Lars Larson: ‘Fix the Problem, Arm More Americans’ — SHOT Show 2015

Nationally syndicated talk show host Lars Larson is a cool dude. I was just sitting there working on a story in the hallway outside of the media room at the 2015 SHOT Show in Las Vegas, Nevada, when I saw Lars broadcasting live from a small, what-appeared to an impromptu radio cubicle.

During a commercial break, I walked over to him and asked him if he’d do a quick interview with GunsAmerica. Normally, even those who are gun-friendly media personalities are not inclined to do an interview on the fly at a moments notice. They typically like a heads up so (a) they can vet you and your publication and (b) they can have some time, even if it’s 10 mins or so, to prepare.

But Lars was ready to go. “Sure, let’s do it,” he said enthusiastically.

I must admit, I had never listened to his show before. That’s probably because I don’t listen to a lot of talk radio. With that said, I really like what he had to say. And next time going on a road trip, I’m certainly going to either download his podcast before I leave or see if I can find him on the AM/FM dial.

Here are the highlights from the interview (for those of you who refuse to watch the video):

“Bloomberg’s a nannystater.”

“The kinds of things he proposes will not fix the problem. The way to fix the problem, frankly, is to arm more Americans.”

“We have lower rates of violent crime in states where people carry routinely and regularly.”

“If Bloomberg really wanted to address safety he’d encourage more Americans to carry concealed…”

“They [the founders and framers] wanted every average person in this country to be able to own and bear an arm.”

“It’s about eliminating gun ownership altogether. They’re after hunters, they’re after sportsmen, they’re after gun enthusiast and they’ll pick off the easy ones from the outside of the herd before they go after the ones in the center of the herd…You start with things that might have sounded reasonable in one day and age, they’re not reasonable at all. Anyone requiring people to turn in magazines above a certain size or if you have to fill out mounds of paperwork that person is ultimately after prohibiting you from having a gun.”

Needless to say, Lars gets it.

What are your thoughts? Are you familiar with Lars? Are you a fan?

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • law dawg February 3, 2015, 6:44 pm

    Here’s some food for thought : we the people of this country have a great constitution better then any other in the world. The true American citizens need to be at an high alert because the obama constituents.. i.e. Soros, bloomberg, fienstien, pelozi, biden, and the leftists in our country are hell bent on taking our God given rights from us, especially the second amendment. As a law enforcement officer for over thirty years swore to abide and up hold the laws of our country and that includes the constitution, of which the current individuals in the white house have chosen to violate with out a second thought. I believe that the God fearing, law abiding citizens of our country should be armed and allowed to have a ccw. Criminals will always have guns and citizens deserve to be able to protect themselves and family from tyranny, criminals, and yes invaders of our country. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!

  • DaveGinOly February 3, 2015, 4:01 pm

    “The way to fix the problem, frankly, is to arm more Americans.”
    “If Bloomberg really wanted to address safety he’d encourage more Americans to carry concealed…”

    If Bloomie were really interested in reducing firearms violence and improving safety, he’d be spending his money building firing ranges and establishing training programs on safe gun handling, ownership, and use. If he’s not doing these things, he’s not actually interested in “safety,” it’s just eyewash for policies that, if they were accurately labeled, wouldn’t find support. (That’s why “Handgun Control” became the “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.”)

  • Joe February 3, 2015, 3:57 pm

    When death is at your doorstep by the hand of somebody with ill intentions you can either offer your soul up to a higher entity, plead for mercy, or defend what you hold dear.
    I choose to make the other person go for options one or two because I’m going to use my second amendment given right and defend myself.
    I’m sure the police will thank me when they show up thirty minutes after I report the incident.

  • Dennis February 3, 2015, 2:31 pm

    Again, unfortunately most if not all do not get it. The urge to limit gun ownership, to make it a requirement to meet certain parameter, conditions or abilities is not and never has been part of the constitution. It says ALL/ANY citizen has the right to bear arms. It does not limit to how big or small a grouping you can meet, it does not say you have to have psychological tests to show that you are some lunatics idea of sane, it does not say you have to register it, it does not say you have to have back ground checks, it does not say you must meet ANY other requirement other than being a citizen of the United States of America. All these other things are added by paranoid individuals who generally only what their ‘kind’ to be able to own anything. They are nothing more than socialist agenda attempts at limiting the all encompassing right of the people.

  • GenEarly February 3, 2015, 12:36 pm

    Lars speaks truthfully. The “normalcy bias” assumes that the gun rights debate is static, but the ProgreSSives are constantly changing the rules/laws, the goal posts, the topics, international agreements, embargoes, licenses, etc. There is No Constitutional “standard”, only the quicksand of socialism. How do you take “a stand” with the ground rules shifting beneath your feet?
    1st Amendment “Free Speech” may end before the 2nd Amendment………watch your 6, there is no safe ground, imo.
    As to arming more Citizens, this may help if more widely viewed.

  • Tom K February 3, 2015, 11:34 am

    Everyone owning a gun is a deterrent. When America and Russia both possessed enough nuclear weapons to destroy the other, you have a deterrent, mutual destruction.. When only one side has all the power and weapons, you have tyranny, suppression, and a God like King.. Every time a Kingdom got too powerful in past history, God took them down, for he knew if One person, kingdom, religious power/Rome, ruled the world, it would not be for the betterment of Man, but for power, tyranny, riches, etc. No more freedom of choice, or speech, or freedom of worship/religion.. Man is just inherently evil.. Power begets power..
    And by the way, if Guns are bad, then why does Obama keep handing them out by the millions to Islamists in other Countries? Where is My free automatic weapon, Obama? I think we will be fighting IS here in America too..

