An opinion on gun control

I didn’t want to post about this, because frankly, it is exhausting. I’ve been having this exact same argument for my entire adult life. It is not an exaggeration when I say that I know pretty much exactly every single thing an anti-gun person can say. I’ve heard it over and over, the same old tired stuff, trotted out every single time there is a tragedy on the news that can be milked. Yet, I got sucked in, and I’ve spent the last few days arguing with people who either mean well but are uninformed about gun laws and how guns actually work (who I don’t mind at all), or the willfully ignorant (who I do mind), or the obnoxiously stupid who are completely incapable of any critical thinking deeper than a Facebook meme (them, I can’t stand).

Today’s blog post is going to be aimed at the first group. I am going to try to go through everything I’ve heard over the last few days, and try to break it down from my perspective. My goal tonight is to write something that my regular readers will be able to share with their friends who may not be as familiar with how mass shootings or gun control laws work.

A little background for those of you who don’t know me, and this is going to be extensive so feel free to skip the next few paragraphs, but I need to establish the fact that I know what I am talking with, because I am sick and tired of my opinion having the same weight as a person who learned everything they know about guns and violence from watching TV.

I am now a professional novelist. However, before that I owned a gun store. We were a Title 7 SOT, which means we worked with legal machineguns, suppresors, and pretty much everything except for explosives. We did law enforcement sales and worked with equipment that is unavailable from most dealers, but that means lots and lots of government inspections and compliance paperwork. This means that I had to be exceedingly familiar with federal gun laws, and there are a lot of them. I worked with many companies in the gun industry and still have many friends and contacts at various manufacturers. When I hear people tell me the gun industry is unregulated, I have to resist the urge to laugh in their face.

I was also a Utah Concealed Weapons instructor, and was one of the busiest instructors in the state. That required me to learn a lot about self-defense laws, and because I took my job very seriously, I sought out every bit of information that I could. My classes were longer than the standard Utah class, and all of that extra time was spent on Use of Force, shoot/no shoot scenarios, and role playing through violent encounters. I have certified thousands of people to carry guns.

I have been a firearms instructor, and have taught a lot of people how to shoot defensively with handguns, shotguns, and rifles. For a few years of my life, darn near every weekend was spent at the range. I started out as an assistant for some extremely experienced teachers and I also had the opportunity to be trained by some of the most accomplished firearms experts in the world. The man I stole most of my curriculum from was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Special Forces, turned federal agent SWAT team commander. I took classes in everything from wound ballistics (10 hours of looking at autopsy slides) to high-speed cool-guy door-kicking stuff. I’ve worked extensively with military and law enforcement personnel, including force on force training where I played the OpFor (i.e. I got to be the bad guy, because I make an awesome bad guy. You tell me how evil/capable you want me to be, and how hard you want your men to work, and I’d make it happen, plus I can take a beating). Part of this required learning how mass shooters operate and studying the heck out of the actual events.

I have been a competition shooter. I competed in IPSC, IDPA, and 3gun. It was not odd for me to reload and shoot 1,000 rounds in any given week. I fired 20,000 rounds of .45 in one August alone. I’ve got a Remington 870 with approximately 160,000 rounds through it. I’ve won matches, and I’ve been able to compete with some of the top shooters in the country. I am a very capable shooter. I only put this here to convey that I know how shooting works better than the vast majority of the populace.

I have written for national publications on topics relating to gun law and use of force. I wrote for everything from the United States Concealed Carry Association to SWAT magazine. I was considered a subject matter expert at the state level, and on a few occasions was brought in to testify before the Utah State Legislature on the ramifications of proposed gun laws. I’ve argued with lawyers, professors, professional lobbyists, and once made a state rep cry.

Basically for most of my adult life, I have been up to my eyeballs in guns, self-defense instruction, and the laws relating to those things. So believe me when I say that I’ve heard every argument relating to gun control possible. It is pretty rare for me to hear something new, and none of this stuff is new.

Armed Teachers

So now that there is a new tragedy the president wants to have a “national conversation on guns”. Here’s the thing. Until this national conversation is willing to entertain allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons, then it isn’t a conversation at all, it is a lecture.

Now when I say teachers carrying concealed weapons on Facebook I immediately get a bunch of emotional freak out responses. You can’t mandate teachers be armed! Guns in every classroom! Emotional response! Blood in the streets!

No. Hear me out. The single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate, violent response. The vast majority of the time, as soon as a mass shooter meets serious resistance, it bursts their fantasy world bubble. Then they kill themselves or surrender. This has happened over and over again.

Police are awesome. I love working with cops. However any honest cop will tell you that when seconds count they are only minutes away. After Colombine law enforcement changed their methods in dealing with active shooters. It used to be that you took up a perimeter and waited for overwhelming force before going in. Now usually as soon as you have two officers on scene you go in to confront the shooter (often one in rural areas or if help is going to take another minute, because there are a lot of very sound tactical reasons for using two, mostly because your success/survival rates jump dramatically when you put two guys through a door at once. The shooter’s brain takes a moment to decide between targets). The reason they go fast is because they know that every second counts. The longer the shooter has to operate, the more innocents die.

However, cops can’t be everywhere. There are at best only a couple hundred thousand on duty at any given time patrolling the entire country. Excellent response time is in the three-five minute range. We’ve seen what bad guys can do in three minutes, but sometimes it is far worse. They simply can’t teleport. So in some cases that means the bad guys can have ten, fifteen, even twenty minutes to do horrible things with nobody effectively fighting back.

So if we can’t have cops there, what can we do?

The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.

The teachers are there already. The school staff is there already. Their reaction time is measured in seconds, not minutes. They can serve as your immediate violent response. Best case scenario, they engage and stop the attacker, or it bursts his fantasy bubble and he commits suicide. Worst case scenario, the armed staff provides a distraction, and while he’s concentrating on killing them, he’s not killing more children.

But teachers aren’t as trained as police officers! True, yet totally irrelevant. The teacher doesn’t need to be a SWAT cop or Navy SEAL. They need to be speed bumps.

But this leads to the inevitable shrieking and straw man arguments about guns in the classroom, and then the pacifistic minded who simply can’t comprehend themselves being mandated to carry a gun, or those that believe teachers are all too incompetent and can’t be trusted. Let me address both at one time.

Don’t make it mandatory. In my experience, the only people who are worth a darn with a gun are the ones who wish to take responsibility and carry a gun. Make it voluntary. It is rather simple. Just make it so that your state’s concealed weapons laws trump the Federal Gun Free School Zones act. All that means is that teachers who voluntarily decide to get a concealed weapons permit are capable of carrying their guns at work. Easy. Simple. Cheap. Available now.

Then they’ll say that this is impossible, and give me all sorts of terrible worst case scenarios about all of the horrors that will happen with a gun in the classroom… No problem, because this has happened before. In fact, my state laws allow for somebody with a concealed weapons permit to carry a gun in a school right now. Yes. Utah has armed teachers. We have for several years now.

When I was a CCW instructor, I decided that I wanted more teachers with skin in the game, so I started a program where I would teach anybody who worked at a school for free. No charge. Zip. They still had to pay the state for their background check and fingerprints, but all the instruction was free. I wanted more armed teachers in my state.

I personally taught several hundred teachers. I quickly discovered that pretty much every single school in my state had at least one competent, capable, smart, willing individual. Some schools had more. I had one high school where the principal, three teachers, and a janitor showed up for class. They had just had an event where there had been a threat against the school and their resource officer had turned up AWOL. This had been a wake up call for this principal that they were on their own, and he had taken it upon himself to talk to his teachers to find the willing and capable. Good for them.

After Virginia Tech, I started teaching college students for free as well. They were 21 year old adults who could pass a background check. Why should they have to be defenseless?  None of these students ever needed to stop a mass shooting, but I’m happy to say that a couple of rapists and muggers weren’t so lucky, so I consider my time well spent.

Over the course of a couple years I taught well over $20,000 worth of free CCW classes. I met hundreds and hundreds of teachers, students, and staff. All of them were responsible adults who understood that they were stuck in target rich environments filled with defenseless innocents. Whether they liked it or not, they were the first line of defense. It was the least I could do.

Permit holders are not cops. The mistake many people make is that they think permit holders are supposed to be cops or junior danger rangers. Not at all. Their only responsibility is simple. If someone is threatening to cause them or a third person serious bodily harm, and that someone has the ability, opportunity, and is acting in a manner which suggest they are a legitimate threat, then that permit holder is allowed to use lethal force against them.

As of today the state legislatures of Texas, Tennessee, and Oklahoma are looking at revamping their existing laws so that there can be legal guns in school. For those that are worried these teachers will be unprepared, I’m sure there would be no lack of instructors in those states who’d be willing to teach them for free.

For everyone, if you are sincere in your wish to protect our children, I would suggest you call your state representative today and demand that they allow concealed carry in schools.

Gun Free Zones

Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.

Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people? Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.

In all honesty I have no respect for anybody who believes Gun Free Zones actually work. You are going to commit several hundred felonies, up to and including mass murder, and you are going to refrain because there is a sign? That No Guns Allowed sign is not a cross that wards off vampires. It is wishful thinking, and really pathetic wishful thinking at that.

The only people who obey No Guns signs are people who obey the law. People who obey the law aren’t going on rampages.

I testified before the Utah State Legislature about the University of Utah’s gun ban the day after the Trolley Square shooting in Salt Lake City. Another disaffected loser scumbag started shooting up this mall. He killed several innocent people before he was engaged by an off duty police officer who just happened to be there shopping. The off duty Ogden cop pinned down the shooter until two officers from the SLCPD came up from behind and killed the shooter. (turned out one of them was a customer of mine) I sent one of my employees down to Trolley Square to take a picture of the shopping center’s front doors. I then showed the picture to the legislators. One of the rules was NO GUNS ALLOWED.

The man that attacked the midnight showing of Batman didn’t attack just any theater. There were like ten to choose from. He didn’t attack the closest. It wasn’t about biggest or smallest. He attacked the one that was posted NO GUNS ALLOWED.

There were four mass killing attempts this week. Only one made the news because it helped the agreed upon media narrative.

  1. Oregon. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter confronted by permit holder. Shooter commits suicide. Only a few casualties.
  2. Texas. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter killed immediately by off duty cop. Only a few casualties.
  3. Connecticut. GUN FREE ZONE. Shooters kills until the police arrive. Suicide. 26 dead.
  4. China. GUN FREE COUNTRY. A guy with a KNIFE stabs 22 children.

And here is the nail in the coffin for Gun Free Zones. Over the last fifty years, with only one single exception (Gabby Giffords), every single mass shooting event with more than four casualties has taken place in a place where guns were supposedly not allowed.

The Media

Every time there is a mass shooting event, the vultures launch. I find it absolutely fascinating. A bunch of people get murdered, and the same usual suspects show up with the same tired proposals that we’ve either tried before or logic tells us simply will not work. They strike while the iron is hot, trying to push through legislation before there can be coherent thought. We’ve seen this over and over and over again. We saw it succeed in England. We saw it succeed in Australia. We’ve seen it succeed here before.

Yet when anyone from my side responds, then we are shouted at that we are blood thirsty and how dare we speak in this moment of tragedy, and we should just shut our stupid mouths out of respect for the dead, while they are free to promote policies which will simply lead to more dead… If the NRA says something they are bloodthirsty monsters, and if they don’t say something then their silence is damning guilt. It is hypocritical in the extreme, and when I speak out against this I am called every name in the book, I want dead children, I’m a cold hearted monster (the death threats are actually hilarious). If I become angry because they are promoting policies which are tactically flawed and which will do the exact opposite of the stated goals, then I am a horrible person for being angry. Perhaps I shouldn’t be allowed to own guns at all.

But that’s not why I want to talk about the media. I want to talk about the media’s effect on the shooters.

Put yourself in the shoes of one of these killers. One nice thing about playing the villain and being a punching bag for cops, soldiers, and permit holders is that you need to learn about how the bad guys think and operate. And most of the mass shooters fit a similar profile.

The vast majority (last I saw it was over 80%) are on some form of psychotropic drug and has been for many years. They have been on Zoloft or some serotonin inhibitor through their formative years, and their decision making process is often flawed. They are usually disaffected, have been bullied, pushed around, and have a lot of emotional problems. They are delusional. They see themselves as victims, and they are usually striking back at their peer group.

These people want to make a statement. They want to show the world that they aren’t losers. They want to make us understand their pain. They want to make their peer group realize that they are powerful. They’ll show us. The solution is easy. It’s right there in front of your nose.

If you can kill enough people at one time, you’ll be on the news, 24/7, round the clock coverage. You will become the most famous person in the world. Everyone will know your name. You become a celebrity. Experts will try to understand what you were thinking. Hell, the President of the United States, the most important man in the world, will drop whatever he is doing and hold a press conference to talk about your actions, and he’ll even shed a single manly tear.

You are a star.

Strangely enough, this is one of the only topics I actually agree with Roger Ebert on. He didn’t think that the news should cover the shooters or mention their names on the front page of the paper. So whenever the press isn’t talking about guns, or violent movies, or violent video games, or any other thing that hundreds of millions of people participated in yesterday without murdering anybody, they’ll keep showing the killer’s picture in the background while telling the world all about him and his struggles.

And then the cycle repeats, as the next disaffected angry loner takes notes.

They should not be glamorized. They should be hated, despised, and forgotten. They are not victims. They are not powerful. They are murdering scum, and the only time their names should be remembered is when people like me are studying the tactics of how to neutralize them faster.

 

Mental Health Issues

And right here I’m going to show why I’m different than the people I’ve been arguing with the last few days. I am not an expert on mental health issues or psychiatry or psychology. My knowledge of criminal psychology is limited to understanding the methods of killers enough to know how to fight them better.

So since I don’t have enough first-hand knowledge about this topic to comment intelligently, then I’m not going to comment… Oh please, if only some of the people I’ve been arguing with who barely understand that the bullets come out the pointy end of the gun would just do the same.

 

Gun Control Laws

As soon as there is a tragedy there comes the calls for “We have to do something!” Sure, the something may not actually accomplish anything as far as solving whatever the tragedy was or preventing the next one, but that’s the narrative. Something evil happened, so we have to do something, and preferably we have to do it right now before we think about it too hard.

The left side of the political spectrum loves it some gun control. Gun control is historically extremely unpopular in red state and purple state America, and thus very hard to pass bit stuff, but there’s a century’s accumulation of lots and lots of small ones. There have been a handful of major federal laws passed in the United States relating to guns, but the majority of really strict gun control has primarily been enacted in liberal dominated urban areas. There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books, and I have no idea how many pages of regulations from the BATF related to the production and selling of them. I’ve found that the average American is extremely uneducated about what gun laws already exist, what they actually do, and even fundamental terminology, so I’m going to go through many of the things I’ve seen argued about over the last few days and elaborate on them one by one.

I will leave out the particularly crazy things I was confronted with, including the guy who was in favor of mandating “automatic robot gun turrets” in schools. Yes. Heaven forbid we let a teacher CCW, so let’s put killer robots (which haven’t actually been invented yet) in schools. Man, I wish I was making this up, but that’s Facebook for you.

We need to ban automatic weapons.

Okay. Done. In fact, we pretty much did that in 1934. The National Firearms Act of 1934 made it so that you had to pay a $200 tax on a machinegun and register it with the government. In 1986 that registry was closed and there have been no new legal machineguns for civilians to own since then.

Automatic means that when you hold down the trigger the gun keeps on shooting until you let go or run out of ammo. Actual automatic weapons cost a lot of money. The cheapest one you can get right now is around $5,000 as they are all collector’s items and you need to jump through a lot of legal hoops to get one. To the best of my knowledge, there has only ever been one crime committed with an NFA weapon in my lifetime, and in that case the perp was a cop.

Now are machineguns still used in crimes? Why, yes they are. For every legally registered one, there are conservatively dozens of illegal ones in the hands of criminals. They either make their own (which is not hard to do) or they are smuggled in (usually by the same people that are able to smuggle in thousands of tons of drugs). Because really serious criminals simply don’t care, they are able to get ahold of military weapons, and they use them simply because criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law. So even an item which has been basically banned since my grandparents were kids, and which there has been no new ones allowed manufactured since I was in elementary school, still ends up in the hands of criminals who really want one. This will go to show how effective government bans are.

When you say “automatic” you mean full auto, as in a machinegun. What I think most of these people mean is semi-auto.

Okay. We need to ban semi-automatic weapons!

Semi-automatic means that each time you pull the trigger the action cycles and loads another round. This is the single most common type of gun, not just in America, but in the whole world. Almost all handguns are semi-automatic. The vast majority of weapons used for self-defense are semi-automatic, as are almost all the weapons used by police officers.  It is the most common because it is normally the most effective.

Semi-automatic is usually best choice for defensive use. It is easier to use because you can do so one handed if necessary, and you are forced to manipulate your weapon less. If you believe that using a gun for self-defense is necessary, then you pretty much have to say that semi-auto is okay.

Banning semi-automatic basically means banning all guns. I’ll get to the functional problems with that later.

We should ban handguns!

Handguns are tools for self-defense, and the only reason we use them over the more capable, and easier to hit with rifles or shotguns is because handguns are portable. Rifles are just plain better, but the only reason I don’t carry an AR-15 around is because it would be hard to hide under my shirt.

Concealed Carry works. As much as it offends liberals and we keep hearing horror stories about blood in the streets, the fact is over my lifetime most of the United States has enacted some form of concealed carry law, and the blood in the streets wild west shootouts over parking spaces they’ve predicted simply hasn’t happened. At this point in time there are only a few hold out states, all of them are blue states and all of them have inner cities which suffer from terrible crime, where once again, the criminals simply don’t care.

For information about how more guns actually equals less crime, look up the work of Dr. John Lott. And since liberals hate his guts, look up the less famous work of Dr. Gary Kleck, or basically look up the work of any criminologist or economist who isn’t writing for Slate or Mother Jones.

As for why CCW is good, see my whole first section about arming teachers for a tiny part of the whole picture. Basically bad people are going to be bad and do bad things. They are going to hurt you and take your stuff, because that’s what they do. That’s their career, and they are as good at it as you are at your job. They will do this anywhere they think they can get away with it.  We fixate on the mass shooters because they grab the headlines, but in actuality your odds of running in to one of them is tiny. Your odds of having a violent encounter with a run of the mill criminal is orders of magnitudes higher.

I do find one thing highly amusing. In my personal experience, some of the most vehement anti-gun people I’ve ever associated with will usually eventually admit after getting to know me, that if something bad happened, then they really hope I’m around, because I’m one of the good ones. Usually they never realize just how hypocritical and naïve that is.

We should ban Assault Rifles!

Define “assault rifle”…

Uh…

Yeah. That’s the problem. The term assault rifle gets bandied around a lot. Politically, the term is a loaded nonsense one that was created back during the Clinton years. It was one of those tricks where you name legislation something catchy, like PATRIOT Act. (another law rammed through while emotions were high and nobody was thinking, go figure).

To gun experts, an assault rifle is a very specific type of weapon which originated (for the most part) in the 1940s. It is a magazine fed, select fire (meaning capable of full auto), intermediate cartridge (as in, actually not that powerful, but I’ll come back to that later) infantry weapon.

The thing is, real assault rifles in the US have been heavily regulated since before they were invented. The thing that the media and politicians like to refer to as assault rifles is basically a catch all term for any gun which looks scary.

I had somebody get all mad at me for pointing this out, because they said that the term had entered common usage. Okay… If you’re going to legislate it, DEFINE IT.

And then comes up that pesky problem. The US banned assault rifles once before for a decade and the law did absolutely nothing. I mean, it was totally, literally pointless. The special commission to study it said that it accomplished absolutely nothing. (except tick a bunch of Americans off, and as a result we bought a TON more guns) And the reason was that since assault weapon is a nonsense term, they just came up with a list of arbitrary features which made a gun into an assault weapon.

Problem was, none of these features actually made the gun functionally any different or somehow more lethal or better from any other run of the mill firearm. Most of the criteria were so silly that they became a huge joke to gun owners, except of course, for that part where many law abiding citizens accidentally became instant felons because one of their guns had some cosmetic feature which was now illegal.

One of the criteria was that it was semi-automatic. See above. Hard to ban the single most common and readily available type of gun in the world. (unless you believe in confiscation, but I’ll get to that). Then what if it takes a detachable magazine! That’s got to be an Evil Feature. And yes, we really did call the Evil Features. I’ll talk about magazines below, but once again, it is pretty hard to ban something that common unless you want to go on a confiscatory national suicide mission.

For example, flash hiders sound dangerous. Let’s say having a flash hider makes a gun an assault weapon. So flash hiders became an evil feature. Problem is flash hiders don’t do much. They screw onto the end of your muzzle and divert the flash off to the side instead of straight up so it isn’t as annoying when you shoot. It doesn’t actually hide the flash from anybody else. EVIL.

Barrel shrouds were listed. Barrel shrouds are basically useless, cosmetic pieces of metal that go over the barrel so you don’t accidentally touch it and burn your hand. But they became an instantaneous felony too. Collapsible stocks make it so you can adjust your rifle to different size shooters, that way a tall guy and his short wife can shoot the same gun. Nope. EVIL FEATURE!

It has been a running joke in the gun community ever since the ban passed. When Carolyn McCarthy was asked by a reporter what a barrel shroud was, she replied “I think it is the shoulder thing which goes up.”  Oh good. I’m glad that thousands of law abiding Americans unwittingly committed felonies because they had a cosmetic piece of sheet metal on their barrel, which has no bearing whatsoever on crime, but could possibly be a shoulder thing which goes up.

