent crime goes down when the shoulder holsters are strapped on?
And what about the chief of police for Los Angeles schools, Wesley Mitchell? Why doesn't he understand? He opposes teachers and principals carrying weapons. He says, "There's already concern about trained professionals using (a gun) at school. What happens to the security of that firearm if a principal is caught trying to break up a fight? What if it's taken away from him by students?"
Congress is similarly misguided. It has passed several laws over the past decade in an effort to stop the carrying of guns onto school property. The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 threatens states with loss of federal funds if they lack rules to suspend for a year students who are caught bringing a weapon to school.
My question is, if you believe Lott is right, and if a teenager has taken the training and knows how to handle a gun, why not allow him to strap it under his shirt? Why not not let her tuck one into her purse? In fact, if Lott has analyzed his results correctly, superintendents are guilty of gross negligence for failing to insure that every responsible person in every school has a weapon.
Every school an armed camp. And why not?
If it's true that the prospect of encountering an armed victim really does keep the bad guys from doing bad things, this is the only logical course.
Yet the 1996 federal Gun-Free School Zones Act bars adults from carrying a gun within 1,000 feet of a school, unless they are law enforcement officers, traveling across the premises toward hunting land, participating in a school-approved program or hold a state-issued concealed-weapons license.
My question is, if the much-heralded Lott study means what its fans say it means, why does the federal law limit concealed weapons in this way? And why do state laws, like those in Kentucky, prevent even people with concealed carry permits from bringing guns into schools?
If concealed carry works, it works. And if doesn't . . .
Copyright 2000 The Courier-Journal.