  • Logan Cress February 3, 2015, 9:40 am

    There are not enough police in the entire USA to stop the criminals. Everyone should be armed and ready to defend their freedoms. I hear of increasing home invasions, the ones who survive are armed. The ones that don’t are not.
    Unfortunately, the liberals are determined to make everyone unarmed and dependant on the government for everything. As gun owners, we need to help others to learn about guns and the benefits of being able to defend yourselves and your families. Only through superior force can one win against one or more opponents. A gun in the right hands can make all the difference!

    • Dennis February 3, 2015, 2:19 pm

      Good point Logan. You might also add that the courts have actually said that a police officer does not actually have to step in and prevent a crime. While to their credit, many do, they do not have to. So, I would never leave the protection of myself or my family to anyone who did not have the obligation to intervene. The only protection we have is ourselves and our family.

    • DaveGinOly February 3, 2015, 4:45 pm

      “Everyone should be armed and ready to defend their freedoms.”
      Police, fire, and EMTs are not “first responders.” “First responders” are the people at the scene of an incident when it occurs; those at the scene have a moral responsibility for their own safety and the protection of others in their charge. Everyone else arrives late.

  • Vernon Rosa February 3, 2015, 7:44 am

    I’m not familiar with Lars but his comments listed here resonate with me. Everyone who has a legal right to own a firearm (that means non-criminals, non-mentally deranged, etc.) should be encouraged to do so, and should carry concealed daily. John Doe bad guy, when he doesn’t know who has or has not got a concealed 1911 or P229, is going to seek out one of the “gun free zones” liberals are so in love with to commit his crimes. Mr. Law-abiding citizen, unless he or she lives in Detroit, Chicago, New York, D.C., and the other liberal bastions, will be much less a target when the thugs know he / she may fight back with deadly effect. Why can’t Bloomberg, et al see what is happening in all the states and cities that prohibit firearm possession or carry? It makes no sense to me.

    • wolfpack-bravo February 3, 2015, 9:33 am

      Why can’t the politicians see what is happening? They can. It makes no sense to you because you think logically. Gun control is nor has it ever been about guns. It’s about control. Remove a citizenrys firearms and you control the populace. “Safety” is the lie, and it sounds reasonable. After all don’t we all want a safe society?
      Just look at history and you can see how well gun control works.
      Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. The experts all agree gun control works.

  • troop emonds February 3, 2015, 3:33 am

    Lars is right on. He might ad that the President ought to be fronting for universal concealed carry laws, so that good citizens who can qualify for safety, background, check, and certain standards like being able to consistently hit a 4″ target at 50 feet should be able to travel state to state with a concealed carry permit on the drivers licence.

    The real facts are with terrorists already proving that they can really cause a tremendous amount of trouble in attacks like a few terrorists pulled off in Paris, Mumbai, and the Kenyan Shopping Mall. We need armed minute men more now than at any other time in history. Somebody needs to walk among us armed to instantly shoot back at bad guys just killing people because they want to make Allah Happy.

    As Nepeoleon once said God tends to favor the large Battalions, especially those who have artillery. I think Allah tends to favor the armed good citizen who can shoot straight, fire and manouver quickly, and tell the truth.

    • ed February 3, 2015, 8:01 am

      A 4″ target at 50′ Are you kidding??? what about a 5′ target at 10 ‘ Nobody defends themselves at 50′ I practice once a week at my local club and practice at 15 10 and 5 feet That is where 95% of all handgun crimes happen
      Try doing that 4″ at 50’ when your heart rate is 120/140 the next time your at your local range and see how ridiculous your statemet is

      • Rob S. February 3, 2015, 9:32 am

        Sorry, “ed”, but “troop emonds” is right. You should practice at the higher standard. Because in real life situations, we can only hope to be a fraction as good as we are on the range. So if you can hit 4″ at 50 ft on the range, when your blood is pumping, and your mind is in overdrive, you’ll still be able to hit an assailant in the vitals at 5, 10, or 15 ft. If you only practice for the close encounter, then there is no guarantee what you’ll hit when the SHTF.
        -I have helped to teach almost 1000 people as a defensive handgun instructor

        • Dennis February 3, 2015, 2:16 pm

          Sorry Rob, but you are not correct. Go ask the dead cop who fired several magazines at a bad guy, missed all but a couple then got shot in the head by a rifle at close range. Cops practice a lot, but nothing can prepare you for actual confrontations other than the confrontation itself. You can make it as near reflex as you can, but in the end, other things tend to overshadow all the practice. While it is always good to practice so that a person knows his weapon, that practice did not save the cop, nor will it save the person who can hit 4 inches at 50 yards. So, to limit the ownership and use of weapons just because you can hit a target is just another liberal step to removing all ownership of weapons. Next step, make it 2 inches at 100 yards, that eliminates just about everyone.

    • Scott February 3, 2015, 11:49 am

      So troop emonds is advocating a test/qualification in order to exercise a right.

    • Dennis February 3, 2015, 2:09 pm

      Any limiting of a law is a step to removing the law. To say that someone has to be able to hit a certain grouping of shots in order to have a concealed carry permit limits the right of all to carry a gun and is no different than someone saying you must register a gun in order to own one. There is no requirement for this, nor should there ever be. The constitution guarantees free and unlimited access and ownership rights to all citizens, not just the ones you think should own a gun or have a carry permit.

    • DaveGinOly February 3, 2015, 3:51 pm

      I agree with “troop.” I also think that before you’re allowed to believe in God, you should be required to say a prayer and have it answered (within three days), or your application for your religious belief will be denied.

      • steve February 4, 2015, 11:18 pm

        lol. that’s pretty good. if only it were that easy to get rid of crazy religious beliefs.

Send this to a friend