Now are you starting to see why “assault weapons” is a pointless term? They aren’t functionally any more powerful or deadly than any normal gun. In fact the cartridges they normally fire are far less powerful than your average deer hunting rifle. Don’t worry though, because the same people who fling around the term assault weapons also think of scoped deer rifles as “high powered sniper guns”.

Basically, what you are thinking of as assault weapons aren’t special.

Now, the reason that semi-automatic, magazine fed, intermediate caliber rifles are the single most popular type of gun in America is because they are excellent for many uses, but I’m not talking about fun, or hunting, or sports, today I’m talking business. And in this case they are excellent for shooting bad people who are trying to hurt you, in order to make them stop trying to hurt you. These types of guns are superb for defending your home. Now some of you may think that’s extreme. That’s because everything you’ve learned about gun fights comes from TV. Just read the link where I expound on why.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/carbine-vs-shotgun-vs-pistol-for-home-defense/

I had one individual tell me that these types of guns are designed to slaughter the maximum number of people possible as quickly as possible… Uh huh… Which is why every single police department in America uses them, because of all that slaughtering cops do daily. Cops use them for the same reason we do, they are handy, versatile, and can stop an attacker quickly in a variety of circumstances.

When I said “stop an attacker quickly” somebody on Twitter thought that he’d gotten me and said “Stop. That’s just a euphemism for kill!” Nope. I am perfectly happy if the attacker surrenders or passes out from blood loss too. Tactically and legally, all I care about is making them stop doing whatever it is that they are doing which caused me to shoot them to begin with.

The guns that many of you think of as assault rifle are common and popular because they are excellent for fighting, and I’ll talk about what my side really thinks about the 2nd Amendment below.

We should ban magazines over X number of shots!

I’ve seen this one pop up a lot. It sounds good to the ear and really satisfies that we’ve got to do something need. It sounds simple. Bad guys shoot a lot of people in a mass shooting. So if he has magazines that hold fewer rounds, ergo then he’ll not be able to shoot as many people.

Wrong. And I’ll break it down, first why my side wants more rounds in our gun, second why tactically it doesn’t really stop the problem, and third, why stopping them is a logistical impossibility.

First off, why do gun owners want magazines that hold more rounds? Because sometimes you miss. Because usually—contrary to the movies—you have to hit an opponent multiple times in order to make them stop. Because sometimes you may have multiple assailants. We don’t have more rounds in the magazine so we can shoot more, we have more rounds in the magazine so we are forced to manipulate our gun less if we have to shoot more.

The last assault weapons ban capped capacities at ten rounds. You quickly realize ten rounds sucks when you take a wound ballistics class like I have and go over case after case after case after case of enraged, drug addled, prison hardened, perpetrators who soaked up five, seven, nine, even fifteen bullets and still walked under their own power to the ambulance. That isn’t uncommon at all. Legally, you can shoot them until they cease to be a threat, and keep in mind that what normally causes a person to stop is loss of blood pressure, so I used to tell my students that anybody worth shooting once was worth shooting five or seven times. You shoot them until they leave you alone.

Also, you’re going to miss. It is going to happen. If you can shoot pretty little groups at the range, those groups are going to expand dramatically under the stress and adrenalin. The more you train, the better you will do, but you can still may miss, or the bad guy may end up hiding behind something which your bullets don’t penetrate. Nobody has ever survived a gunfight and then said afterwards, “Darn, I wish I hadn’t brought all that extra ammo.”

So having more rounds in the gun is a good thing for self-defense use.

Now tactically, let’s say a mass shooter is on a rampage in a school. Unless his brain has turned to mush and he’s a complete idiot, he’s not going to walk up right next to you while he reloads anyway. Unlike the CCW holder who gets attacked and has to defend himself in whatever crappy situation he finds himself in, the mass shooter is the aggressor. He’s picked the engagement range. They are cowards who are murdering running and hiding children, but don’t for a second make the mistake of thinking they are dumb. Many of these scumbags are actually very intelligent. They’re just broken and evil.

In the cases that I’m aware of where the shooter had guns that held fewer rounds they just positioned themselves back a bit while firing or they brought more guns, and simply switched guns and kept on shooting, and then reloaded before they moved to the next planned firing position. Unless you are a fumble fingered idiot, anybody who practices in front of a mirror a few dozen times can get to where they can insert a new magazine into a gun in a few seconds.

A good friend of mine (who happens to be a very reasonable democrat) was very hung up on this, sure that he would be able to take advantage of the time in which it took for the bad guy to reload his gun. That’s a bad assumption, and here’s yet another article that addresses that sort of misconception that I wrote several years ago which has sort of made the rounds on firearm’s forums. http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/45671-My-Gunfight-quot-Thinking-Outside-Your-Box-quot  So that’s awesome if it happens, but good luck with that.

Finally, let’s look at the logistical ramifications of another magazine ban. The AWB banned the production of all magazines over ten rounds except those marked for military or law enforcement use, and it was a felony to possess those.

Over the ten years of the ban, we never ran out. Not even close. Magazines are cheap and basic. Most of them are pieces of sheet metal with some wire. That’s it. Magazines are considered disposable so most gun people accumulate a ton of them. All it did was make magazines more expensive, ticked off law abiding citizens, and didn’t so much as inconvenience a single criminal.

Meanwhile, bad guys didn’t run out either. And if they did, like I said, they are cheap and basic, so you just get or make more. If you can cook meth, you can make a functioning magazine. My old company designed a rifle magazine once, and I’m no engineer. I paid a CAD guy, spent $20,000 and churned out several thousand 20 round Saiga .308 mags. This could’ve been done out of my garage.

Ten years. No difference. Meanwhile, we had bad guys turning up all the time committing crimes, and guess what was marked on the mags found in their guns? MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY. Because once again, if you’re already breaking a bunch of laws, they can only hang you once. Criminals simply don’t care.

Once the AWB timed out, because every politician involved looked at the mess which had been passed in the heat of the moment, the fact it did nothing, and the fact that every single one of them from a red state would lose their job if they voted for a new one, it expired and went away. Immediately every single gun person in America went out and bought a couple guns which had been banned and a bucket of new magazines, because nothing makes an American want to do something more than telling them they can’t. We’ve been stocking up ever since. If the last ban did literally nothing at all over a decade, and since then we’ve purchased another hundred million magazines since then, another ban will do even less. (except just make the law abiding that much angrier, and I’ll get to that below).

I bought $600 worth of magazines for my competition pistol this morning. I’ve already got a shelf full for my rifles. Gun and magazine sales skyrocket every time a democrat politician starts to vulture in on a tragedy. I don’t know if many of you realize this, but Barack Obama is personally responsible for more gun sales, and especially first time gun purchases, than anyone in history. When I owned my gun store, we had a picture of him on the wall and a caption beneath it which said SALESMAN OF THE YEAR.

So you can ban this stuff, but it won’t actually do anything to the crimes you want to stop. Unless you think you can confiscate them all, but I’ll talk about confiscation later.

One last thing to share about the magazine ban from the AWB, and this is something all gun people know, but most anti-gunners do not. When you put an artificial cap on a weapon, and tell us that we can only have a limited number of rounds in that weapon, we’re going to make sure they are the most potent rounds possible. Before the ban, everybody bought 9mms which held an average of 15 rounds. After the ban, if I can only have ten rounds, they’re going to be bigger, so we all started buying 10 shot .45s instead.

You don’t need an assault weapon for hunting!

Who said anything about hunting? That whole thing about the 2nd Amendment being for sportsmen is hogwash. The 2nd Amendment is about bearing arms to protect yourself from threats, up to and including a tyrannical government.

Spare me the whole, “You won’t be happy until everybody has nuclear weapons” reductio ad absurdum. It says arms, as in things that were man portable. And as for the founding fathers not being able to see foresee our modern arms, you forget that many of them were inventors, and multi shot weapons were already in service. Not to mention that in that day, arms included cannon, since most of the original artillery of the Continental Army was privately owned. Besides, the Supreme Court agrees with me. See DC v. Heller.

Well we should just ban ALL guns then! You only need them to murder people!

It doesn’t really make sense to ban guns, because in reality what that means is that you are actually banning effective self-defense. Despite the constant hammering by a news media with an agenda, guns are used in America far more to stop crime than to cause crime.

I’ve seen several different sets of numbers about how many times guns are used in self-defense every year. The problem with keeping track of this stat is that the vast majority of the time when a gun is produced in a legal self-defense situation no shots are fired. The mere presence of the gun is enough to cause the criminal to stop.

Clint Smith once said if you look like food, you will be eaten. Criminals are looking for prey. They are looking for easy victims. If they wanted to work hard for a living they’d get a job. So when you pull a gun, you are no longer prey, you are work, so they are going to go find somebody else to pick on.

So many defensive gun uses never get tracked as such. From personal experience, I have pulled a gun exactly one time in my entire life. I was legally justified and the bad guy stopped, put his gun away, and left. (15 years later the same son of a bitch would end up murdering a local sheriff’s deputy). My defensive gun use was never recorded anywhere as far as I know. My wife has pulled a gun twice in her life. Once on somebody who was acting very rapey who suddenly found a better place to be when she stuck a Ruger in his face, and again many years later on a German Shepherd which was attacking my one year old son. (amazingly enough a dog can recognize a 9mm coming out of a fanny pack and run for its life, go figure) No police report at all on the second one, and I don’t believe the first one ever turned up as any sort of defensive use statistic, all because no shots were fired.

So how often are guns actually used in self-defense in America? http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

On the high side the estimate runs around 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year, which dwarfs our approximately 16,000 homicides in any recent year, only 10k of which are with guns.  http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm Of those with guns, only a couple hundred are with rifles. So basically, the guns that the anti-gunners are the most spun up about only account for a tiny fraction of all our murders.

But let’s not go with the high estimate. Let’s go with some smaller ones instead. Let’s use the far more conservative 800,000 number which is arrived at in multiple studies. That still dwarfs the number of illegal shootings. Heck, let’s even run with the number once put out by the people who want to ban guns, the Brady Center, which was still around 108,000, which still is an awesome ratio of good vs. bad.

So even if you use the worst number provided by people who are just as biased as me but in the opposite direction, gun use is a huge net positive. Or to put it another way, the Brady Center hates guns so much that they are totally cool with the population of a decent sized city getting raped and murdered every year as collateral damage in order to get what they want.

Doesn’t matter. I don’t like them. We should ban them and take them all away like a civilized country.

Well, I suppose if your need to do something overrides all reason and logic, then by all means let’s ban guns.

Australia had a mass shooting and instituted a massive gun ban and confiscation (a program which would not work here, which I’ll get to, but let’s run with it anyway.). As was pointed out to me on Facebook, they haven’t had any mass shootings since. However, they fail to realize that they didn’t really have any mass shootings before either. You need to keep in mind that mass shooting are horrific headline grabbing statistical anomalies. You are far more likely to get your head caved in by a local thug while he’s trying to steal your wallet, and that probably won’t even make the evening news.

And violent crime is up in Australia. A cursory Google search will show articles about the increase in violent crime and theft, but then other articles pooh-pooing these stats as being insignificant and totally not related to the guns.

So then we’ve got England, where they reacted swiftly after a mass shooting, banned and confiscated guns, and their violent crime has since skyrocketed. Their stats are far worse than Australia, and they are now one of the more dangerous countries to live in the EU. Once again, cursory Google search will show articles with the stats, and other articles saying that those rises like totally have nothing to do with regular folks no longer being able to defend themselves… Sensing a trend yet?

And then we’ve got South Africa, which instituted some really hard core gun bans and some extremely strict controls, and their crime is now so high that it is basically either no longer tracked or simply not countable. But obviously, the totally unbiased news says that has absolutely nothing to do with people no longer being able to legally defend themselves.

Then you’ve got countries like Norway, with extremely strict gun control. Their gun control laws are simply incomprehensible to half of Americans. Not only that, they are an ethnically and socially homogenous, tiny population, well off country, without our gang violence or drug problems. Their gun control laws are draconian by our standards. They make Chicago look like Boise. Surely that level of gun control will stop school shootings! Except of course for 2011 when a maniac killed 77 and injured 242 people, a body count which is absurdly high compared to anything which has happened America.

Because once again, repeat it with me, criminals simply do not give a crap.

That mass killer used a gun and homemade explosives. Make guns harder to get, and explosives become the weapon of choice. Please do keep in mind that the largest and most advanced military coalition in human history was basically stymied for a decade by a small group using high school level chemistry and the Afghani equivalent to Radio Shack.

The biggest mass killings in US history have used bombs (like Bath, Michigan), fire (like Happyland Nightclub) or airliners. There is no law you can pass, nothing you can say or do, which will make some not be evil.

And all of this is irrelevant, because banning and confiscating all the scary guns in America will be national suicide.

You crazy gun nuts and your 2nd Amendment. We should just confiscate all the guns.

Many of you may truly believe that. You may think that the 2nd Amendment is archaic, outdated, and totally pointless. However, approximately half of the country disagrees with you, and of them, a pretty large portion is fully willing to shoot somebody in defense of it.

We’ve already seen that your partial bans are stupid and don’t do anything, so unless you are merely a hypocrite more interested in style rather than results, the only way to achieve your goal is to come and take the guns away. So let’s talk about confiscation.

They say that there are 80 million gun owners in America. I personally think that number is low for a few reasons. The majority of gun owners I know, when contacted for a phone survey and asked if they own guns, will become suspicious and simply lie. Those of us who don’t want to end like England or Australia will say that we lost all of our guns in a freak canoe accident.

Guns do not really wear out. I have perfectly functioning guns from WWI, and I’ve got friends who have still useable firearms from the 1800s. Plus we’ve been building more of them this entire time. There are more guns than there are people in America, and some of us have enough to arm our entire neighborhood.

But for the sake of math, let’s say that there are only 80 million gun owners, and let’s say that the government decides to round up all those pesky guns once and for all. Let’s be generous and say that 90% of the gun owners don’t really believe in the 2nd Amendment, and their guns are just for duck hunting. Which is what politicians keep telling us, but is actually rather hilarious when you think about how the most commonly sold guns in America are the same detachable magazine semiautomatic rifles I talked about earlier.

So ten percent refuse to turn their guns in. That is 8 million instantaneous felons. Let’s say that 90% of them are not wanting to comply out of sheer stubbornness. Let’s be super generous and say that 90% of them would still just roll over and turn their guns when pressed or legally threatened.   That leaves 800,000 Americans who are not turning their guns in, no matter what. To put that in perspective there are only about 700,000 police officers in the whole country.

Let’s say that these hypothetical 10% of 10% are willing to actually fight to keep their guns. Even if my hypothetical estimate of 800,000 gun nuts willing to fight for their guns is correct, it is still 97% higher than the number of insurgents we faced at any one time in Iraq, a country about the size of Texas.

However, I do honestly believe that it would be much bigger than 10%. Once the confiscations turned violent, then it would push many otherwise peaceful people over the edge. I saw somebody on Twitter post about how the 2nd Amendment is stupid because my stupid assault rifles are useless against drones… That person has obviously never worked with the people who build the drones, fly the drones, and service the drones. I have. Where to you think the majority of the US military falls on the political spectrum exactly? There’s a reason Mitt Romney won the military vote by over 40 points, and it wasn’t because of his hair.

And as for those 700,000 cops, how many of them would side with the gun owners? All the gun nuts, that’s for sure. As much as some people like to complain about the gun culture, many of the people you hire to protect you, and darn near all of them who can shoot well, belong to that gun culture. And as I hear people complain about the gun industry, like it is some nebulous, faceless, all powerful corporate thing which hungers for war and anarchy, I just have to laugh, because the gun industry probably has the highest percentage of former cops and former military of any industry in the country. My being a civilian was odd in the circles I worked in.  The men and women you pay to protect you have honor and integrity, and they will fight for what they believe in.

So the real question the anti-gun, ban and confiscate, crowd should be asking themselves is this, how many of your fellow Americans are you willing to have killed in order to bring about your utopian vision of the future?

Boo Evil Gun Culture!

Really? Because I hate to break it to you, but when nearly six hundred people get murdered a year in beautiful Gun Free Chicago, that’s not my people doing the shooting.

The gun culture is all around you, well obviously except for those of you reading this in elite liberal urban city centers where you’ve extinguished your gun culture. They are your friends, relatives, and coworkers. The biggest reason gun control has become increasingly difficult to pass over the last decade is because more and more people have turned to CCW, and as that has become more common, it has removed much of the stigma. Now everybody outside of elite urban liberal city centers knows somebody that carries a gun. The gun culture is simply regular America, and is made up of people who think their lives and their families lives are more important than the life of anyone who tries to victimize them.

The gun culture is who protects our country. Sure, there are plenty of soldiers and cops who are issued a gun and who use it as part of their job who could care less. However, the people who build the guns, really understand the guns, actually enjoy using the guns, and usually end up being picked to teach everybody else how to use the guns are the gun culture.

The media and the left would absolutely love to end the gun culture in America, because then they could finally pass all the laws they wanted.

Let’s take a look at what happens when a country finally succeeds in utterly stamping out its gun culture. Mumbai, 2008. Ten armed jihadi terrorists simply walked into town and started shooting people. It was a rather direct, straight forward, ham fisted, simple terrorist attack. They killed over 150 and wounded over 300. India has incredibly strict gun laws, but once again, criminals didn’t care.

That’s not my point this time however, I want to look at the response. These ten men shut down an entire massive city and struck fear into the hearts of millions for THREE DAYS. Depending on where this happened in America it would have been over in three minutes or three hours. The Indian police responded, but their tactics sucked. The marksmanship sucked. Their leadership sucked. Their response utterly and completely fell apart.

In talking afterwards with some individuals from a small agency of our government who were involved in the clean-up and investigation, all of whom are well trained, well practiced, gun nuts, they told me the problem was that the Indian police had no clue what to do because they’d never been taught what to do. Their leadership hated and feared the gun so much that they stamped out the ability for any of their men to actually master the tool. When you kill your gun culture, you kill off your instructors, and those who can pass down the information necessary to do the job.

Don’t think that we are so far off here. I recently got to sit down with some fans who are members of one of the larger metro police departments in America. These guys were all SWAT cops or narcotics, all of them were gun nuts who practiced on their own dime, and all of them were intimately familiar with real violence. These are the guys that you want responding when the real bad stuff goes down.

What they told me made me sick. Their leadership was all uniformly liberal and extremely anti-gun, just like most big cities in America. They walked me through what their responses were supposed to be in case of a Mumbai style event, and how their “scary assault weapons” were kept locked up where they would be unavailable, and how dismal their training was, and how since the state had run off or shut down most of the gun ranges, most of the cops couldn’t even practice or qualify anymore.

So now they were less safe, the people they were protecting were less safe, the bad guys were safer, but most importantly their leadership could pat themselves on the back, because they’d done something.

Well, okay. You make some good points. But I’d be more comfortable if you gun people were force to have more mandatory training!

And I did actually have this one said to me, which is an amazing victory by internet arguing standards.

Mandatory training is a placebo at best. Here is my take on why.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/mandatory-training-for-ccw/

 

In conclusion, basically it doesn’t really matter what something you pick when some politician or pundit starts screaming we’ve got to do something, because in reality, most of them already know a lot of what I listed above. The ones who are walking around with their security details of well-armed men in their well-guarded government buildings really don’t care about actually stopping mass shooters or bad guys, they care about giving themselves more power and increasing their control.

If a bad guy used a gun with a big magazine, ban magazines. If instead he used more guns, ban owning multiple guns. If he used a more powerful gun with less shots, ban powerful guns. If he used hollowpoints, ban hollowpoints. (which I didn’t get into, but once again, there’s a reason everybody who might have to shoot somebody uses them). If he ignored some Gun Free Zone, make more places Gun Free Zones. If he killed a bunch of innocents, make sure you disarm the innocents even harder for next time. Just in case, let’s ban other guns that weren’t even involved in any crimes, just because they’re too big, too small, too ugly, too cute, too long, too short, too fat, too thin, (and if you think I’m joking I can point out a law or proposed law for each of those) but most of all ban anything which makes some politician irrationally afraid, which luckily, is pretty much everything.

They will never be happy. In countries where they have already banned guns, now they are banning knives and putting cameras on every street. They talk about compromise, but it is never a compromise. It is never, wow, you offer a quick, easy, inexpensive, viable solution to ending mass shootings in schools, let’s try that. It is always, what can we take from you this time, or what will enable us to grow some federal apparatus?

Then regular criminals will go on still not caring, the next mass shooter will watch the last mass shooter be the most famous person in the world on TV, the media will keep on vilifying the people who actually do the most to defend the innocent, the ignorant will call people like me names and tell us we must like dead babies, and nothing actually changes to protect our kids.

If you are serious about actually stopping school shootings, contact your state representative and tell them to look into allowing someone at your kid’s school to be armed. It is time to install some speed bumps.

EDIT: I have been stunned by the level of response on this post. I wrote it so that it could be shared, but I had no idea just how much it would be, so thank you. I have received hundreds of comments, emails, and I don’t even know how many Twitter and Facebook messages. It is heartening that this made many people think about the issues in a new way.

I will try to respond and answer questions as I can, but there are a LOT of them, so I will probably take the most common ones and do another blog post when I have the chance. If your comment doesn’t appear immediately, that is because I have to approve first time posters manually to make sure they are not spambots.

 If I had realized 30,000 people would read this today I would have proof read it. When you find a typo or something that seems a bit rough, I wrote this 10k word essay from 9pm to 1am and posted it the next day at lunch. 🙂

For those of you who haven’t been here before, I make my living as a novelist. If you click any of the Amazon or B&N links off to the right side it will take you to one of my books. Thank you for your support, encouragement, and honest debate.

EDIT2 After two straight days of responding to as many debate posts in the comments as possible, I’m fried, and hanging it up for Christmas. I’ll still be approving posts periodically, but that’s it for me as far as arguing (and it has rapidly turned into the same thing over and over again)  This post has been read 150,000 times now, gotten national media attention, and been reposted all over the internet. Awesome. I was sincerely hoping people would share it, so thank you very much.  Have a Merry Christmas.

EDIT3 A month later and this post has been read about a million times and has received an unexpected amount of attention including national media coverage. Thank you to everyone for sharing it. For new visitors, if you would like to check out my regular work, you can click on any of the book covers linked on the right side of the page. Thanks.

And now for something fun, the cover of WARBOUND!
Geeky Hobbies, Sunday Afternoon painting finished Monday Night. 🙂

2,326 thoughts on “An opinion on gun control”

  1. I don’t hear alot about this in the media, but Connecticut already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country and the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 was on the books in Connecticut in 1993 and is still in effect. I’ve lived in Connecticut since 2001, and this has been devastating for our state, but the gun laws here are already stricter than anything that would happen with a reauthorization of the federal ban on “assault weapons”.

    1. You won’t hear that at least from the mainstream media due to the fact then Obama and company can’t scare the public in to agreeing we need more gun laws.

      1. I was a police officer in CT years ago. I could not buy handgun ammunition (for my off-duty weapon) in Massachusetts, believe it or not.

        Yet, Vermont permits concealed carry for anyone who isn’t otherwise prohibited (such as felon, mental patient, etc.) When was the last time you heard of a shooting massacre in Vermont?

      2. It is also against federal law to purchase a handgun in another state or a weapon that is illegal in your state of residence. In every state they will not sell to a resident of another state unless that state AG approves such sales, it only applies to long guns, and even then some states have an outright ban to sales to residents of other states.

      3. Ryan,
        By law the only person who could introduce a new firearm meeting the criterea of the Connecticut ban into the state would be a military member who was order into the state. It would then have to be registered, but I am not certain on the time frame. Key point to recognize here is the rifle was leagally owned in the state of CT by his mother. A federal ban would have had zero impact on this.

      4. I think the more pertinent question would be, if the gun laws in states surrounding CT were indeed more 2nd Amendment-friendly, then why would such a shooting be more likely to occur in the gun-banning state rather than the states surrounding it?

    2. One estimate, based on preliminary reports when the shooting in CT first happened, put the number of law violations, from the shooter first picking up the gun to finally offing himself, at 47 counts. And yet, somehow, a hypothetical 48th violation is supposed to have dissuaded the shooter. “Hey, I’ll be violating the law 47 times, including killing myself at the end, but 48 times is just too far, man.” Yeah, right…

      1. What’s even worse is the number of people I’ve heard claim that the shooter bought the gun legally. Never mind that 1: His mother bought the gun and he stole it (his first violation), or that 2: Had HE been the one to attempt to buy it, he wouldn’t have been able to under CT law (since he was using psychotropic drugs).

      2. It’s not a matter of dissuasion. It’s a matter of physics. There are too many guns in mass circulation today, particularly the exceedingly dangerous type that can roll off 10, 15 or 20 rounds in moments, all within the very easy grasp of the monsters among us. Now, I’m in 100% support of responsible, law-abiding citizens having the right to carry their own weapons so that these monsters might get stopped before they kill so many, or any. For schools, this includes (in my world) teachers, principles, custodians, and parents. I’m also in favor of placing 2 armed security guards in all public schools. If a small jewelry store can have 2 armed guards on duty around the clock, then surely we can do something in public schools. We eagerly and recklessly spend trillions to prop up Wall Street, the auto companies, the “green” companies, the unions, Obama’s friends,at Golden Stinks, JPMorgan and Citibank and everyone else with their hand out in this country, but we can’t protect our kids in school? Utter BS. Cut elsewhere and make it happen. The LIBs would NEVER allow it. There are at least a dozen things that can be done to improve upon public school safety, including decreasing the number of mass murder tools readily at hand for every satanic slob who wants one. I’m not sure if new gun laws are necessary but we sure as heck better do a better job of enforcing the ones we have and keeping our arsenals OUT of the reach of maniacs, which, in the tragic Newtown case, the mother had an epic fail. I’d like to ask the “all or nothing” gun crowd where the line actually is and should be drawn. We already have laws against certain types of arms, so should we abandon those laws too and allow us all to carry machine guns or more? And if a line can be drawn (and clearly it can be), then why can’t we have the discussion on whether or not the line currently drawn is working. This is about our kids’ safety, not taking away all of the guns from law-abiding citizens. Not for me, anyway. The LIBs, another story. Yes, carry your weapons to stop the madmen, but is it really necessary for us all to have an arsenal of automatic or “semi-automatic” weapons in our basements? Too many nutbags are reared on violence and destruction today. Many people raise their kids with lower or no standards, morals or values. And we glorify and make readily available guns of all sorts. There’s more to it all, but the role of the sheer volume of guns in mass circulation today, and the relative ease with which anyone can get 1, 2 or 10 of them, is evident to me. I know the sliippery slope argument. But that’s what civil society is all about…drawing lines…making distinctions, learning and evolving. We can do a lot better than we do at “controlling” guns, as well as controlling psychopaths and criminals. Like I said, there’s a lot to it. I’m not suggesting that gun control is “the answer” or the big thing that needs to be done. It’s down the list, but it’s on the list, imo. Who has an arsenal in their home? Raise your hands. Do you need all of those? Why? God willing, no one will seek to use one someday for evil purposes.

        1. You might want to be careful about invoking physics; there are bona-fide physicists who hang out here.

          “There are too many guns in circulation today.” An assumption. Not a matter of “physics.”

          “particularly the exceedingly dangerous type that can roll off 10, 15 or 20 rounds in moments”

          Um. No. “in moments” implies fully automatic weapons. Legal ownership of fully automatic weapons has been completely registered since 1934 requiring a detailed background check, a $200 tax stamp, a “sign off” by local head LEO, and, incidentally, none that were not already registered by 1986 may be registered (and thus legally owned) causing prices to start at around $5000.

          The firearms that get the media and gun grabbers so “het up” are semi-automatic weapons. That means one trigger pull, one round fired. To get another round, you need to pull the trigger again. They might resemble military weapons like the AK-47, or the M-16/M-4 family but the resemblance is purely cosmetic. One trigger pull, one round.

          “all within the very easy grasp of the monsters among us.”

          So are ammonia and bleach. Mixed one way they make a highly toxic gas. Mixed another, they make high explosive. No, I’m not going to tell you how to do either mix–do your own googling (a bad guy wanting to kill a bunch of people certainly would).

          But none of this has anything to do with physics. Physics would tell you that the “military-style assault weapons” (whatever that term means this week) are actually rather modest in terms of power. The 5.56 NATO cartridge has a muzzle energy of about 12-13 hundred foot pounds. A 30-06 has a muzzle energy of about 38-40 hundred (more than 3 times as powerful). A .375 H&H Magnum (pretty much the minimum for “big game”) has 45-46 hundred foot pounds (4 times as much. A semi-automatic copy of an AK-47 (what’s available in the US)at 15-16 hundred foot pounds is closer to the 5.56 NATO than any “high power” round.

          For comparison, Clint Eastwood’s 44 Magnum (no longer the “most powerful handgun in the world” if it ever was) has from 7.6 to 15 hundred foot pounds of muzzle energy, overlapping with these supposed “high power” rifles. A handgun.

          That’s the physics. The “exceedingly dangerous” nature of these guns is pure hype, designed to create hysteria to fuel anti-gun fervor.

          Can an evil person of evil intent use one to kill a lot of people? Yes. Can said evil person of evil intent do the same thing with half a dozen revolvers (without reloading once)? Also yes. Can said evil person of evil intent do the same with ordinary household chemicals and a half hour or so (if on the slow side) of research on the internet? Also yes. Can said evil person of evil intent do the same with inflammable materials and some matches? Also yes. Can said evil person of evil intent…. Well, by now you should get the idea.

          Note the common thread on those things where someone could kill a lot of people: “evil person of evil intent.” That’s what one needs to work on controlling, not the various tools they might choose to use.

      3. @DavintheD. I am thinking that what you mean by “physics” is something along the lines of the gas law (pv=nrt) whereby if you double the number of guns in the system the “vapor pressure” of guns doubles and the number of gun homicides doubles. I don’t think it works that way – I think it is more like an enzymatic reaction where the role of the enzyme is played by the murderer. Doubling the number of guns does not double the number of gun homicides because the system is already saturated with guns and the enzyme (murderers) are already working as fast as they can. The population of murderer’s is the limiting factor. The best way too disrupt this system is to inactivate the enzyme. Either by jailing the murderer’s or by increasiing the likelihood that the enzyme will encounter a substrate that they cannot processes (ccw holders).

      4. David Burkhead,
        As they say across the pond, “Good show!”

        I spend more than 1000 hours/year researching and reading online, listening to audiobooks and reading books. I like to stay informed and, realizing that truth is flexible, seek out facts and evidence.I gave up all TV news as well as newspapers 31 Oct ’08 and never listened to talk radio. I spend some time ever day on Yahoo! news to see what the mainstream media is “reporting” and what the audience has to say and have to confess that I take perverse pleasure in replying to Leftist Lilliputian Liars and Passive-aggressive Progressive Propagandists until they ultimately either give it up or call me a “poopy head” and leave the field in a huff.

        Since everything that appears on the Internet is there, more or less, forever, I entertain the hope that someone who may be undecided on one of the important issues reads one of my exchanges, notes that I present factual arguments, verifies them and, hopefully, comes over to the side of light. Sometimes prevailing in the fight is like eating an elephant–one bite at a time.

        Again, you did a masterful job.

      5. DaveintheD, you said “Who has an arsenal in their home? Raise your hands. Do you need all of those? Why? God willing, no one will seek to use one someday for evil purposes.” It’s not a matter of whether or not I need them, I am given the right by the 2nd Amendment to own my “arsenal.” I don’t always buy guns just because I need them; is everything you buy a “need” that is essential for bodily sustenance? To quote Alan Ladd in Shane, “A gun is a tool, and it’s as good or as bad as the man using it.” The 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting or personal self defense per se, it is to ultimately provide protection for law-abiding citizens against a tyrannical government and leaders who usurp their authority. As for “who needs semi-automatic weapons in their basement?” again, it’s not a matter of whether or not we “need” them. We have the right to own them, and actually they are useful. It seems you are under the misunderstanding that automatic and semi-automatic are synonymous. That is by no means the case, and automatic weapons are already banned. Automatic means that you pull the trigger once, hold it down, and the gun fires until you release the trigger or you run out of ammo. Semi-automatic means you pull the trigger, and it fires one round, and chambers another. To fire another round, you must release the trigger, and pull it again.

        1. I know that I am way late coming to the comments on this article, but I feel like I need to clarify. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t give us the right to guns. It curtails the power of the government from taking away the right _I already have_.

          I believe that it is a fundamental misunderstanding of a lot of people on both sides of this conversation that the Constitution _gives_ rights to the people. Instead, it is a _limiting_ document on the government. ie, we, the people, are telling the government what it is allowed to do and not to do, not the other way around.

    3. Another thing the media hasn’t said is that teachers actually train and practice for these events. The horrific nature of reality overwhelms and we are defenseless against a killer…even a single outraged noncustodial parent.

      1. Israel used to have a problem with horrific terrorist assaults on grade schools. The government started training volunteer teachers how to put down terrorists, and armed them.

        The terrorists stopped attacking schools with gunmen after terrorists started dieing at the hands of teachers before they could inflict harm.

        The “horrific nature of reality” only threatens people who aren’t mentally able to own a gun in the first place … which is why this program is voluntary in Israel.

    4. Senator Thomas Dodd, Connecticut, was involved in ‘The Nuremberg Trials’. He ‘borrowed’ the Wiemar 1938 ‘Disarming’…. of Commoners laws from the German designers of a utopian Disarmed Society and used them for Connecticut’s gun (pertaining to commoners) restrictions. We know history enough to understand how that worked out…

      1. I’m not a fan of Chris Dodd, but he was only a year old when the Nuremberg Trials began. The Wiemar gun law of *1928* actually loosened the previous total prohibition of guns, imposed by the Versailles Treaty and reintroduced legal (albeit by permit only) gun ownership. The Nazi gun law of 1938 restricted who could get the permits somewhat (except that Party members and govt. workers didn’t need permits) and completely banned Jews from gun ownership.

      2. We may be talking about two different dodds. The Versailles treaty applied only to the military. The Luftwaffe for example subverted the Versailles treaty by training military pilots at civilian flight schools.

      3. MJMK: Or you could have searched for “Thomas Dodd” in Wikipedia. Thomas J. Dodd, Sr.: Chris Dodd’s father, Nuremberg trial counsel, Senator for Connecticut (1959-1971), and introduced the 1968 poor black disarmament (“Gun Control”) Act. Also, censured by the Senate for converting campaign funds to his personal use – and AFAIK, the last Democrat on a national level to be run out of the party for corruption.

    5. For a different perspective, Read; http://gunlawidea38.weebly.com . We at H.E.G.I.C. wrote this a while back and is directed at street shootings but has some value in the mental health paragraph for long term reduction of the “sandy Hook’ type of shootings. I really don’t think people will want guns in schools and find it very interesting that many schools do have guns now. I honestly don’t think that makes one bit of difference to the shooter, usually armed with many guns an has a bullet proof vest as well.
      Bob Biehn
      302-528-4115

      1. I would have read through your website, but you disqualified yourself from serious consideration by your statement in this post ” I really don’t think people will want guns in schools… I honestly don’t think that makes one bit of difference to the shooter, usually armed with many guns an has a bullet proof vest as well.” In any endeavor, no matter how misguided, a judgement is made as to how successful it will be. The shooter would have to take into account how quickly he might meet resistance in his attempt for infamy. That is why “gun free zones” is the overwhelming choice of these sickos!

        I would bet if you poll the parents at Sandy Hook, right now, they would be in favor of more good guys armed in that school. Regardless of the things that led up to the bad guy being there, what was or was not addressed regarding his mental health… once he is there… the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is with a good guy with a gun, period.

      2. Bullet proof vest? The dude has a head. It can be shot.

        I live in Utah where teachers are allowed to CCW in the schools. Guess how many school shootings we’ve had? None.

      3. I came a bit late to this debate, but the HEGIC web-site and the material there is so far off base I could cry. The major causes of crime, both with and without guns are well known. A smallish percentage of people, no matter what their up-bringing, are crime prone and very little can be done with them. They end up in drug dealing and crimes, join gangs, corrupt politics, and errorism. There is also a very small subset, which seems to be growing somewhat, of mentally dysfunctional, violent people. They used to be in hospitals but various changes to the laws have made it very difficult to get them into safe care now.

        There are a few basic causes of why the rest of the criminals do their deeds:
        1) Brought up in a single parent and/or dysfunctional family, particularly without a father present.
        2) Lack of active parenting to teach them responsibility, and provide them with a loving caring home that teaches them self-respect.
        3) Lack of a moral up-bringing. I nearly broke out laughing at the “respect for law” page. While a moral person will obey the law, the law has nothing to do with morality, but legality. Currently the public school system has been turned into a nearly totally amoral indoctrination into self love. It takes a tremendous amount of parental guidance to get children through it withwith help from righteous teachers that teach around the system if needed and give a child a sense of personal responsibility, self-respect, and personal worth.

        The proposed law is so full of constitutional infringements it can never be enforced.

      4. So, faced with having a gun (Chance) or not, you’d rather not have a gun (Chance).

        I’d rather have a chance than you just lie down and die.

      5. I’m not sure what bumped this back up to the top of the heap, but I’ll pitch in. Having read H.E.G.I.C.’s website, it brings up a couple of frequent (misguided) beliefs of those ignorant of guns and crime.

        You’re operating under the common liberal, ignorant misconception that reason trumps force. It doesn’t. When the mugger demands your wallet, you can lay out the most logical, air-tight argument as to why you should not do that, but that won’t stop him from braining you with a crowbar and taking your wallet. If you want to counter criminal
        violence, fight back. Nothing changes the dynamics of a gunfight faster than trained, accurate return fire. If you can’t bring yourself to defend yourself, then you’d better keep tabs on the nearest sheepdog who will do that for you.

        Paper will not protect you. Three strike laws haven’t stopped crime…they’ve made criminals with two strikes fanatically determined not to be caught for the thrird time. Your proposed strict, non-negotiable laws, billboards, education programs and legislative attempts to “manage” criminal violence won’t deter the mass shooters you’re trying to address. Understand this; THEY DON’T CARE! Criminals break multiple laws buying guns, and break more laws using the guns. I’m pretty sure they knew that at the time. So, you’re either proposing something that will not affect the criminals sparking your attention, or you’re allowing yourself to be manipulated in to supporting the ignorant beliefs of the gun-grabbers, riding the emotional coat-tails of tragedies to promote a gun-control agenda
        that would have no affect on those tragedies. Do you really think you can dissuade criminals through ADVERTISING!?! I know you want to help, but please get out of your insular suburban bubble and go learn from beat cops and (legal) gun owners and instructors. There is no critical mass of ignorance that will generate knowledge spontaneously. I’m all for education and training, but only if you’ve got knowledge worth passing on, and only when presented to a
        receptve audience. Pulling it out of your ignorant ass won’t help, and neither will nagging or shaming criminals. Again, they just don’t care, no matter what you believe. Your proposed abolishment of the appeals process for second and subsequent offenses also runs in to Constitutional problems, as well as creating a tool just waiting for an authoritarian to abuse.

        As far as today’s laws not working as well as in past decades, again your beliefs and perceptions are in conflict with reality. Violent crime has been on a steady decline since the 90’s. What has changed is the MSM coverage of violent crime, which is now ever-present.

        Comparing cars to criminal violence is specious. Massive advertising hasn’t lowered automobile fatalities so much as has making cars more idiot-proof. Drivers in America are just as unskilled and uncaring as they ever were, they’e just protected by more airbags and electronic nannies than in the past. Cars are not concealable, nor are they a Constitutional right. Criminals use cars too, but nobody is suggesting a universal background check for cars. A credit card is all you need to mow down people walking on the sidewalk. As to cars largely not being lethal weapons, tell that to the families of the 34,000 people killed in 2012 with cars.

        Understand that “It is all well and good to tighten up areas like Gun Show Loopholes, Large Capacity Magazines, Discarding of Apprehended Guns, Gun By-Back Programs, Gun Registration and Background checks”, is not in fact all well and good. Laws such as these simply do not inhibit criminals. Registration did make it easier for Great Britain and Australia to confiscate the guns of those law-abiding citizens compliant enough to register them. That they still had them to be confiscated tells me that they’d committed no crime with them prior to confiscation. I also doubt that criminals in those countries voluntarily surrendered their guns. Buy-back programs fail for similar reasons.

        Mental health is a factor in criminal violence, and the headline-grabbing (though infrequent) mass shootings. However, mental health has a notoriously poor compliance rate among its patients already, and turning health care providers into tattletales (either voluntary or mandatory), won’t exactly encourage the mentally ill to seek treatment. Doctor-patient confidentiality is more than just a catch-phrase, it has a clinical purpose. It also puts you on the wrong side of the fence compared to your ACLU buds, so good luck with that.

        I don’t know if Newtown parents oppose or favor concealed carry permit holders being allowed to carry in public schools. I know that I am opposed to gun-control advocates asking only the victims of gun violence for input. Gun owners and law enforcement officers also have relevant knowledge and experience, but we’re consistently ignored or shut out by the gun-grabbers, because we tell them things that offend their beliefs. Principal Dawn Hochsprung certainly displayed the spirit of a sheep dog in confronting Lanza at Sandy Hook, though she lacked a firearm and training. I do not know if she had an opinion on lawful firearms in schools, but I think it’s fair to say that the shooting would have been much less tragic had she been armed. A lawful, legally armed concealed carry permit holder is certainly a more pragmatic solution than trying to make criminals harmless through impotent legislation that they alone will ignore.

        I used to be as ignorant as you apparently still are, parroting the same ignorant crap that I picked up from equally ignorant friends. The difference is that I sought out those who knew more about guns and crime than I did, and I listened to them. I suggest you do the same. Gathering all of your ignorant friends together and giving yourselves an unpronouncable acronym like H.E.G.I.C. won’t cut it.

        “Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.” – John Kenneth Galbraith

        1. Greg, not to detract from your well written and cogent response, but as you summed up in your closing quote, anti-gun people just don’t care about differing points. I have found that hands on experience is the only cure of fear of weapons. My 22 year old daughter grew up with firearms (and is one great sporting clays shot). she lives in NYC near 3 aunts who were scared to even touch a gun. On a visit to our ranch last year, we broke down both shotguns and handguns to pieces, reassemble in front of them, all the while discussing gun safety.

          i had three annie oakleys after a couple of hours.

    6. Unfortunately, the case studies that exist strongly suggest that “gun free zones” don’t work. Banning all guns might work, and laying off the bans might work, but it’s very clear that having specific areas that are labelled as “gun free zones” fail to deter gun violence.

      We’re more likely to see a decrease in the incidence of violence by propping up our social safety nets and reforming our criminal justice and penal systems. This would cut down on crimes of desperation (assault, robbery, gang activity…these represent most gun violence), and would be far more likely to make a dent in our violence problem than stricter gun control.

      Unfortunately, real solutions to our violence problem would require stronger social safety nets, which would require higher taxes, and will likely incite outrage from the “other side.” Just as there are justifiable complaints about many liberals’ automatic opposition to guns, there are justifiable complaints about knee-jerk ideological responses from conservatives when trying to make progress on social issues. There’s evidence that gun bans don’t do anything, so let’s not do that. There’s also evidence that making serious efforts to decrease the levels of despair and hopelessness in impoverished neighborhoods would result in less violence.

      Ultimately, the author is correct in asserting that the entire discussion that’s occurring in the mainstream media is nothing short of idiotic and unsubstantiated. We’ve got bigger discussions we need to be having, and which would be far more likely to yield actual results.

      1. Interesting that both you and the author make “sane” assessments regarding the shooter’s strategy while noting how damaged and demented the shooter is. In most cases, the target is not selected because of strategic ease, but to factors relating to the shooter’s personal relationships. So: gun free zones don’t matter. Security guards don’t matter. If I’m deranged and want to kill someone, an armed teacher won’t matter either.

      2. Inpoint of fact the guy was not wearing a bullet proof vest it was a tactical chest rig. Here in Jax. Fl. we already have armed police officers in every school. As far back as I can remember there has never been a shooting at any school here.

  2. Very, very well said. The only possible thing I can take issue with it that the “shoulder goes up” moron was Carolyn McCarty, not Dianne Feinstein. Although I bet she doesn’t know what a barrel shroud is either.

    It is INSANE to me that so many people think that a teacher shouldn’t be trusted with a gun, but somehow should be trusted to be alone in a room full of children.

    Thanks for fighting the good fight and saying what we all know is true better than we say it ourselves.

    1. Heh. I know a teacher I otherwise respect (band, at our local school) who, under arming teachers, said “are you nuts?” in a “they’re nto capable of doing so they’re so flaky” way.

      Sounds like the best argument for homeschooling yet, straight from an NEA rep’s mouth. If they can’t be trusted to be cautious with dangerous things and point the bangey end at teh shootey guy, they’re not mature and wise enough to teach my kids.

      1. Projection.

        The NEA union rep knows he cannot be trusted with sharp objects, so he assumes no one else can be trusted with sharp objects.

    2. Actually, Dianne Feinstein probably would. She’s a CCW holder in a state that they’re neigh impossible to get, and speaks knowledgeably about firearms every time I’ve heard her open her mouth on the subject.

      Which makes it all the stranger to me that she wants to pass stricter and stricter gun laws.

      1. I can’t reconcile “speaks knowledgeably about firearms” with “wants to ban scary-looking ones”.

        There are only a few ways to get CCW permits in may-issue states like CA and NY.

        Usually it’s pick two from:

        Be rich
        Be white
        Be in office

      2. @LBC If you can’t reconcile that, think about “I’m a priest, and I don’t want people to marry because I don’t like them”

      3. Knowledgable? You mean when she swept an entire audience with a full auto rifle with her finger on the trigger. Her permit is political. I bet she has never had any training. She doesn’t need it…she already knows everything.

      4. The reason she wants to pass Gun control laws id the same reason she was so willing to pass the affordable healthcare act and higher taxes. Congress will more often than not exempt themselves from such laws.
        Those laws are for YOU, not her…

      5. How can I confirm that Diane Feinstein is a CCW holder? How do you know that? And Larry, I read the ENTIRE article. It was a bit rough around the edges, and confusing sometimes, but educational, and well said. THanks.

          1. All of us gun people had a great laugh at that, because it is pretty well known that in California (where I am from originally) CCW is given on a county by county basis, all left up to local discretion (to keep out the riff raff you know) and in most counties you need to be a rich white person (or a politician or security for a movie star) to even be considered.

            Oh yeah, that’s right. Many of the new visitors here aren’t aware of the extremely racist roots of the gun control movement. When I say it is about people control, I’m not joking. California for example allows CCW, but permits are decided on a county by county basis. My home county (Merced) was farily lenient (no idea bout now), but just south of us was Fresno. It was a dirty little secret (but not a particularly well kept one) that you could get a permit in Fresno, but only if you were white, everybody else got denied, and they weren’t required to tell you why. The only reason this finally go attention was when a rich Portuguese guy got denied becasue the sheriff’s department thought he had a Mexican last name.

            My wife is from Santa Clara County. That whole county only has a handful of permits (this was several years ago, no idea about now) but all of them are for politicians or people who guard politicians. Apparently the peasants don’t need self-defense.

            That is what inevitably happens when you have to justify a “need” to exercise a right.

        1. As for being rough around the edges, you go write a 10,000 word essay in four hours (wrapping up at 1am) and post it on the internet without proof reading (because you didn’t expect 50,000 people to read it in one day) and get back to me about how that works out for you.

      6. Not strange at all.

        She wants to be able to run your life for you. If you are armed, she can’t do that effectively.

        Peasants with firearms are dangerous to bossy politicians, so of course she wants to disarm us cousin-humping redneck retards. Criminals are merely a road hazard, and are not as dangerous as armed peasant.

        If you fear criminals, you should join the inner party, and Big Brother will assign a soldier/slave to protect you, or give you a firearm if you ar a DIY kinda person.

      1. I did originally have Feinstein, and went back and corrected it. But in my defense I wrote this in four hours one night, and wrapped up at 1am, so I mixed up my anti-gun politicians. 🙂

  3. Hi Larry,

    Thanks for the good article. I think people get a little extreme when things like this happen in our country.

    I’m for tight regulation of guns, but I don’t feel they should be banned at all, so I was just wondering what it takes today to buy a gun. Is there a waiting period, or background checks, or what? I’m interested to know, since everyone’s always talking about gun control, but no one ever mentions how tightly the actual purchase of a handgun is controlled.

    One last thing. I know that you’re not a psychologist, but I don’t know that it’s in good taste to call these killers scumbags, losers, broken, evil, etc. I’m not saying what the latest killer did was right, and I 100% agree that they should not in any way be publicized after the fact, but I find myself feeling pity more than anything for these people and their victims. If someone had been able to reach out to this person and get them help, then maybe it would have never happened. If anything, we should be taking a good look at mental health after something like this happens, not gun control.

    Anyway, great article, and here’s hoping that you can clear up what it actually takes to get buy a handgun today, just to feed my curious mind. 🙂

    1. Purchase laws vary from state to state. For example, here in Illinois, we are required to have a firearm owners Id card, issued by the state police. We still have to pass a background check at the time of sale, so I’m not sure what the point of the FOID is, but I do live in the state that produced the Chicago Combine form of politics. There is a waiting period, which has been shown to be nearly as effective as gun bans in reducing crime (not at all) and you have to produce your FOID to buy ammo.

      1. Also, *Federal* Law requires a mandatory FBI background check for anyone purchasing from a licensed FFL holder (Federal Firearms License). You fill out your 4473 and they call in to check up on you….

      2. FOID was instituted for one reason only: to deny minorities access to guns. That’s why it’s structured the way it is. The “right kind” of people would still get guns, the “wrong sort” wouldn’t get a permit.

        Another example of a law passed due to irrational fear (“Oh no! Race war!”) which was at root about politicians getting more control.

      3. FOID is effectively a 30-day waiting period for your first (legal) gun, and also a 30-day waiting period for even being allowed to fire someone else’s gun (eg. a rental at a range or a friend’s gun), because when firing it, you are “in possession” of it, which is illegal without a FOID, even on private property. A FOID is easy to get (if you are eligible) and costs $10.

      4. “For example, here in Illinois, we are required to have a firearm owners Id card, issued by the state police. We still have to pass a background check at the time of sale, so I’m not sure what the point of the FOID is,..”

        It is a bit puzzling at first glance. I think that the main reason for the FOID (which I got recently) is to control in-state purchases of ammo. I suppose we should count ourselves lucky that all we have to do is show the FOID before we pay. The card isn’t swiped or recorded.

        Also, Illinois has some picky regulations about transporting firearms and ammunition. The FOID allows the LEO to determine that you are in legal possession of that cased firearm he just spotted in your trunk.

    2. Google is your friend MAR. It varies from state to state I..and in some cases…city to city. Follow the trials and tribulations of Emily Miller and all the unmitigated crap she had to put up with in D.C.
      http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2011/oct/5/miller-emily-gets-her-gun/

      Here articles is just one version of City to City…let alone state. Another good example is to look at the laws on the books for Aurora where the shooting happened a few months ago. IIRC there were 3 people in the theatre that night that were CCW holders. Also IIRC 2 left their guns at home because…Gun Free Zone. The other brought it with him and locked it in the trunk of his vehicle when he went in…which did him no good when Joker wannabe boy walked in and started shooting people.

      1. Okay, I’ll admit that I was lazy. Normally I’m on the other end of this discussion, so I guess now I know what it feels like 🙂 Thanks for the info, and the quick response.

      2. Thanks for this info. News stories at the time indicated that at least three military veterans were in the Aurora audience. A pity they weren’t carrying. One of those vets died shielding the woman he was with, even though she wasn’t his wife.

    3. Sandy Hook did not happen because of inadequate gun control — it simply illustrates how gun control is an utterly failed and discredited policy that results in innocents being slaughtered.

      Instant background checks are the law of the land for all handgun purchases from dealers, with some exceptions for people like other federally licenses dealers or collectors.

      CT has a two week waiting period, at least on “assault weapons” (again, the term just means “scary looking to the ignorant”).

      CT has STRICTER laws concerning “assault weapons” than the previous federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, and it was in place BEFORE the 1994 AWB was.

      1. CT rilfe laws are odd. An AR-15 is allowed (can you say Colt), and so is a Mini-14 (can you say Ruger). AK-47’s are banned by type. You can’t buy an FN-FAL, but you can a STG-58 (same thing, different name). You are nixed on the H&K rilfes too. Also, you cannot possess the rifle when you move in from another state.

      2. I volunteer at a homeless shelter here in Montana. If I were to mention I wanted a gun, those ex-cons would have me a trunk full in about one hour!

      3. I hate to speak ill of the dead, but as the mother of an adult son with disabilities similar to those allegedly suffered by the shooter at Sandy Hook, I am appalled that Nancy Lanza chose to keep weapons in her home, and to allow her son access to those weapons. To me,that was the height of irresponsibility and bad judgment. My husband does his shooting in another city, my son has never seen a gun (for many years we had to keep all sharp objects padlocked in a fishing tackle box and had to use a key to access it for food prep). When you are the parent of a child or grown adult with these kinds of issues, you must make sacrifices; when the threat lives with you in the form of mental illness and lack of self-control, be it bipolar disorder, intermittent explosive disorder or schizophrenia, guns do not belong in the same building. If you want to feel safe at home, large dogs work well, and training them can take every bit as much dedication and effort as learning to shoot.

      4. Karen: The axtive killer’s mother was in the process of trying to have him committed for being a danger to herself and others.

        He revenged himself on her by acting calm enough to get close to her and murder her, and then he took her self-defense weapons, and shot up the school she was volunteering at instead of helping him feed his delusions.

    4. By contrast, here in Virginia you have used to have (until this year, awesomely enough) a 1-gun-a-month limit unless you were a concealed carry permit holder. There are no registrations, no limitations on ammo other than age, and age requirements are 21 for handguns, 18 for everything else.

      There are stricter local ordinances closer to DC, but Virginia sticks to its rural roots everywhere else.

    5. Hey, Awful. I can’t speak for other states, but I can tell you that in Florida, assuming everyone involved us doing things legally and you are not a CCW permit holder, there is both a waitg period and a background check. The background check is not anywhere near as in-depth as for a security clearance, but it does ensure that the prospective purchaser isn’t a felon.

      Thwaiting period is in place to makeertain that the purchaser doesn’t run right out and become a felon. It may also mean that “temporary insanity” don’esnt hold any water as a defense, if you then run out and murder someone with your brand new firearm.

      As a CCW holder, I no longer have a wait time. I believe I still have to undergo a background check, but the cost us negligible, and so is the time it takes for the firearms dealer to run it.

      There is also a mandatory training portion to Florida’s CCW classes, to ensure that the applicant knows which way to point and how to operate the firearm properly. There us also a background check involved here, and it’s much more in-depth I believe, not to mention having to wait for the actual permit to arrive via mail.

      I know, just through some cursory research, that each state has laws that are stricter or looser than Florida’s, but also that Florida has one of the mist widely accepted carry permits in America, while many states with very strict firearms laws find it difficult if not impossible to have their permits acknowledged in other states, because the staunchly anti-gun governments in these states refuse to acknowledge other states’ permits.

      Hope this helps!

    6. I’ve been of the opinion that if someone kills a dozen or so children wilfully, my empathy for their particular personal issues disappears. Which is more important? The feelings of a mass murder? Or the feelings of the victims, families, and other Americans traumatized by his actions?

      1. Of course the feelings of the victims families are more important than considering the feelings of the murderer. To acknowledge one is not to diminish the other. We are all, as human beings and as fellows of the same country, capable of empathizing with all of the affected. Up to and including the murderer. Do I feel bad that he’s in hell now, paying for what he did? No, he is responsible for his actions. But it is possible for me to also weep for the innocent child he once was, and to pity him for whatever happened to him that robbed him of that innocence.

    7. Not in good taste to call them bad names? I wasn’t “in good taste” to kill 20 children, either.

      I’m not a mental health pro but a friend of mine (now deceased) was a psychiatrist and his rather cynical but realistic take on mental illness was that, if someone was truly messed up, you really never “get over it”. He said people truly messed up were that way permanently and you basically prescribed drugs to keep them under control and institutionalized them if they were truly a threat to others. Most people who were “curable” he said you prescribed meds to in order to let them cope while they either got used to the situation(s) which caused their distress and were no longer distressed or until the situation went away. This was all in response to my innocent question of “how many people do you cure”?

      Bad guy with a gun is a bad guy with a gun, regardless of how he got that way. The cure is a good guy with a gun.

      1. What if a good guy turns bad? Oops, another bad guy with a gun! Oh wait… gun addicts will always be the good ones, right?

        1. Or another bad guy with a can of gas (Happy Land Fire) or another bad guy with fertilizer and fuel oil (Oklahoma City), or another Bad Guy with an internet connection and access to knowledge of how to make poison gas (Tokyo Subway Attack).

          “What if a good guy turns bad?” So blame all gun owners because some tiny percentage might turn bad?

          I presume you’re a “good guy”. Are you really that close to slipping that you think “what if a good guy turns bad” should drive policy to the point of depriving people of self defense against the large number of folk who are already bad?

      2. Lets outlaw the internet because someone might hack into your computer. Lets outlaw roads to prevent drunk driving. Lets outlaw the mail system to prevent fraud.

    8. Here’s one reporter’s story on buying her first gun in Washington DC, the utopia of gun control law:

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/6/emily-gets-her-gun-part-2/

      Here’s the official page on how to buy a gun in Vermont, the original free constitutional carry state:

      http://www.parros.com/FAQs.php#4

      Now here’s a page you can use to compare the gun death rates of those two places:

      http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

      Does all that gun control mummery make you feel safe yet?

      1. All other things being equal, it’s disingenuous to compare the gun deaths rates for a low-population, largely rural state like Vermont to that of the District of Columbia.

        I largely agree with this article, but hauling out comments like that just looks dishonest (because it is).

        1. “All other things being equal, it’s disingenuous to compare the gun deaths rates for a low-population, largely rural state like Vermont to that of the District of Columbia.”

          So what you’re saying is that factors other than gun control are responsible for the differences in violent crime? Good. We agree then.

    9. “Good taste” does not enter into it. What you’re arguing is that anyone who has a mental illness should be absolved for killing 26 people. Do you know how many Americans are schizophrenic or bipolar and *don’t* kill anyone? People who can be helped don’t shoot first-graders in the back. Evil murdering scumbags do.

    10. I don’t know of any better adjectives to call people who bring death, torture, to others irrespective of the “reason”. Sure, one can feel sorry for Hitler, but a monster is a monster is a monster.

    11. For what it’s worth, myawfulreviews, I fully agree with your comment on the mental health thing. It does no good to demonize someone suffering a debilitating mental illness. Do that enough (and it is done very frequently and very publicly) and future sufferers (in earlier stages) won’t come forward to seek help because of the stigma mental illness carries in this country. Simplifying the causes of these tragedies to “evil” or “bad guys” is a sop and a crutch to make us feel better. After all, if it wasn’t caused by pure, incurable evil, then there might have been something we could have done about it and that makes it more of a complex mess than a black and white issue. You want to get to these guys who go on to shoot up schools or movie theaters before they pick up a gun, not after. Then you reduce the casualties to zero.

    12. Let me get this straight – some evil, scumbag, broken, criminal, nut-job kills a bunch of kids, and you not only want to impose more restrictions on law abiding gun owners, but you also think we should pity the guy who killed the kids? Remember, this is the killer who is already getting all the media hype in death that he wanted when he planned this stunt killing.
      That’s typical libtarded thinking – blame the gun owners, not the criminal.

    13. myawfulreviews (and others on this posting),

      First, full disclosure up front: I am a conservative male who has grown up owning and using firearms. However, since moving out east several decades ago, I’ve found neither the time nor interest in owning and using firearms. What’s really driving my interest in this debate is that a friend of mine lost her son in the Sandy Hook shooting; my wife and I attended the wake and seeing her son in that little casket was truly life altering. How could this happen? As a parent of two girls and a husband to a kindergarten teacher — and as a friend of a recent victim — I am probably a bit more emotionally biased than others. There, that’s where I’m coming from.

      Second, an observation: Larry’s article and those responding to his article have some of the most well thought out, cogent, and solution-oriented discussions that I have seen. Based on what I read so far, Larry and you responders are more solution-oriented than what many of us (us = folks who don’t own guns, believe in others’ right to bear arms, and don’t see responsible gun ownership as the issue) see in the media.

      I encourage all of us to work from a common ground: senseless violence is a problem we need to address. And, as I see it, there are two kinds of senseless violence. One is perpetrated by sane criminals with weapons. Perhaps by tightening up the ways in which these criminals get their weapons we can reduce their availability; close gun show and private sale loopholes; track each gun; share databases; prosecute those who carry guns in crimes as if they used the gun…. I think we have more than enough laws and legislation to deal with this type of senseless violence.

      The second kind of senseless violence is perpetrated by someone who is — at least for the moment — insane/whacked/evil. Such is the person at Sandy Hook or Columbine. No law is going to prevent this person from acting out. It’s THESE situations that I see as the crux of our dilemma. It’s these types of situations where we look to control the CIRCUMSTANCES because we know that the person can’t be controlled.

      No law would have prevented Sandy Hook. But are there things that we could have done — can do for tomorrow — that would have acted as “speed bumps” (as Larry calls them) to this person acquiring and using weapons against those who are so vulnerable. Part of the equation is looking at “those who are so vulnerable” and making them less vulnerable. Perhaps a trained armed guard might have slowed or stopped the shooter. We’ll never know. Perhaps a tighter school security system (i.e., no windows; double doors; automatic lock-down) might have slowed the shooter down. Perhaps exterior access would have allowed children to flee. Perhaps a “bunker” in the classroom would have allowed children to hide (my wife, a kindergarten teacher, has a bathroom that can hold 8-10 children securely)….

      But part of the equation is also looking at “acquiring and using weapons.” We MUST consider tighter gun registration systems, gun ownership databases, sharing of gun owner information, etc. We’ll always have the whackos, but if there’s something we can do to prevent the next whacko from grabbing a lethal combination of high power with rapid fire, we should at least consider it.

      1. NH-TT: “But part of the equation is also looking at “acquiring and using weapons.” We MUST consider tighter gun registration systems, gun ownership databases, sharing of gun owner information, etc.”

        No. Wrong.

        Benjamin Franklin: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

        The road you suggest leads to very bad places, in every case in history. Honest leaders would not use this information for bad, and I appreciate the world view you have that allows you to believe that this would only be used for the good of the citizens of this country. The problem is that history tells a different story, and the Founding Fathers were actually quite brilliant in the system they setup.

        We MUST find a solution that does not abandon our very freedoms and liberties. I think Larry has the right path here, and the only one that does not end in anarchy and eventual revolution.

      2. NH-TT

        I would agree with you on gun registration and databases if I trusted the government to stop there. Fortunately and wisely, I don’t. Neither did our founding fathers even when they WERE the government. They also found it necessary to make sure God and His plan was recognized: something not done very well in schools today.

        NL in Alaska

  4. Larry,

    You left out what happens when total gun control is implemented by an armed force. I know a Green Beret who was in Haiti. They had a paid informant program to collect ALL the guns in the country. And, amazingly, they did.

    The result was gangs of male teenagers with machetes terrorizing everyone. It was really, really ugly. They would, in order, terrorize, rob, rape girls while forcing males to watch, butcher males, enslave females. This went on until the town elders’ tearful begging convinced the soldiers to look the other way when the old men got shotguns.

    There was a time when widespread perfect gun control existed and worked. It was that beautiful, peaceful, happy go lucky safe time known as the middle ages, before guns were small enough to carry. Oh, what a utopia that was! Women were property because strong men could simply take anything they wanted. And unarmed women were there for the taking.

    1. I’m not arguing that we should remove all guns as a solution but this argument seems to equate Haiti culture with American culture. That we’d have machete-wielding teen gangs doing the same things.

      1. I would add that their is a country that is more heavily armed than America and strangely enough they have never had a mass shooting that country as a matter of fact arms every male citizen between 18 and 65 with a true miltary assault weapons (in other words A select fire weapon capable of full automatic fire). In addition the country I speak has an extremely low crime rate what is the name of this country Switzerland. Another country that had a ten year rash of mass shootings and terrorist attacks on their schools has not had a single incedent in 35 years that country is Isreal how did they do it you ask. They armed and trained their teachers, volunteer parents and grandparents. So the evidence shows that arms control makes it more dangerous and armed citizens reduce crimes and mass shootings But If you realy want to prove it here take four cities of similar crime rates,, population densities, and current arms control regulations keep the restrictions in two of them and in the other two issue CCWs and arm the Teachers that are willing and qualify. Monitor these four cities for two years and then compare the results objectively and publicly before discussing any changes to the federal law. That is the logical a scientific way of proving what I already know but it ends all the arguments and proves it to non believers

    2. Well, guns appeared in the Middle ages and gave the aristocracy quite a scare. They began to say “wait! These peasants can kill our armored buts in battle too easily!” So they implemented gun control and began to wear more exuberant clothing to compensate for their lack of battle prestige. What kind of world is this where a peasant can kill a noble? Geez!

      1. If you’re going to blog about this, you might note that the English Longbow was able to kill armored opponents extremely well. The longbow was the weapon of choice for quite some time, and after Agincourt, the English archer was terrifying.

        I hear that the French started chopping off the bowstring holding fingers of prisoners, and the English palm facing salute was to show off the continued possession of said fingers.

        I’m further given to understand that archery practice became mandatory by law, and practice was often in the churchyard on Sundays. I think Scientific American once did some articles about recovered bows and arrowheads from a shipwreck being able to do unbelivable penetrations of period plate armor, from insane glancing angles. Also, that the bows recovered showed that a lifetime of practice must have created absolute gorillas, as the had extreme draw weights.

        Later on, the crossbow was invented and the ability to store up energy to be released with just a trigger/lever pull caused the Pope to outlaw crossbows from warfare.

        Again, you’ll want to fact check anything above before mentioning it in your excellent blog Minimum Wage Historian. Your three parter on Malta was fantastic.

  5. Larry, I agree with everything you’ve said here… but I notice that it’s more about discussion points, rather than offering up potentially viable solutions. What are the odds you’d throw up some ideas for the non-gun owning folk to consider, INSTEAD of banning everything up to and including blunt objects? I agree with eliminating the ban on CCW in schools, and offering free training to teachers – I’m not a certified instructor, but a teacher I met on the flight home last night is going to the range with me on Sunday for some familiarization and training in the basics of firearms.

    Another option I’ve seen several places, is the use of veterans organizations; they’re already trained – although refresher training is always a good idea – and they’ve already displayed the ability to put themselves ‘in harm’s way’..

    Yet still another option I’ve seen is to use the National Guard – although I have concerns about that; a fatherly or grandfatherly-type in school is a much different visual to a younger child, than a rifle-wielding soldier in uniform.. plain-clothes NG troops, maybe?

    Thanks as always; I love the perspective you put so ably into words.

    1. Honestly? The answer is to move the topic of discussion away from ‘feel good’ kabuki like Gun-Free Zones to encouraging teachers to CCW. The other, FAR more complicated answer (which generally gets TL;DRed) is to reopen a conversation on the effects of the de-Institutionalization experiment in the Mental Health field we’ve been running since the 70’s.

    2. I’m not convinced anything SHOULD be done, beyond allowing teachers who don’t suck to have the option of concealed carry.

      No, seriously.

      What happened is tragic, and illuminates some serious flaws in how we do things, to be certain – but the perpetrator was a lunatic who had no problem starting the day by murdering his own mother in cold blood, and getting progressively darker from there. This is not a typical situation, as Larry pointed out. It’s a freak disaster, like getting struck by lightning. Any measure that attempts to address the specifics of this situation directly – banning guns to one degree or another, that sort of thing – would be like outlawing electrical storms.

      Every high school I attended had a resource officer, a cop assigned specifically to the school. I attend a university whose campus police are sworn officers – guns and badges, not rent-a-cops in school colors – and generally more competent than the surrounding city police. I have nothing but admiration for these professionals, and have no doubt that they and others (like the National Guardsmen and -women mentioned) would be more than happy to patrol schools, but I’m not convinced such measures are necessary. Two reasons, both of which boil down to sending the wrong message.

      First, it sends the message that you are not responsible for your own safety. If something is dangerous, armed men will come and save you from it. If they haven’t done so, then it must not be dangerous. I’m not saying a six-year-old should try to stare down armed lunatics. I’m saying we should be teaching people to recognize dangerous situations and understand how to A, get out of them safely, and B, not get into them in the first place.

      Second, it sends the message that this situation is so far gone that the only remaining option is to deploy armed troops to keep order in our elementary schools. It’s like nuclear waste. The disposal plans are so elaborate, so stuffed with fail-safes and backups and hundred-thousand-year plans, that people get the impression that the stuff is instantly lethal without such measures. It’s dangerous, sure, and you wouldn’t want to eat it or swim in it, but the same can be said for gasoline and antifreeze. As a practical matter, those are more dangerous, since they can be lethal within hours (or minutes, if you burn the gas) with the right exposure.

      Similarly, taking steps out of such concern begs the questions, “Am I in that much danger?” And “Are there other steps that could be taken (by someone else) to ensure my safety?” The answer to the first is, well, no, not any more or less than you were yesterday. To the second, sure, there are always more steps, but most of them aren’t practical.

      The simplest, most expedient, and likely most effective is relaxing restrictions on CCW for teachers and better training on how to respond in violent situations. Keeping open eyes, recognizing danger signs, and having the means to respond effectively – and immediately – are simple, practical steps that cost basically nothing and can be started immediately. Like, “training completed before Christmas Break is over” immediately.

      But no, the narrative is that guns are the problem, so expansive, intricate federal intervention and drastic action are what the (loudest) people want. And if they don’t want it, well, they’re knuckle-draggers who need it anyway, and to hell with their [rights]opinions.

    3. The solution for non-gun owning folks is to put yourself in a position where it is very likely that if some sick individual were to try and start killing people, they would be confronted by an armed good guy as quickly as possible.
      The way to implement this solution is to abolish any rules that stop the good guys from being armed, wherever you are.

    4. Jake makes a good point — this guy was a freak one-man disaster, on a par with multiple lightning strikes. There’s an IT maxim — you don’t design for edge cases.

      1. But if these are truly one-off events, then why do they seem to be occurring with increasing frequency? I’m not saying a total ban on guns is the answer but the US already has by far more guns per capita than any other nation in the world. However, the frequency of such mass shootings seems to be an American invention.

        1. “But if these are truly one-off events, then why do they seem to be occurring with increasing frequency?” Because they are not? http://www.theblaze.com/stories/associated-press-story-believe-it-or-not-mass-killings-are-not-on-the-rise-they-are-on-the-decline/

          I wonder why the media, which absolutely loves gun control, would possibly want to sensationalize every single horrific gun related event it can, while never reporting any defensive gun uses?

          1. 1. Correlation is not Causation.
            2. “If it Bleeds it’s a lede”
            3. Because it sells print.

            And so it goes.

      2. Sam, you are incorrect there is another country who has more gun per capita then the US, Switzerland in fact the government Issues all males who are physically and mentally capable a real (capable of selective fire between semi automatic and full atomatic like a machine gun) that they must maintain and are responsible for till there 65 when weapons are updated they can either trade it for the newer model or pay a nominal fee to purchase it. Also women who volunteer for military or police service are also issued to same as the men their issue however is not obligatory

      3. Switzerland also has extensive marksmanship classes in schools, with prizes like Bicycles and computers for top shooters.

        A nutter intending harm in a Swiss high school is going to die very quickly.

    5. Darryl, once the Gun Free Zone law in your state is repealed or modified to allow CCW in schools, you have several choices. School Resource Officers (SRO) are sworn police who have to be paid by the county or city. Armed volunteer teachers are already being paid, although the School District could opt to cover their training and certification expenses. Volunteer CCW holders could be cost free or have expenses reimbursed. State Defense Force members in the 24 states that have them could be provided as volunteers, but the states I’ve researched dont provide weapons or training. National Guardsmen could be used with the Governor’s concurrance, but pay or volunteer status would need to be worked out. I can see where some or all of these approaches would be used in the same state, with weathier counties and cities using SRO or paid commercial guard companies, and rural counties with more veterans and hunters going the Volunteer CCW route. One interesting observation. In Virginia, an Open Carry state, once the Gun Free Zone issue is resolved, volunteers could concievably open carry 12 ga shotguns, a formidable deterrence. Open vs Concealed Carry would, of course, need debate.

    6. I would LOVED to have seen some one pull that at my school.

      Our ROTC Teacher (not that i was in but he was a cool guy) was what John Ringo Called Gods gift to the marine corp. A Samoan, 2nd or 3rd Generation, BALD as a billiard ball, Marine Corps Gunnery sargent.
      I WATCHE him break up a fight once. 1 hand one shirt collar on each of the marjor assailants (wading through 5 or 6 skirmishers daring them to even think to hard about even brushing lint off his uniform.) and a he just hoisted them off the ground by thier Shirts

    7. Darryl,

      The thing is, the author already gave the reason why he didn’t offer viable solutions: Most of the viable solutions involve mental health, something he admitted he was wholly unqualified to comment on. The others, such as banning gun-free zones or arming teachers just net the emotional responses such as “You want more dead babies” from the anti-gun crowd. The same crowd that ignores the usage of arms to legitimately protect safety, life, and property. The same crowd that would rather a woman be raped than her having the means to protect herself from her attacker.

      You see, if you have someone intent on killing a large number of innocent people for some reason or another, and this person has at his disposal an AR-15 style carbine rifle, a couple of handguns, a baseball bat, several large knives, his own fists, a crowbar, a single-shot shotgun, a car, and a container of gasoline, it is incredibly unreasonable to think that this person will decide NOT to carry out his intended attack because you take away the AR-15. The point here is, there are many things in which a person intent on causing harm can use to cause a devastating amount of harm, many of which we are either unwilling or unable to legislate out of existence. There are many toxic or explosive substances that can be made with common household chemicals. Are we going to ban ammonia and bleach because they COULD be used to cause harm? Are we going to ban cars because they COULD be used to cause harm?

      If you look at the mass shootings over the past years, relatively few of them employed firearms that would fall under an “Assault Weapons Ban”. Most of them used handguns. Also, the deadliest school massacre in US history didn’t use a single firearm. It used dynamite, and happened in 1927 if I recall correctly. While we are talking history, it is interesting to note that violent crime has actually been declining for over 20 years. It just doesn’t seem like it as much because society as a whole is more connected than ever. I can and do instantly communicate with someone across the globe, whereas even 10 years ago this wasn’t all that normal. We can hear about something happening pretty much anywhere in the country the very instant it happens. This instant access makes things appear worse than they truly are.

      A viable solution is to deal with the people with the kind of mental problems that then carry out these atrocities. Like the author, I am not a psychiatrist and am lacking in the necessary qualifications to offer much more than that. It is my opinion that working to remove some of the negative stigma that surrounds mental illness would help a lot. I think there are a lot of people who avoid any kind of treatment purely because they don’t want to be labelled as “Mentally ill”. Making mental health care more affordable and more accessible would also help. The biggest thing, however, is identifying and neutralizing potential threats before the person making the threat is able to carry out their threat. There was a girl in Arizona who had been planning another attack, She posted something on a message board somewhere in Canada. Someone saw this message and notified the authorities, and the authorities arrested this girl before she could carry out her plans. This isn’t making national news because it doesn’t fit into the agenda that those who wish to ban firearms are trying to push. Identifying these individuals BEFORE they attack, and getting them the help they need (or removing them from society to somewhere where they are contained) OR making it so people who might otherwise be threats are able to get help to treat themselves are the ONLY ways to prevent another massacre. Arming teachers is a deterrent, or as the author of this article said, “Placing speed bumps”. Someone intent on harming others will still do so, they will either move to a “softer” target or work around the protections of their intended target. People will still be harmed in either case.

    8. problem with using National Guard is the Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits military forces being used for law enforcement in the U.S.

  6. I am passing this along to everyone I know. Don’t know if it will make a difference, but we have to at least try to educate those willing to listen.

    1. I wish you luck. All I got was “His logic is sound, but…” or “He’s bordering on paranoid.” Bottom line: If someone is anti- gun, nothing’s going to change their mind short of a personally-witnessed armed civilian intervention in a situation that is endangering THEIR life.

      1. I had a very similar experience. My Gunny acquaintances loved it but the one or two sane liberal friends had difficulty. Honestly they wanted this thing cited like Larry was writing a term paper. At least the conversation was civil and I think a glimmer of light might have been seen.

      2. Actually, I might have been one of the knee jerk folks clamoring for gun control, until I stumbled across this article. I read it, thought about it, read it again and thought some more. I don’t know that I agree with everything, but I do agree that gun control is not the only answer to the problem, maybe not even a good part of the answer. I’m ready to listen and learn. I am open to hearing why gun control doesn’t work and ready to ask, “ok, what have you got?” I hope to hear more well thought out responses and not more” cold dead hand…” Let’s talk about what will get results.

        1. Hi Karen,
          Please allow me to jump in. Gun Control doesn’t work because only the law-abiding will conform while the criminal element will not register their firearms or apply for permits to purchase or to Carry (Concealed or Open). We do not need Gun Control; we need Criminal Control.

    1. Tommy Jordan, in the article you linked, sounds like a Fudd, an enemy of the 2nd Amendment and freedom. As if he’s trying to kiss butt and compromise away even more of our rights, which are not subject to discussion anymore.

      His views are nowhere near those expressed by Larry. Not here, not in hios books, nor on WTA or anywhere else I have seen him. OK?

      1. (Of course, that typo is “his”, not “hios”.)
        Regardless, that “8minutesoffame” guy, Tommy Jordan, calls for 7 day waiting periods, giving all your 4473 info up front if you just ASK about buying a gun, more Gov’t databases and regulations on you, eliminating gun shows, and 10 round mags! (SPIT!)

        If Larry believes in that shit, I’m burning my MHI books and never buying another.

  7. Bravo, Larry, Bravo.

    (One more nit-pick: it was 1986 when we saw the Hughes Amendment forever fix in time the number of transferrable machine guns…)

  8. Larry,

    I read your books and I also find your opinions well reasoned and even handed. Bravo! I think this is the Best single article written I have found anywhere on the internet.

  9. Well said Mr. Correia. I must admit though, that I tend to disagree with a lot of your politics, simply because I am a Liberal. On this issue though, I completely am in agreement.

    Another great article that you may enjoy is this one: http://8minutesoffame.com/america-freedom-vs-freedom/

    Its highly informative and basicaly goes side by side with what you have said.

    I also reblogged your post on my blog as this is an issue I truly believe in.

  10. Reblogged this on and commented:
    I don’t normally get into political stuff on this blog, but my right to self-defense is a topic that is very important to me, and in the wake of Sandy Hook things have gotten a little crazy…
    It’s a well-known fact that criminals do not and will never follow laws (only the law-abiding do), and it’s also a well-known fact that they target those who cannot defend themselves. Whether you’re looking at a rabid animal, a mugger, a rapist, or a deranged and homicidal maniac, self-defense is NEVER a right to be taken for granted.
    This writer has presented the entire argument better than any article I’ve read thus far. Please read.

    1. I believe we need to learn self defense. But I also believe we are not the only ones learning self defense. I am trying to understand your rules for engaging people in the carrying of firearms. I too believe the teachers are defenseless from “cooks”. But I also believe that teachers should not have to worry about when to pull a gun in their classroom. I also realize that you must have great knowledge as to the laws of gun control and the lack there of. I also realize that we are not stopping them by instituting more “laws”. The reality is that only some believe the laws apply to them. That true law followers realize the importance of realizing people’s “space issues” and respecting those spaces. I too have had my space issues challenged. But they put something over my face and rendered me unable to defend myself. If I had had a gun next to me on the night stand, I wouldn’t have been able to use it. Your points are valid and reasonable but I am not sure that the “thugs” won’t learn self “attack” modes. I am not sure what the answers are. But I do know that God should be our first consult. We have gone away from His rules so much that the rules have become maligned from their original intent. I really appreciate your extensive lesson on gun issues. I hope to enroll in a self defense class that wakes me up when someone puts something on my face to put me out. God Bless you in your quest to enlighten people in gun laws and the ability to learn defensive tactics to defend their very “space”.

  11. Larry, you might also read some of Dr Gary Mauser’s papers on the efficacy of gun control laws. He’s published one or two with Dr Lott I believe.

  12. Australia and England both have official anti-gun websites (although I can’t remember the names at this point). Go look.

    “We’re all safe now because there are no guns, but crime is up! We must get the rest of the guns! If there are no guns, there would be no crime!” (paraphrased) Of course this was a few years ago. The rant may have changed by now.

    1. Good luck on “getting the rest of the guns”.

      Norinco in China will sell anyone anything. Period. Do you want a container full of 106mm Recoiless Rifles, and a mix of ammo? Sure. Cash up front.

      They can also sell you a container full of Glock copies if that is what you wish to “import”.

      They will post a guard on the container until you get it loaded onto your ship and out of Chinese territorial waters.

  13. In the wake of the tragedy, the media has tried to blame three things:

    1. Guns
    2. Violent videogames/movies
    3. Autistic People

    You’ve made the arguments against the first point, now let me add a few brief comments about the other two.

    Violent videogames have been proven, in study after study, to not contribute to crime. They just don’t make people become violent. In fact, in most countries with high video game consumption, gun violence is low. The United States is an exception, but as you pointed out, there are still a lot more good guys than bad guys here. Banning violent videogames will not do any more to prevent violence than banning guns.

    Lastly, Autistic People. All Americans should be familiar with the idea of a witch hunt. Bad things are happening, so let’s blame a certain group of people—a minority who doesn’t have the numbers to vote us out of office if we offend them. If you meet an Autist on the street, you probably won’t know it. In nearly all respects, they are ordinary people. They sometimes get scared by the world around them, but, except in cases where they are seriously abused during their developmental years, they never become violent criminals.

    There are some politicians now who would like to keep guns out of the hands of Autistic people. In other words, if you are a non-Autist, you have a right to defend yourself, but if you have Autism, then when a dangerous person tries to kill you, you are required, by law, to just lay down and die. And the sad part is that so few people today know anything about Autism that, if put to a vote, a lot of voters would allow the government to do just that. The media are working day and night now to convince the American public that Autism is some kind of mental disease (instead of a neurological condition). They imply that Autism is just a fancy word meaning a violent temperament or a propensity to hurt others. “Dangerous people”—that’s what Autists are now being called, and I am afraid that a lot of people are going to buy it.

    I now fear for the lives of every Autistic boy and girl in America. This frenzy of emotion, where people’s judgment is clouded by their knee-jerk response to this tragedy, could result in these innocent people being imprisoned, institutionalized, or even killed.

    1. My son is on the spectrum. I get chills when I see comments and articles that mention the CT shooter’s autism like one thing follows the other. I also have a family member with chronic depression for which he takes anti-depressants. He’s pretty much been on them for 20 years. It’s like heart medicine. So, although I know depression is over-diagnosed and over-medicated, I worry that the drug that keeps my loved one functioning in the real world is going to be pulled. And then, of course, our 2nd amendment rights. I don’t have a gun because of the two aforementioned issues in my family, but I’m darn glad that I live in a pocket of Los Angeles county that exudes individualism and the likelihood that someone nearby is armed, so I don’t have to be.

      1. What is bad is this is too broad a brush. Many engineers are in this spectrum. The govt would disarm us because we might be a threat? Wait until they see the anti-Fed worm some one writes. No paychecks for months.
        Also, depression. My son died in a senseless car wreck. Hell yes I was depressed and got counseling right away.
        I also take a very effective anti-muscle spasm medication which is also used for depression. Am I going to be screwed by muscle spasms? While not as big as Larry,. if I hit you in the throat, you are toast. This is ludicrous. It is the “precrime” of the movies ….
        Ralph

    2. For what it is worth.
      Videos Games – While I doubt that violent video games cause an increase in crime, they may make it easier to kill. Dave Grossman in “On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society” documents how violent media replicates the methods used by the military to enable soldiers to overcome any reluctance to kill in combat.

      1. Here is something that is funny to me about violent video games. For me if I have a tough day, or for what ever reason i’m feeling more violent……..I start up my video game console and play a violent video game. And you know what happens to me??? I don’t feel like going out and hurting someone, I feel better, more relaxed and LESS inclined to do violence. Now i’m not saying that this will work for anyone else, but it sure does work as an outlet for me.

      2. Grossman based his entire premise presented in “On Killing” on the studies done by SLA Marshall’s and reported his book “Men Against Fire”. It turns out that SLA Marshal just made up everything. Hence the entire premise of “On Killing” is BS. http://www.americanheritage.com/content/secret-soldiers-who-didn%E2%80%99t-shoot

        Grossman has done some very useful things, but his video game thesis is not one of them. A very pertinent and useful talk he gave is discussed here and is worth looking at: http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Active-shooters-in-schools-The-enemy-is-denial/

      3. Harry the Horrible: How does Grossman explain that, per the FBI, our society is less violent now that in the 1970s before video games came along? How does he explain the warriors in pretty much every army in history being able and willing to fight without being “enabled” by video games?

        Our ground level soldiers, sailors and marines while better trained and have better armaments, technology and such, are not as a warrior any better than our soldiers of any pre-video game era.

        Grossman, et al, reports what they want to report. While criminal violence has decreased over the past 40 years, human integrity – especially in academia – has decreased and become hopelessly politicized.

    3. If I was involved in mental health (my experience was survivors of sexual assault and other violence, so I dealt more with emotional issues) and I was watching how government and the media is treating gun owners and sexual “predators” (lifetime listing and shunning for people who as a teenager were reported for having a consensual affair with another teen) I’d be scared to death of how the government would provide the help mentally ill people and their caregivers desperately need.

  14. Larry, I love your books, but this has to be one of the best & most important collection of words that you’ve written! My respect for you knows no bounds. God bless you & your family!

  15. Fantastic! As a teacher, and as someone who is licensed to carry a concealed weapon, I’m all for allowing teachers to have guns on campus. My own campus (University of Alabama in Huntsville) had a shooting two years ago, with three wounded and three dead. So this is a topic near and dear to my heart. Thank you for stating the pro-gun side so eloquently.

    1. Thank you, Diane, for proving that “some” teachers can view the problem from the angle of “how can we best protect the children”?

    1. You can make a numbered list and refer to it as needed.

      Oh, a number 2 argument again. Please go to this FAQ, look at entry number 2, and see why we think you are an ignorant retard.

      Thanx for playing.

  16. This is the most exceptional piece of work I’ve read this year.
    Bravo! Very well stated and I’ll be linking people back here.

  17. And let’s not forget the “founders never envisioned weapons that can kill so many people quickly”. Truth is, they would be more horrified by a government monopoly on the use and ownership of weapons.

    1. Yeah, that argument always makes me smirk. Sure, the founders might not have envisioned GAU-8 30mm Avenger Gatling cannons or… Well, actually, Gatling guns, Claymore mines, flamethrowers, body armor, and grenade launchers could readily have been envisioned by the founding fathers, come to think of it. It’s relatively non-combat things like GPS and heavier-than-air flight, and their applications, that would have surprised them. See Larry’s link to Minimum Wage Historian for excellent historical perspectives on this sort of thing.

      The point is, though, that they had no problem with 20-pdr cannons firing canister and chain shot, or high powered rifles with bayonets, or .75-caliber pistols in private hands. So yeah, founders-based gun control advocates: tell me again how a jumped-up .22 rifle is an existential threat to society at large.

      1. For those of you who don’t know, the AR-15 and the military versions (the M-16 series) are essentially a “jumped-up .22 rifle”. In my opinion the 5.56x45mm NATO rifle cartridge is just a .22 caliber bullet with a larger casing (thus more powder) behind it.

    2. Let’s also not forget that although the Founders could not have possibly envisioned the Internet, weblogging is still free speech protected under the First Amendment. Saying the Second Amendment only protects knives and muskets is equivalent to saying the First only protects oral speech and printing presses, or that because the Third and Fourth specify “houses”, you’re screwed if you live in an apartment or condo.

      Just because they couldn’t envision the means or tools doesn’t automatically make the right irrelevant or unprotected. I believe you’re correct: the Founders would be horrified by a government-controlled monopoly of force/violence.

      1. Silly! There are plenty advocating for just that. Look at the fallout after Benghazi as just one example. Surely a surprise to no one that old media, as they fade in import and power, would fight to restrict the freedom of the press to themselves.

  18. Excellent article, Larry. I know you’ve already devoted a ton of time to this but I’d like to ask another question: what are your thoughts on laws regarding the securing of guns, either in safes or with trigger locks? I’ve heard many people say that migh have stopped Adam Lanza (though, obviously, we don’t have all the facts yet…)

    1. I personally don’t know any folks with a gun safe and/or trigger locks that have successfully managed to keep the combo/key away from their boy(s) (and many girls too) above 12 years old (and lots of kids below that age). I know I had that stuff figured out by age 8 just because it was forbidden.

      Gun safes can slow burglars down or even stop them, they can slow you down in an emergency. Trigger guards can slow kids down (or you again). Adam Lanza wasn’t pressed for time before he arrived at the school. He had all the time he would need to deal with such items.

      1. The best “trigger lock” or “safe” is between your ears and the ears of your family living with you. You educate them properly regarding all types of firearms you have; take away the child’s natural curiosity. Educate them to the point where you KNOW that your kid would never touch a firearm that you leave unlocked. But also to the point where you know that, if attacked and you’re not there or there but unable to defend them, they know how to try and use that firearm in self-defense. We all have read (even though the Mainstream Liberal Media tried to hush it down as much as they could get away with) of kids who defended themselves or their home by shooting intruders. These are kids who have been brought up RIGHT (not as political right or left but brought up properly.)

    2. I have a safe… several, actually. When home, I keep a carbine leaning against my nightstand. The way I look at it, the safes are for secure storage and have no bearing on my ready use weapon.

      Granted I do not have children in the house so that is not a consideration. But even if I did, I’d still want a firearm ready to hand.

    3. It’s kind of a moot point; the US Supreme Court ruled in Heller that laws requiring guns to remain locked up at all times were unconstitutional.

      1. Our daughter was 9 when we decided to start keeping guns in our home. We have a safe, but it’s only used when we aren’t at home and we never had an issue with the daughter trying to get at them … mainly because we removed all curiosity by teaching her to shoot and clean/care for the guns. She is now nearly 30 with an infant and has decided to keep guns in her home as well … which her father and I completely support.

        As for Lanza … he was determined to acquire a gun. Tried to buy one from a sporting goods shop before stealing his mother’s weapons. If her guns had been unavailable to him I don’t doubt that he’d have managed to find one somewhere. So I’d suggest that while a safe or trigger lock may have kept him from his mother’s guns, it wouldn’t have averted the tragedy he perpetrated.

  19. So. I don’t normally respond to political blog posts. I’m responding to this one.

    I’m a moderate liberal. I’m in favor of same sex marriage, want other people’s religion AND my religion kept out of politics as much as possible, etc.

    And I am absolutely in favor of trained, responsible people having guns. I don’t like to hear about or see *irresponsible* people with guns. Don’t leave your self defense weapon on top of a CPU under your desk when you have a three year old. For example.

    I am in favor of sustainable hunting, entirely in favor.

    I am in favor of, when I go into a wilderness area, having people in the group packing heat just in case…a shot over the head of a bear WILL make that bear go somewhere else, for example, and I don’t want to tangle with a bear – they’re big!

    And I am in favor of allowing those willing to demonstrate their responsibility to carry weapons. Heck, I’ve considered it, but unfortunately I live in the DC area…not a good place for guns. If I lived somewhere more rural, then…

    In other words, it’s not a strict conservative/liberal split. Admittedly, I’m not what I could call a strong or extreme liberal, but I’m certainly no kind of social conservative.

      1. I’m saying people should be responsible.

        Responsibility *in general* is something we should do our best to teach our children. Besides, we generally don’t allow somebody to get into a car without knowing how to drive. Why would it be wrong to discourage somebody from picking up a gun who doesn’t know how to use one? If you encourage people to be responsible in general and make access to proper training easy…keep prices reasonable, make sure people know which way to go to get to a range with instructors. That’s not infringing on a right at all. If you think about it, somebody who doesn’t know how to use a gun does not *have* the full second amendment right, because bearing arms is useless without the correct knowledge of how to use them.

        If I walk into a tack store and ask where I can get riding lessons from a reputable instructor, I’ll get a good answer. Although I’ve never done it, I’d imagine that somebody who walked into a gun store and asked where they could get lessons would get a good answer too.

      2. JenniferR, thank you for your open-minded comments! Your decision on whether or not to carry is yours, and the decision stops with you. Or should, at any rate. Not forcing your decision on anyone else, gunners will respect, no matter what choice you make.

        As for training, I’m not an expert on the matter by any means, but if I’m not mistaken, every CCW/CHL holder has gone through training (10 or so hours here in Texas) to qualify for their license. In the states that allow open carry, I believe I’ve read that you are required to have gone through at least a basic handgun safety course in order to carry legally, and most likely need to present proof of said course if requested. Its the same thing as getting a drivers’ license. Sure, anyone can hop behind the wheel and speed off, but the consequences are usually pretty severe if you’re stopped and don’t have proof (ie, your license). So there is training required. Will that stop someone from just picking up a firearm (a friends or a family members, or someone robbing a house, etc)? No it won’t. There will always be those who don’t care about the laws. They’re called criminals. What we do need, though, is a nation-wide standard of training, same as for operating heavy equipment, motorcycles, watercraft, or automobiles. One set standard that’s recognized throughout all 50 (or is it 57 now? LOL) states, so that if someone wanted to carry while on vacation, they could, and cops in the vacationing state would know that they are licensed and have gone through at least the standard training.

        Another thing is that everyone who trains, instructs, or is around firearms much will always recommend more training. You can never have enough. So yes, the basics will get you by. But the more you train, the more confident and knowledgeable you will be about your firearm, as well as various scenarios you may possibly encounter and when/where to draw, as well as legal ramifications of your actions.

      3. Jennifer, Do you think a half blind, wheelchair bound octogenarian should be denied the right to adequate self defense by being prohibited from carrying a gun because they cannot hit a piece of paper at 10 yards?

        Sorry, but anyone who is not a VIOLENT felon and can poke a gun into a muggers chest and squeeze the trigger should be allowed the use of the reliable defensive tool called a gun.

      4. Joseph – I’m pretty sure the second amendment guarantees the right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The text reads: “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.” So I don’t think mandatory training falls outside the scope of the Constitution.

        And, frankly, I believe we *already* have a well-regulated militia. Only now we use the word “police” instead of “militia.” When you have a crisis you call 911.

        And Sam, I don’t think a half-blind octogenarian in a wheelchair will be helped by having a gun. Either a criminal will easily take the weapon and now be pointing your own weapon back at you, or you will make a tragic mistake, being, you know, half blind. As mentioned above, these mass killings are being committed with weapons legally acquired from relatives of the killers. These killers aren’t part of any criminal or gang networks with access to black market purchases, they are simply grabbing what’s easily available to them.

        I attended one of the shooter high schools, so I’ve spent a long time dealing with this. After the shooting we had a police officer permanently assigned to the campus. A trained professional who would know how to respond in a crisis. That is great! Our shooter got his guns from a relative. I don’t see how more parents buying guns that their kids can get hold of would help prevent kids from getting hold of guns.

        Anyway, just thought I’d add my own moderate liberal two cents. I know there are a lot of responsible gun-owners, but I’m afraid it’s the many, many irresponsible owners who are ruining it for you.

      5. Amanda, you obviously don’t know what you are talking about. There are somewhere along the lines of 94 million gun owners in the United States. Besides this shooting, where the killer killed his own mother first, it doesn’t happen how you think it does.

        The police are not the militia. You also obviously have no knowledge when it comes to history. The militia was the people. The Founding Fathers understood the need for the Citizen to be armed.

        As to the wheelchair bound person. A criminal will usually disengage if there is a chance of resistance. They want an easy target. Why would they want to risk getting shot or possibly die?

        E

      6. Thanks Spencer, I love Penn and Teller. Although now I’m really conflicted, because P&T are arguing that the sentence structure implies the people need protection *against* the militia, and Joseph C. (and others) are arguing that the people *are* the militia. So should I amend my statement to be: the exact meaning and historical context of the amendment is unclear, so both sides are going to interpret it in the way they like best?

      7. Amanda to me the differences in our current interpretation of militia or people are the same a saying 2+2=4 or 2+2=2^2(that is 2 squared). The intent of the clause is to allow the citizens (people) to keep and bare arms. Historically the founders fought a militia, and were a militia themselves.

        Since the whole militia vs people is shaky and are both interchangeable and separable I go with what comes after the comma. That is the “people” can keep and bare arms.

        The founders would not have made it a requirement to be in the militia/military to have access to a weapon as that would not have allowed for equal access. The Bill of Rights is mostly about equal access across the board, not special individualized access for specific classes of people.

        Since the spirit of the Bill of Rights is equality, going with the simpler definition of “people” is more accurate and avoids the interchangeability of the word militia across the years. “People” is now and has alwayse refereed to all of us equally, where as militia could be construed as a subset of the “people”.

        I hope that clears things up for you.

      8. Amanda – would a recent US Supreme Court decision help?

        Google “DC vs Heller” – here are some conclusions (in part, not the entire thing):

        “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

        “Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion”

      9. Amanda – just for your information, here is the United States code defining “Militia”. It’s very obvious that *all* citizens are by definition “the militia”, so the whole argument about weapons only being available to the militia are irrelevant, because most of us are already in the militia.
        http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

        10 USC Sec. 311 01/03/2012 (112-90)

        -EXPCITE-
        TITLE 10 – ARMED FORCES
        Subtitle A – General Military Law
        PART I – ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
        CHAPTER 13 – THE MILITIA

        -HEAD-
        Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

        -STATUTE-
        (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
        males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
        313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
        declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
        and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
        National Guard.
        (b) The classes of the militia are –
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
        and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
        the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
        Naval Militia.

    1. Thanks for taking my question seriously. I’m going to consider this. I don’t think we’ll ever end “spirit” versus “letter” of the law debates but I appreciate hearing thoughtful reasons for choosing one or the other. Letter of the law debates tend to spiral down into matters of vocabulary and punctuation, while spirit arguments are all over the place based on interpretations of founders’ intentions. The fact that we have amended the Constitution 27 times just shows that we periodically need to analyze our foundations and update them to support our current beliefs. For all its use of “people” and “equal,” the Constitution isn’t always applied equally, and some of our most important amendments met a great deal of resistance before being passed.

      Yes, Joseph, I have studied history. But I’m sorry, that doesn’t mean I automatically agree with everything you say. Ultimately it doesn’t matter what the Founding Fathers intended. They couldn’t predict how our society would evolve over time, so it is up to us to determine what is worth enforcing and what is worth changing. Right now civil rights and gun rights are the major topics of contention. Who knows what the next generation will be arguing, and what they’ll take for granted?

      1. I agree. Perhaps we should look at removing freedom of the press; they’ve always annoyed me with their ignorant babbling – or religion. How about getting rid of freedom from illegal search and seizure?

        Thing is, you can’t pick and choose which rights you like and which you don’t – the Bill of Rights is a guarantee of specific rights. It’s important also to note that it doesn’t grant them – it guarantees them. In other words the government has no authority to grant – or deny – anybody those rights.

      2. Your statement ” The fact that we have amended the Constitution 27 times just shows that we periodically need to analyze our foundations and update them to support our current beliefs.” stands out to me as an error in methodology. Do you honestly think that our beliefs, unexamined and unconnected to the facts of reality, should dictate the content of our laws? This is an “anything goes as long as you believe it” mentality and has NO place in a country that should be governed by principles derived from facts and logic. By this method, any form of government will do as long as you believe in it. Imagine the Nazis taking over and implementing their plans by Constitutional amendment based on their belief in a certain form of human sacrifice.

      3. I could be wrong but as i understand it Texas is the only state actually allowed to have a standing militia. And the founding fathers actually did write things with an understanding that society would evolve quite a bit and worded things in terms to continue to be relevant.

    2. Are you willing to require “proper training” to be able to own and use a computer attached to the internet?

      Bad opinions and bad voting have killed far more people than any fully automatic M-16.

      Surely you can see the need for simple training requirements before allowing people to disseminate political opinion to the public?

  20. So good. So, so good. Thank you. I didn’t have time to read the whole thing but I sat here and did. Now I’m late. But it’s worth it. Will share with everyone I can. Thank you so much for posting this organized, well-informed piece.

  21. What mechanism do you think explains how the ban of handguns led to an increase in violent crime?

    Even prior to the banning of handguns after Dunblane, the use of legally held guns for personal protection was almost non-existent – onl a very small minority of the population had guns, and they had to be stored separately from the ammunition and locked away.

    1. After the ban, criminals KNEW that they had the upper hand. Before then, it was possible that someone had a pistol. Not likely, but the possibility existed. After the ban, criminals felt a lot safer. The police are a known quantity – you can calculate with a fair degree of accuracy how long it will take for them to respond, and how they will do so. A victim’s ability to defend themselves was unknown and unknowable, until the ban.

      When Florida went CCW, it was having a rash of robberies of old folks. The criminals knew their victims were unarmed, and so it was easy to pick folks that could not fight back. Afterwards, robbers switched to concentrating on tourists – a smaller group, but one that has been disarmed and is safer to prey upon.

      1. The restrictions on how guns and ammunition could be stored meant that even before the ban, the chance of a legally held handgun being used in self-defence was negligible.

      2. Florida had just accepted boatloads of criminals from Cuba. These criminals would target rental cars coming from the airport. Ram the rental car, and the driver would pull over to exchange insurance information. At that point, they are at your mercy, far from help. The Feckless response of Florida was to remove the special license plates and stickers on rental cars, so that the rental cars would be harder to find.

    2. Criminals do not necessarily study the law to the extent they would know exactly what the storage requirements are. Nor do they necessarily expect everyone to always obey laws like ones dictating how ones guns can be stored. People in general are often terribly misinformed about the laws in effect, especially if they are not especially law-abiding types (like legal firearm owners), and if the law in question does not directly concern them. In other words, the average person on the street – or the average criminal on the street – may not know much about the legal situation of firearms in any given country, beyond the fact that some people do have them. Their beliefs are often more colored by Hollyweird fantasies than actual reality of their country. The mere knowledge of existence of firearms is a deterrent in this situation, whereas a massively public general confiscation/ban of the same is a big signal to criminals that “okay boys, now they are helpless – have fun!”

      1. Which is exactly what Gun-Free Zones are. “Hey you criminals, you can come and shoot without fear here. No one is allowed to be able to defend this Zone!”

  22. Well written article, thank you.

    I never imagined you getting death threats, that is like a mass murder wanna-be choosing a popular shooting range as the target during the busiest part of the day. Somehow, I cannot imagine anti-gun activist as capable of issuing a valid death threat.

    1. They still issue death threats.

      It make them feel big, and they know full well a conservative gun owner will just watch them with a poker face on while they posture.

  23. Reblogged this on Spice Up the Right and commented:
    One of my favorite local authors has a long-but-fantastic post about gun control and what would work better. Larry Correia’s one of the best authorities I know of on firearms (having been a Conceal-Carry Instructor and the owner of a gun store) and he knows what the hell he’s talking about. Not to mention that most of what he says is the same stuff I’ve heard from my dad since he took me out target shooting (I was six at the time).

    If you’ve got idiots giving you grief about guns, direct them to Mr. Correia and he’ll set them straight (then check out his Monster Hunter International and Grimnoir Chronicles series – always a great read).

  24. Larry-Thank you for your candid and concise stance on Gun Control. Too much happens when the tension is high, we need clear thinking on this. This article will help me and others who have not considered all the facets of Gun Control.

  25. Here’s another, well reasoned reply that is better stated than I could do myself. Copied from Facebook.

    Thoughts on the Sandy Hook shooting from my son, Brennan Kai Kaneshiro:

    One of the first things I saw on facebook Friday after the Sandy Hook shooting was a meme suggesting that if only we armed our teachers, this tragedy never would have taken place.

    Right. Because our teachers aren’t underpaid and overworked as is. Now you want to give them guns and have them be trained security as well.

    But I thought about it, and the idea has merit. See, what we do is this: We roll the Department of Education into the Department of Defense, and use military spending to fund our public school system. All teachers will be military trained, and with the limitless budget reserved for Defense, we can pay teachers what they’re actually worth, decrease the size of the average classroom, buy textbooks from this century, equip classes with current technology, and actually make the children of this country a priority for once.

    So…I ranted a while back about the 2nd Amendment and gun control, and invited debate. This weekend, I didn’t comment about the shooting or the debate that followed, rather I decided to just watch other people’s reactions to the event and allow those reactions to influence what I wanted to say here.

    This post is in no way up for debate. I don’t recommend commenting on my post, as I most likely will delete anything you have to say. I’m not looking to argue this point anymore. If you disagree with me, that’s fine. I don’t care. Keep it to yourself. Oh, and I may offend some of you out there. If so, sorry, but again, I don’t care. There was a time for polite discussion, and Friday was a stark realization that that time is long past.

    1. I have seen posts stating this wouldn’t have happened if we hadn’t banned God from our schools. Please. Disregarding the whole idea of God actually tangibly getting personally involved in stopping this tragedy being stopped because He was told He wasn’t allowed in school nonsense, teach your religion at your home and in your church. That should be enough, or it would be if you actually taught compassion, kindness, community, and love rather than emphasizing anti-gay, anti-poor, anti-muslim, racist hate propaganda. I don’t intend this as a universal church bashing, as I think there are many Christians out there who live Christ’s teaching admirably, but I think they get shouted down by a vocal minority of Christians who champion the religion of Christianity without a second thought to the philosophy of Christianity.

    2. There have been an awful lot of memes going around touting the teachers of this school as heroes, which I find interesting because to hear it just a few months ago teachers are overpaid, undertrained whiny union thugs that are mooching off of society. But wait! It turns out that these people will literally take a bullet for YOUR children. Any one of you who has voted against teacher’s unions should hang your head in shame. And as I posted above, the first meme I saw suggested training and arming our teachers. Right, because what we really need is to add to a teacher’s responsibility. And where are we getting this extra funding for gun training and the purchasing of weapons? Or is that yet another expense that we’ll expect to come out of a teacher’s pocketbook? Where, pray tell, are they supposed to keep the gun? On them? That sounds like a dangerous idea, out in the open, where a kid could grab it when the teacher was distracted by another student. Locked safely away in a gun safe? What chance to react to a gunman bursting into the room, then? Stupid idea.

    3. And I keep hearing the “If only” argument over and over, every time one of these shootings occurs. “If only there was someone there with a gun, this could have been prevented.” Bullshit. As my gun-owning friends like to point out, there are over 300 million guns in this country; about 40% of us own a gun. So how come we even have these shootings? Half of us have guns. Why haven’t you all stopped these tragedies from happening? Your argument isn’t that some people should be allowed to carry guns to prevent these situations. We have the most lax gun laws in history, and yet we have so many mass shootings in this country that we can’t finish mourning one before another one happens. Your argument is that EVERYONE should own a gun and carry it at all times to prevent mass shootings.

    4. “Guns don’t kill people. People do.” You see this stupid argument all the time. Right, guns don’t kill. They’re a tool. And we don’t want to regulate the guns. Nobody is telling the guns to not shoot people. We want to regulate the people who want to own the guns. We want to regulate the people who plan to shoot other people with guns. We want to keep the guns out of the hands of the people who would kill. “But if someone wants to kill people bad enough, they’ll find some other way. They’ll use a knife, or poison, or build a bomb, or whatever.” Fine. Let them. Just because people suck and decide to become homicidally violent does not mean that we need to make it that much easier for them. If someone wants to kill me, then dammit, I want him to work at it, not just pick up a gun and pull a trigger.

    5. According to the Brady institute, it is TWENTY-TWO TIMES more likely that a gun in the home will be misused than be used for self-/home defense. Much more likely that someone will be accidentally shot, or deliberately shot, be it a domestic dispute turned ugly or a suicide, or that it gets stolen and used for criminal purposes.

    6. “Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have guns.” First, no one’s talking about getting rid of all guns. We’re talking about regulation. We’re talking common sense. Second, it’s not the criminals who are out there committing these mass shootings. These are people with no criminal record who because of easy access were able to build arsenals with which to go out and kill. Which brings me to my next point.

    7. There is no fucking reason for anyone in the general public to own an assault rifle. Period. Or high capacity ammo clips, either.

    And here, at the end of this tirade, is my final thought. The 2nd Amendment says it’s your constitutional right to bear arms. It, however, says nothing about the right to manufacture or sell guns or ammunition. So here’s my proposal. Keep your guns, but we pass a law outlawing the manufacture or sale of guns and ammo. You want a gun? Make one. That should fit in nicely with the whole “We built that” mentality.

    1. Well it’s interesting, almost everything said here was already countered by Larry with actual facts versus opinions. I don’t personally know any gun owners who’ve said anything about God here, mass shootings, despite the hype are still statistical anolimies, these shootings happen in gun-free zones so law abiding gun owners aren’t carrying in these locations, etc. Did you actually read the article here before reposting this “well thought out” response?

    2. I’m pretty sure “well reasoned” doesn’t mean what you think it does.

      I’ll be quick, since Larry covered most of it already.

      1. …irrelevant. No one mentioned it, and nothing is proposed.

      2. You’re all over the place with this one. Teachers unions being a wart on the ass of society have nothing to do with the fact that teachers can still be human and act heroically. As for who pays for guns and training, it’s called personal responsibility. The proposal is to let people who already carry guns everywhere else to carry at work. Many teacher already have CCW permits, they just need to be allowed to use them.

      3. Many tragedies have happened. If you read the post, you would have noticed that these things happen where guns are prohibited. Only, believe it or not, that only works on people who aren’t intending mass murder. Also, MANY sprees have been ended early by someone with a legally carried firearm.

      4. I mean this in the nicest possible way, but whoever wrote that is retarded.

      5. Those numbers have been debunked many, many times. There is no truth to them at all.

      6. Guns are already regulated. Common sense does not mean what you think it does. And it is a revelation to me that mass killers are not criminals.

      7. Assault rifle doesn’t mean what you think it does. Clip does not mean what you think it does. Let me see if I can list some reasons for normal capacity magazines:
      Hurricane Katrina
      Hurricane Andrew
      Hurricane Sandy
      LA Riots
      Because I fucking feel like it

    3. 1. The emphasis was not on God himself stepping in (nice strawman though), but instead the religious morality that accompanies that being taken to heart. If the child is taught right and wrong, and so believes that, then they are less likely to commit mass murder. Would it actually help? Who knows

      2. Bringing salaries into it is a distraction. Why don’t we pay our police and soldiers more? They risk their lives every day. They already allow teachers to be armed in Texas and Utah, and there haven’t been any incidents yet. Concealed carry means that they keep it on them and you don’t know that they have it, so students wouldn’t know to grab it anyway. As for the gunman bursting in, if that happens then they were going to die regardless, but the teacher next door has enough warning to pull theirs and use it.

      3. Every one of these shootings has happened in a gun free zone. It’s kind of hard to shoot the bad guy if you don’t have your gun with you. The argument isn’t that everyone should have a gun (though that would be nice), it’s that we should be able to take our guns anywhere. If they wish us to disarm in a certain area, then they should take responsibility for our safety (such as the armed guards at government buildings or military bases).

      4. Sure, ban all guns. How’s the war on drugs going? You cannot keep weapons out of the hands of bad people, but you know what does make them work for it? Shooting back.

      5. according to the Brady institute there are over 100,000 defensive gun uses per year, compared to 16,000 gun homicides per year. Where’s that 22 coming from?

      6. Unless you’re getting rid of all guns, then they will still have easy access to guns. As you said, they have no criminal record, so on what grounds do you decide if they can buy one or not?

      7. The Assault Weapons Ban already tried that, and it did absolutely nothing.

      Finally, outlawing the manufacture of guns would prevent you from building one yourself (just saying), thus the manufacturing of guns cannot be outlawed. The right to bear arms necessarily includes the right to procure said arms, and forcing each individual to manufacture their own constitutes an unreasonable impedance and is therefore unconstitutional.

    4. Once again, another “gun-control” advocate showing his ignorance by using the word “clip” when he should have said “magazine”. If only I had a dollar for each of these occurrences, I’d be able to afford another gun…and a few extra MAGAZINES!

      1. Valerie, Merriam-Webster defines clip as follows:

        clip – noun
        Definition of CLIP
        1: any of various devices that grip, clasp, or hook
        2: a device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also : a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm
        3: a piece of jewelry held in position by a clip

        As for me, I am a strong advocate *for* gun control – best achieved through a firm grip, steady breathing and smooth trigger squeeze. After 17 years in the U.S. Army (half of it as the top shot in my Battalion, and top 4 in my Division) I still occasionally use ‘clip’ for ‘magazine’, and anyone to whom I am speaking understands my usage without any hesitation or head-scratching. Please be aware that your nit-picking on this particular phrasing may tend to relegate you to the fanatical portion of the ‘gun-nut’ category, even by those of us in the “normal” portion.

    5. well thought out my ass. A good portion of this is Anti Gun, Anti 2nd amendment talking points from as your son just admitted…the Brady Institute, for one. His opening of the tirade with I’m not inviting argument and I’ll delete any comments if they’re made…show he doesn’t want a debate. He wants to spew that idiocy and not be called on it. I’ll also note that’s in keeping with groups like Brady not actually inviting discussion, just shouting over anyone trying to say anything reasonable and telling them to shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down,. I PERSONALLY have been BANNED from several sites for DARING to interrupt the group circular masturbatory group think…with actual FACTS or just an opposing view point, The difference between the two sides? On the one…the PRO Gun, Pro 2nd amendment side…COLD, RATIONAL, LOGICAL, Fact based, thoughts and arguments. The other side?[as your son I’ll point out AGAIN, just proved] Over wrought, emotional, knee jerk reactions, with no basis in rational thought, let alone logic.

      My response to this? Bitch, Please!

      1. I’ve noticed that it’s never the rights community that says “I just can’t talk to you, I’m done!” and walks away. It’s always a member of the control community that says “you’re hopeless, a moron, I’m out!” Because they really have nothing to say. So it’s no surprise that the wonder boy who wrote that pathetic piece of nonsensical false propaganda doesn’t want anyone to comment. See, he’s just too sensitive to have to deal with all those icky, cold-hearted facts.

      2. For NKR, I’m a counter example, but here’s the context: immediately after the murder, I called for a time-out on politics until the bodies were buried (effectively a call for manners). The anti-gun folks were shouting at me, and I didn’t think it was right to argue right then, so I just deleted all of their comments, posted a note saying I was ditching the Internet for a while, and did.

        In general, though, I think you’re correct, and clearly the gun-rights advocates have the vastly superior logical position.

    6. Seriously, This is the anti-gun mantra and it has absolutely no basis in FACT. The ONLY thing that stops a killer with a gun is a good man with another. I’d rather be that man than the guy who gets shot waiting for one to show up! My second amendment right is just that “MY RIGHT” to protect myself, and I’ll be dead when they take that from me!

    7. Recent mass shootings did not happen because there were too many guns, but because there were too few.

      We do not hate teachers. Why do you support a policy which renders them (and their students) defenseless? Read up on the elementary school in Beslan, Ossetia. They had a gun ban but it didn’t work well.

      We dislike gun free zones because they get people hurt and killed. An unpublicized fact about Clackamas Mall shooting was that the shooter’s AR-15 type rifle jammed and a patron who was armed drew his weapon, but could not get a clear shot. The shooter saw him and killed himself.

      As for banning ammunition, I reload 30-06, 243 WIN, 45 ACP, 40 S&W, 10 MM, 9 MM, 38 Spcl and 380 ACP. In the butler building behind my house, I have 80 lbs of powder, 20,000 primers, 15,000+ pieces of brass and several thousand loaded rounds. In my garage, I have a lead pot, 500 lbs of wheel weights and molds for all the pistol bullets. Between the passage of an ammo ban and its strike down in court, I stand to make enough money to trade in my 3 Series and my wife’s X5 on new models.

      As I was in Vietnam and El Salvador, I’m always armed, usually with a Model 1911 that I keep cocked and locked. I don’t own an “assault weapon,” but in my trunk I keep an M1 Garand with a round in the chamber.

      Have a nice day!

    8. Here’s my proposal. “We” don’t pass any laws that contravene the intent of the Second Amendment. “You,” lovejoy and kaneshiro, can learn to live with the Constitution or you can get the Hell out of the country.

      It’s easy to see you’re just panting to confiscate law-abiding gun owners’ guns and ammo. Why don’t you just stop the “polite discussion” and FORCEFULLY take action yourselves? Come on, you can do it! Just show you’ve got the courage of your convictions!

      Little too gutless, are you? Sounds like it. Cowardly left-wing Luddites, both of you, along with any sympathizers you might have. Face it, punks, the big bad guns aren’t going to go away. You’re going to have to live in a world where those who choose to be prepared have a much better chance of surviving than those who don’t. You’re in the latter category. The biologists have a name for people like you: prey.

      Wanting to take everyone’s rights just because some have misused them is the mark of a totalitarian. You gun-grabbers would do real well to go back and read the section of Mr. Correia’s post about what would happen with attempted confiscation. If anything he understated the case. For a great many of us out there, that would be the Fort Sumter of the Second American Civil War.

      Do you really want to start that?

    9. Adam Lanza finally stopped when he was confronted by an armed cop, and he shot himself. See how that works?

      Mentally ill and criminally insane moonbats have more rights than sane people who make the logical choice to do what is necessary to protect their homes, family, and lives. I own a firearm and I guaran-goddamn-tee you that if anyone breaks into my home, they will leave in a body bag.

      Ironically, some have called for arming school personnel in response to what happened in Connecticut. Gee, won’t that involve guns?

      Bottom line: Armed criminals and loonies deliberately choose soft, unarmed targets. They couldn’t give one shit less about the idea of restrictive gun laws. Every law-abiding American citizen has the right to defend themselves from low life thugs and deranged psychos like Lanza, in spite of the Left’s fatuous politicizing.

      “pass a law outlawing the manufacture or sale of guns and ammo”? Yeah, you’re a real fucking genius, Larry. The current regime in DC would love to control guns the way it does healthcare. I prefer to have the option of getting the ammo and guns I need, if only to protect myself from our own government. But, you go right on ahead and kowtow to the whims of an out of control Fed. Just don’t expect the rest of us to follow suit.
      “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government”— George Washington

      1. As a retired teacher I have participated in many lockdown drills with students and I know how helpless one feels under those situations. You have given me the information I need to speak out on arming teachers, admistrators, etc, in our schools. Thank you for one of the most informed common sense approaches to this horrific problem.

    10. Sorry but your son Brennan is an idiot. Even his strawmen have strawmen!
      And as much as I appreciate the good work teachers do with my 4th grade daughter, they are not ‘underpaid’ or ‘overworked’.

    11. “This post is in no way up for debate. I don’t recommend commenting on my post, as I most likely will delete anything you have to say. I’m not looking to argue this point anymore.” Just put your fingers in your ears and say na na na na na while I reply.

      1. I don’t believe the mention of God had anything to do the Him swooping on a chariot to smite the sociopath lanza, I think it has to do with general attitude. Cite the number of school shootings that have occurred in Christian schools/academies vice government run public schools.

      2. There is a school district in TX that has allowed teachers to be armed since 2007. It’s the teacher’s choice, no one has forced them. As do I, apparently some of them think it’s a honor and a duty to protect the innocent. Even though your comments indicate you’re an ignorant, hysterical ass, if you were under my charge I would take a bullet for you. Believe it or not there are still many people out there with a moral code a little deeper than yours.

      3. The gun owners could not stop these incidents because they occurred in a “gun free zone”. Law abiding, responsible gun owners are not going to break the law by carrying a weapon into a gun free zone, that would make them criminals. Not a stab at law enforcement but why didn’t the police stop these incidents?

      4. I agree, this is a stupid argument, we should regulate the insane, sociopaths, and village idiots. This used to be done before a certain president decided to loose the loons to increase the democrat voter base.

      5. Pick a third party study to quote, Brady is anti-gun and will probably have statistics on their side, NRA will have the stats slewed to their side agreed? Enlighten yourself and research an independent organization such as DOJ or FBI and I suspect you will find a much lower percentage.

      6. Pretty stupid hysteria statement in my opinion, common sense has no play in the equation. If lanza had common sense he, his Mom, and 24 other souls would still be alive. “it’s not the criminals who are out there committing these mass shootings.”, yeah OK. Years ago in a mall in southwest Missouri there was a specialty shop that sold “jason” masks, I thought they were stupid but they sold like hotcakes. Guess how much the murder rate went up in the area?

      7. The frosting on your ignorance cake. The general public has not been able to own an assault weapon since 1934, quite a few years before they were even invented. There is not a clip in existence that holds more than 6-8 cartridges, WTF you talkin about Wills?

      1. Why didn’t the cops stop these incidents? Honestly how do you expect them to do that. Are they going to pull you over and say to you, well i though you were going to speed so stopped you? That’s like all these arguments about racial profiling and stopping them because they look Mexican and might be illegal or middle eastern and might be terrorists. Where do we draw the line between protecting the innocent and stopping the criminals. My husband walked into a school in his uniform with his gun as is his right and duty as a leo, even in a gun free zone, to bring something my son had forgotten and the office staff asked him if it was really necessary for him to keep the gun on him. Yes. It is. He Would actually loose his job if he was caught in uniform without it. I am planning to get certified to carry. I never shot a gun before my husband became a leo, but he took me to the range and showd me some basics so i would be comfortable with it in our home and we will be doing the same with our children as soon as we can. Also because his job makes us targets. I grew up with a dad who builds and shoots his own black powder rifles. He hunts with them, and also with more modern weapons, not just guns and for defense. I have known him to kill vermin in his workshop with a shot to the head with a bb. Probably more humane than a traditional trap. He takes trophies while hunting but we also eat venison stew and bison jerky. Its not the guns that are bad, its the way some people use them. I also had a sister in law who was shot, killed, along with her two children, by a man she bailed out of jail, he was in for assaulting a woman. People, be smarter than that. Dont be victims. Cops are there to ENFORCE laws, most would rather not be heros.

    12. Strangely, you wish to comment, but you tell the reader not to reply. Sounds like the Second Amendment isn’t the only problem you have with the Bill of Rights.

      1. Of course he doesn’t want a reply. This is a victim disarmament bigot’s lecture, not a conversation.

        He does not want any lip out of us cousin-humping retard peasants. He thinks he is our better.

    13. Same old anti gun crap we’ve seen for decades.

      Can’t you write your own anti-rights bilge, or do you need help when spewing propaganda?

    14. [quote]
      3. And I keep hearing the “If only” argument over and over, every time one of these shootings occurs. “If only there was someone there with a gun, this could have been prevented.” Bullshit. As my gun-owning friends like to point out, there are over 300 million guns in this country; about 40% of us own a gun. So how come we even have these shootings? Half of us have guns. Why haven’t you all stopped these tragedies from happening? [/quote]

      Not Bullshit. These shootings take place in GUN-FREE Zones where not one of those 300 million guns is “allowed”. Gun-owners (who could have prevented such tragedies) are not allowed to be in those Gun-Free zones with their guns.

  26. Thank you for this! Thank you so much! I just had a debate with a gun grabber on Facebook, and used very similar arguments. Logical, rational and real!

  27. I would love it if you actually cited the stats surrounding Australia and UK, since from what I can find the crime rates in both countries is actually declining.

    Even if it is going up slightly, according to wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate (not the most reliable source, but the underlying data here appears legit), the violent crime rate in the UK and Australia is 1.2 per 100.000 people, compared to 4.2 in the US. So, even if crime rises a bit, it would have to quadruple to approach how unsafe the US is. (Though I do know that this is not evenly distributed, that Vermont and most of Utah, though politically quite different, are closer to the 1.2 figure.)

    So, yeah, I would rather we react like Australia and not have another of the 62 mass shootings in the past 50 years.

      1. From the article you yourself just posted comes this,

        “There are also degrees of violence. While the UK ranks above South Africa for all violent crime, South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year – compared with Britain’s 921 in 2007.” So… The US had 18,361 murders that same year. So, still not seeing how having more guns makes us safer. (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/su6001a14.htm)

        The TSA is a good point on needing smart gun safety measures, not security theater.

      2. The CDC study is political bilge. Every time a Democrat is president, they spew another one of these.

        Note that the largest group in that violence rate is african-american.

        If you are willing to throw out civil rights in order to lower the violence rate, you would be better served jailing all blacks instead of banning firearms.

        Do you favor jailing blacks to prevent violence? You need only “regulate” that pesky bill of rights, and it can be done.

        I don’t suggest you try it, however. I’ll be there with my firearm, helping those same black shoot your ass off if you try.

    1. Actually kilks according to a report I read recently from Britain’s version of the Dept of Justice, though I forget what it’s called right this second, has admitted that their numbers don’t cover most crimes because most aren’t reported. Why? because a good many citizens over there view the justice system to be about as useful as tits on a boar.

      1. Kilks…Degrees of violence? Britain has over 2000 violent acts per 100,000 people. The US is around 450. You can’t pick and choose the specific categories that support your ‘belief.’

        Typical close-minded liberal.

      2. Actually, the US has a VERY high homocide rate (roughly 2/3rds from firearms) compared to most developed countries. Latin America and Africa are higher, as one might expect, but Europe is much much lower. One other interesting fact is that the US has one of the highest suicide by firearm rates in the world. Bottom line, more guns = more dead people… period.

      3. More guns = more dead people? You seem to be implying that all those deaths were of innocent folss – whereas here on planet Earth, most of those dead were the criminals, shot by a citizen who was forced into that position. I absolutely don’t mind.

    2. The dirty secret is that the Australian ban is unevenly enforced. Do some digging into what weapons turned up (and in whose hands) during the Cronulla riots.

    3. Let me give you another example:

      In Switzerland, the government actually issues every able bodied 20 year old man a fully automatic 5.56 mm rifle and 100 rounds of ammunition to keep in his home. It is common to see these reservists in grocery stores and theaters with their weapons slung over their shoulders. At 30 when they are discharged, they may keep their rifle after the government has modified it to semiautomatic.

      Blood must run in the streets, right? Wrong. Swiss murder rate from all causes is 0.4 per 100,000.

      By comparison, in Birmingham, 20 miles north of where I am sitting, the rate is 54 per 100,000.

      1. Read the comment to that WAPO Wonkette propaganda, Mr. No.

        People who live in Switzerland are posting rebuttals to that article’s lies in the article’s comment section.

      2. This is a bad argument because everyone who joins the militia is vetted first to weed out the people who aren’t capable to own and use a firearm. After that everyone goes through basic training where the process of weeding out those unfit for firearm use and ownership continues but on a daily firsthand basis. And even after they leave basic training they still have to report back periodically. So what you have in effect is the most tightly controlled gun ownership system possible, i.e. gun control.

    4. You also cant just compare gun crime, where there is a gun ban you will see more knife violence, and you can run out of bullets but what is the limit to a blade. How many times does a person typically get stabbed compared to the number of shots in a similar set of circumstances,ie robbery or murder. How many places are guns, or whatever, are involved but the crime is classified differently by the officials so that the statistics are read differently. I’m not anti gun by the way. You can compare apples to oranges cause they’re both fruit but without lot of manipulation ,or a politician, an orange will not be red. I have more questions than answers.

  28. Reblogged this on The Liberty Zone and commented:
    I just had a debate with a friend who is of the gun grabber variety. Made many of the same points as Mr. Correia makes in this article. It’s eloquent, well articulated and logical to a fault. If a person has a rational, open mind, they will read and understand this.

  29. It may have already been said on here (there are so many comments)…

    Regarding the suggestion that teachers conceal carry, this is my take on it:

    When 9/11 and other air hijack terrorism occurred, the government didn’t put signs in airports and airplanes saying “Hijack Free Zone”.
    They hired and trained and armed air marshals.

  30. I’ve been saying a lot of the same things on certain points. The only only way to end mass shootings is to end gun-free zones. Taking my right to keep and bear arms isn’t going to make your kids at school any safer.

    1. Excellent Sir, why waste an expensive cup of java and waste your time learning something when you could be running through the hen house warning of the impeding disaster? 😛

  31. Wow. I LOVE THIS. I am so happy there are still educated firearm advocates out there. Now how can we show the country that guns don’t kill people. Its pretty simple. If you want something to compare: how many people die in automobile accidents year round. Shouldn’t we just ban cars too?

    1. Falacious argument.. Cars are used by almost everyone on a regular basis and are inherently dangerous because they travel at a high rate of speed by individuals of varying levels of competence. The death rate in relation to the amount of overall usage is very small when compared to the death rate by firearms given their relative small usage.

      Add to that the incredible strides made in car safety over the past 25 years means that cars are getting safer every year.. which is NOT the case w/ firearms.

      Accidental deaths, many involving small children, accounted for more deaths in the US than total homicides in the UK last year.

      More guns = more dead people. Fact!

      1. total UK homicides, 2011: 636
        total accidental deaths due to firearms, US, 2011: 1097

        UK population: 62,641,000
        US population: 311,591,917

        Here’s another:
        violent crime, UK, 2009, per 100K: >2000
        violent crime, US, 2009, per 100K: 464

        Try looking at rates, or build comparable bodies of population.

      2. “More guns = more dead people. Fact!”

        Fact: Putting the word “fact” after something you say, does not, in fact, make it a fact.

      3. More free speech = more retards like Mike spewing nonsense

        Fact!

        Regulate free speech, and make people like Mike wait 30 days before posting.

    2. Not only Cars, but let’s find out what exactly high alcohol(caliber) drinks those DUI had and ban specific brands of Whiskey, Beer, Wine, Liqueurs. Ban some drinks by name because they look like more potent drinks. Ban dark coloured drinks (they look potent.)

      1. When I was bartending and in the loop on Alcoholic beverages this actually came up. Sometimes on slow afternoon shifts we would get the preachy type people in who would complain about how different drinks get you drunk faster. Some of these people even said if they had their way I wouldn’t be able to make high potency drinks. The Zombie family for instance. It looks like it has lots of alcohol, it tastes really good and masks the flavor of alcohol, and the sugar content they said tricked people into thinking they weren’t drunk. Only thing is, Even a really strong Zombie is less potent then a boiler maker or even straight shots. The Zombie has lots of alcohol in it, but it also has a ton of juice which slows down your absorption of the alcohol. Compared to a shot, or beer(the carbonation) 1 Zombie an hour will get you drunk slower than a shot and a beer.

        The crazy Zombies look scary and are very powerful drinks people didn’t know this, or even cared as it didn’t fit their rhetoric. Just like the Assault Weapons look scary people.

        So don’t ban the drinks/guns. Educate people and expect them to take personal responsibility for their actions.

  32. Man what a great write up! I shared it to facebook and forwarded to friends and family.

    I looked at your “About me” page and see you are from El Nido and went to Merced High! I grew up in the country outside of Merced too.

    Thanks for going to all the work of such a well thought out and well backed up post.

  33. I’m new to understanding your perspective on this, but when you say that Liberals hate Lott, are you referring to the paper published in the Journal of Legal Studies written after Lott allowed Professors Dan Black and Daniel Nagin to reevaluate his data for their 1998 inquiry into the effects of concealed-carry laws on violent crime rates or the one by Yale Law School? They don’t strike me as Liberal organizations.

    http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2240&context=fss_papers
    http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/468019?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101582246307

    I’m sincerely trying to understand your perspective as I feel that this is the only way to have a fruitful discussion. I think you’re proposing that the US not add any additional limitations on guns or ammunition, but rather remove existing limitations to allow more people to have guns available to protect themselves. Is that accurate?

    Also, can you post where you got the info about violent crime increasing in the UK, Australia, etc after guns were banned/made more difficult to purchase? I’m hearing different things so I’d like to see authoritative data rather than what people are posting (on both sides).

    Thanks.
    – Amy

    1. John Lott wrote a book called “More guns, less crime.” The thesis is that criminals strongly dislike armed victims and thus as more law abiding good guys carry sidearms for self defense, violent crime goes down (with a slight rise in property crime — likely criminals finding safer lines of work).

      The book is exhaustively researched.

      Every gun control person I’ve ever met hates it but can’t really articulate a good argument against his work other than “LOTT IS BAD! HE LIES!” Some other statisticians/economists tried to debunk it, and they were savaged (professionally speaking) for shoddy work.

      1. And I do believe that right in the article that I wrote here I cited that it was not as conclusive because they were arguing over whether the Australian ban had any effect…

        Not of course, that the media which loves gun control would be biased, or the politicians who love control would be biased in their reporting… Because that’s just crazy.

      2. Amy, you may be able to find other reports, but that is the one that was posted in a discussion I joined.

        The guy posting it was trying to use it as ‘factual proof’ that the Aussie ban had a major impact on crime.

        Not sure if it is the report Mr. Correia was using when he mentioned the Australian ban in the piece above, but it is a good place to start.

    2. Hi Amy –

      I culled data from Britain’s version of the FBI uniform crime stats.

      For 2011, the UK had a violent crime rate of 3844.92 per 100k.
      For 2011, the US had a violent crime rate of 386.3 per 100k.

      For comparison inside the US, Washington DC and Chicago, Il, beloved of liberals for their strict gun control, had the following stats:

      DC:
      Violent crime rate: 1130.26 per 100k (Nat’l: 386.3 per 100k)
      Murder rate: 17.48 per 100k (Nat’l: 4.7 per 100k)

      Chicago:
      Violent crime rate: 1044.97 per 100k (note: Chicago doesn’t report rapes, so the VC rate isn’t an exact representation) (Nat’l: 386.3 per 100k)
      Murder rate: 15.94 per 100k (Nat’l: 4.7 per 100k)

      1. Places with gun control tend to have more non-gun violence.

        What a shocker.

        I prefer a country where a little old lady can shoot a violent 230 lb. thugs ass off.

      2. Slva – not only is gun crime a subset of violent crime, the poster I was responding to *specifically* mentioned violent crime rates in her post. Maybe you should have read for content before your mad rush to try to disprove my point.

  34. Hi Larry,

    Thank you for this well-written article. I’m a liberal, and I proudly voted for Obama. I am generally pro gun control. I live and work in an urban area of a blue state. I have never fired a gun in my life. That said, I am not a limp-dick chicken-shit or any other one of the things I’ve been called. I also do not consider myself elitist. Before anybody reading this snorts or rolls their eyes at me, please understand that I’m trying hard to understand this side of the pro-gun debate. I deeply appreciate your blog post, Larry. It’s been educating, and cleared up a lot of the information I didn’t know.

    Also, before you write me off completely, understand that I am a big advocate of self-defense (I’m a long-time accomplished martial artist and have been in fights). I’m not interested in overturning the 2nd Amendment, despite which, I admit, I think people have misunderstood it’s actual historical use, but that’s another debate I for another blog thread perhaps. And I realize you probably have even more arguments for than I do. But anyway…)

    On the day of the Sandy Hook shootings, I wrote to my Congressman about tighter gun control laws. However, I see your points, and am actively trying to look for meaningful and practical solutions to these tragedies. While I applaud your “arm the teachers” solution, I am, for many reasons, against that idea. I won’t get into it too deeply here, but essentially it boils down to having 3 young children, and a wife who has worked in in early childhood education for 24 years. No matter which way you spin it, the bottom line comes down to that having a tool of violence in a classroom is in many ways the antithesis of a nurturing and healthy learning environment for young kids. Yes, I know it can be concealed. Yes, I realize that they may never know it’s there. But for whatever reasons, I think we both know it’s not going to be a popular decision with the national public if that’s the best solution offered up by well-meaning pro-gun advocates like yourself. Heck, it already isn’t popular. With the exception of the far right, it seems like the average American is writing off Governor Perry’s statements about arming teachers. Not just “elitist urban liberals.” You may disagree, and that’s fine. But again, maybe we can agree that the idea just won’t go over well, regardless of the actual idea’s merits, OK?

    So that said, my question for you is what _else_ can be done? You (and your readers) are intelligent, educated Americans. You know more on the topic of guns than I ever will. What _else_, besides suggesting that pre-school and elementary school teachers learn to use semi-automatic guns, can be done to help prevent mass shootings?

    Keep in mind, I’m not talking about organized criminals who import or make their own military-grade stuff. Nor am I talking about rapists in dark alleys looking for single victims. I’m looking for practical solutions to preventing mentally disturbed people (usually, but not always, young Caucasian men with at least historical signs of mental illness) from being able to walk into a school or theater or mall and shoot people up.

    Personally, I believe the answer is not tighter regulation on the types of guns and related devices that can be sold, but tighter regulation on the people who get them. (A conservative pro-gun friend of mine said we need better people control, and I agree.) You’re right that “bad guys don’t care.” They will get them anyway. But what I think we can better prevent are taking steps to ensure mentally disturbed people cannot get them.

    BTW: I’m not throwing stones at any specific group. I’m a white man myself, and one of my children (a boy) is on the autistic spectrum. So believe me when I say that I’m not on a witch hunt.

    It seems to me that we should limit those who live in a household with mentally disturbed people from being able to buy or own guns. In the Sandy Hook event, the shooter’s mother was a legal gun owner and (likely?) took every precaution she could. She allegedly trained her sons well with proper gun usage, and kept guns locked up. But the tragedy of course is that her son was mentally ill, and probably should not have been in a household with guns. (Or rather, guns should not have been in a household with a mentally disturbed kid). It’s my understanding that background checks are done on the buyer at the time of a gun purchase. But what, EXACTLY, is checked? Another friend I know recently acquired a gun… a short time after his girlfriend dumped him. Yes, he went through the cooling off period required by our state. I’m not saying I think he personally would do anything, but… maybe? He was extremely depressed. Not just sad. DEPRESSED. (I’ve also struggled with true depression and know the signs) Was it a good idea for him to be able to acquire a gun? How could the state (or whoever does the check) determine if that is a threat?

    Thanks in advance for having an open mind and considering my thoughts.

    1. I’m a martial artist too. I trained for over a decade. I wasn’t the best, but I definitely think I could hold my own against anyone who didn’t have several years of training.

      Problem is, it doesn’t work against shooting. Sure, if someone is holding a gun in your face they can be disarmed (if you’re fast and lucky), but there’s nothing you can do from across a room.

      As for the resistance to arming teachers….I’m just going to have to call that a mental block on your part. Don’t know what else one could say to convince you that they are not magical talismans manufactured out of evil that will attack children whenever they are in close proximity.

      Having a child with issues is also no reason not to own guns. People who own guns and have children have extra motive to obtain a good safe.

      Unless you’re implying we should hire a bunch of psychics, the current background check is the best it’s going to get, and I’m OK with that.

      Also, don’t vote any more, you’re ruining the country for the rest of us.

      1. Yes, I really don’t understand the resistance to armed, trained staff in the schools. I guess it comes down to CCW making it impossible for people to know they’re standing right next to a person with a gun. They might notice they’re not getting shot by that gun or any of the others they’ve been close to, but because it’s concealed they never even know they’re there. Hard to convince someone to change their mind when you can’t just show them that they have encountered gun carriers in many situations and not been any less safe.

      2. The security of a gun in the classroom is easy. Keep it on your person or bolt one of those single-gun safes in the top drawer of the teacher’s desk. They type that can be opened with a single hand with a secret code in about 1 second.
        What is it about people that they think it’s OK for a cop to walk around a school with an exposed gun but the same gun on a teacher’s hip will somehow end in an accident? If you think kids don’t hug the resource officers, you are sadly mistaken. (saw one argument that teachers get hugged by students and the gun might be discovered. If you don’t act like you have been caught, kids pretty much ignore stuff like that)

      3. Sorry, but i´m with him here. I was until recently a soldier. I’ve seen trained staff -in warzones, so being shot at should come at no surprise- panicking, others were having an adrenaline rush -causing poor judgement and impulse control (one kid suddenly bursting into the field of vision then and we have another victim). You can´t tell me teachers or weekend-course trained personnel won´t react like that as well. The only ones who are reliably chosen and trained keeping their calm under any circumstances are special forces personnel. Experienced veterans might achieve that level of competence as well.

        Also situational awareness: could panicking kids suddenly run through your line of fire? Keep in mind you could produce ricochet that hits the kids as well as you need to hold your fire if you would penetrate the surfaces in your line of fire (Victoria Soto saved many kids by hiding them in cabinets, so you should understand why it´s important). And everything possibly under difficult circumstances like in Aurora (dark room and tear gas) and as immediately as possible, no one is waiting for your evaluation.

        And of course coordination. You got a gun, run towards the shooting and find half a dozen armed guys. Who is friend, who is the assailant? Are you waiting until you have figured everything out? Cool, you are all dead now, the murderer used your confusion to put bulletts into your brains. You are going to shoot? The murderer happily accepts your help and then is going about his crime, leaving behind the bodies of the wannabe-heroes. This part is really vital to successfully handle such a situation. Lack of coordination is one of the main reasons for friendly fire. And this is for trained armed forces, don´t tell me civilians will do better.

        So you see: you are severely underestimating the difficulties involved in such a situation. Letting amateurs handle it -as speed-bump- will end up in dead kids, killed by them because they were out of their depth.

        Sure, not every situation requires a seal to deal with it. Most are rather easy and straightforward, and most assailants aren´t exactly evil geniuses, so you can take them out without being special-forces material. But the situations you were talking about: school-shootings and the Aurora-massacre, are belonging to the most difficult situations, where you need to be an absolute expert if you want to handle it without killing as many kids as the attacker.

        So this can´t be the solution, there aren´t enough ex-special-forces around to become school guards and others are likely not capable of dealing with the situations and only will make matters worse.

        1. So, not doing anything, because it might hypothetically make things worse, is better… So y’all kids just die for FIVE MINUTES until the professionals (who also aren’t trained anywhere near SF levels) come to save everybody…

          The solution is right there in your 2nd to last paragraph. “most are rather easy and straightforward, and most assailiants aren’t exactly evil geniuses, so you can take them out without being special-forces material”.

          And there you go. You answered your own problem.

          Also, color me a little suspicious if you think that only SF are capable combatants… I must have missed the part where I said that teachers need to be HALO capable and dive certified and able to teach small infantry tactics in Pashtun. I’ve got a couple hundred combat vets as readers here, and though most of them aren’t scanning through all 800 comments here so probably won’t see this, I’m hoping one of them sees this and posts in order to call you on your bullshit.

          That especially pisses me off, because the guy that taught me the most about responding to school shootings and who I stole most of my teaching curriculum from was a LtCol in the Army SF, and one of the guys that I worked for as an assistant instructor was a long tab, (he’s posted in this thread too, so hope you’re still around Sam F.), and a giant chunk of my customer base was SF (we were located one block from Utah NGHQ, so it was 1st Bat 19th SFG), and all of these highly trained super soldiers who you are citing as the ONLY people capable of stopping a school shooting would call you on your bullshit.

          One reason I know this is because I’ve got a challenge coin from one of our A Teams. You know why they gave it to me? Because I was teaching FREE CCW CLASSES TO TEACHERS. I didn’t even know what was going on. I was filling out paperwork after class, looked up to see seven guys standing there waiting to talk to me, and since I knew who they were I thought “Oh, crap? Did I say something stupid? Did I say something wrong?” Nope. They wanted to thank me for helping arm the people who taught THEIR KIDS.

          You cite how many kids Soto saved because she kept a cool head. She also threw her unarmed self at an armed attacker. Brave woman. Just imagine how many other kids she might have been able to save if she’d just shot the son of a bitch.

          I am severely underestimating the dangers? Okay, wait one freaking second. You yourself admit that for most of these incidents, they are relatively straightforward events, yet you posit that becuse the teachers can’t handle something like Belsan, then we shouldn’t do anything? Screw that.

      4. As a combat veteran I can safely say that you don’t have to be “special forces” to stop a lone psychopath with a gun. I personally know several civilians without any military training that could respond appropriately. I know what it’s like to be shot at. I know what I need to do to assess the situation and pick my time and target. And I’m not special forces. Much of civilian training nowadays is far more geared towards this kind of situation than most military training. Military training is usually far less discriminating while the opposite is true of the civilian training.

      5. Whatever (the poster), I’m just your run of the mill 11B, but the way you describe it, it’s a gosh darn miracle half the guys in my company weren’t offing each other every time we went to the range. If the average Infantryman isn’t capable of doing his job under pressure, then I guess I wasted 16 weeks at Fort Benning for nothing.

        1. Thank you for your service. When I was at Ft. Dix for Basic, I received my full grounding in the M-1 rifle and the bayonet. At Ft. Belvoir, I was on the pistol team, and I’ve been shooting ever since, and qualified as an NRA and AZ firearms instructor. There are many, many more with my experience and training, and even more advanced skills. We all could be qualified to be volunteers for a school defense program.

      6. @Whatever, the fact that you claim that only special forces operators have the situational awareness and competency to deal with a situation such as a school shooting calls into serious question you claim of having been a soldier. I believe that you have about as much military experience as Jesse McBeth.

        And just so we are clear, these are my qualifications to speak on this subject. I am an Air Force veteran who served as an 81130, in other words a security specialist. I underwent Basic Training at Lackland Air Force Base in 1993 as well as MTS and then underwent advanced training on the M-60 and in Air Base Ground Defense at Fort Dix, NJ. My entire job was dealing with the security of Air Force personal and materials. Furthermore, my family has a tradition of military service to this country that has extended unbroken back to the Continental Navy during the Revolution. I grew up around sailors and Marines, many of whom were special operations operators.

        The reality is that almost nothing that you described would or did transpire in Newtown, Aurora, Tuscan, or even Columbine. Soldiers train with each other almost every day of their career. They know who their platoon mates are, who the other soldiers in their company are, and, even if it is just through recognition of uniforms, who the rest of the good guys are. Why do you think groups like the Taliban work so hard to get American military uniforms?

        By the same token, teachers and administrators at schools work with each other five days a week, they know who the”good guys” are and they know that a person in full tactical gear armed with an AR-15 is not one of them. It is a pretty straight forward determination who the “bad guy” is.

        Additionally, if teachers are taught basic tactical skills they are not rushing into a situation half blind. They are advancing slowly, using cover and concealment to assess the situation, clearing each room they pass to make sure there are no bad guys waiting for them or waiting to ambush the good guys. They are making contact with other teachers and staff, coordinating their approach, and not engaging the target unless they have a clear shot. This is all things that you would know if your military career had existed outside of CoD. These are all basic skills that I was taught long before I was ever put out in the field with live ammunition and that we practiced nearly every single day. Hell, anyone who had ever played Laser Tag or paintball learns these skills pretty quick from “on the job training.”

        So I am afraid I am going to be forced to call bull$h!+ on pretty much everything you said. We have seen from any number of recent incidents that armed civilians with basic tactical shooting skills can and do make a difference and save lives. So please crawl back into your virtual foxhole and troll some n00bs, because we know better here.

        1. The best tactics for an armed teacher are also the most basic and simple. They also adhere to this basic and fundamental principle – the teacher stays with, and protects, their students.

          Most lockdown protocols currently go something like this:
          1. Lock the doors and windows, close the curtains, and turn out the lights. This may mean checking/locking external building doors as well.
          2. Account for your students and get the students into the “safest” part of the room.
          3. Communicate your status to “HQ” (school office, local PD, or whoever yoru local protocol requires)
          4. Be as quiet as possible, hoping that the attacker will think your room is empty, and so not waste their limited time on breaking in to your room.
          5. Wait there, quietly, until the authorized person gives the signal, unlocks your door, and tells you what to do next (evacuate, resume teaching, etc.).

          If the teacher is armed, then you add some steps between 4 and 5.

          4-A Access your firearm. This may be drawing from your concealment holster, or unlocking a safe and retrieving it.
          4-B Create cover between you (the teacher) and the most likely point of entry. Position yourself between that point of entry and your students. Reassure your students.
          4-C Be prepared to engage any threat that enters the room. While their entry point may not be what you expected the most likely point of entry to be, you will probably hear the attacker/s breaking windows or kicking in the door before they are able to enter and start killing your students.
          4-D Remember that you now have the tactical advantages – they are entering through a known “fatal funnel”, they are probably at a range of 21 feet or less, you are behind whatver cover you have improvised (a desk, book cart, etc.), and are in a supported firing position. When they begin to enter the room, they will probably be backlit while you are in a dim room. Take slow deep breaths – this is an easier shot than most of your range practice. Make sure that you are not positioned so that your fire will penetrate into the “safe area” of a neighboring classroom.
          4-E When the attacker/s appears, fire until they stop presenting a threat.
          4-F Reload, and carefully approach the target/s, kick or throw their weapons away from their body/bodies. Ensure that they are no longer posing a threat.
          4-G Assess the situation – are any of your studnets injured? Are you injured? Is the attacker/s alive – in which case, do you want to restrain them and then provide first aid?
          4-H Communicate – notify your HQ of what has happened Follow their instructions regarding evacuation or remaining in place. Let your students know what they need to be doing.
          4- I secure your weapon, so that responding police do not see you as a potential threat.
          Proceed to step 5.

          This removes tactical movement concerns.

          This minimizes “friendly fire” or misidentification concerns.

          This makes the armed teacher response as simple and easy to train for as possible.

          Meanwhile, the armed principal, vice principal, and custodian (people with no students in their direct care, and who have master keys) could hook up with responding cops as they arrive, to cover the cops’ backs, share knowledge of the campus layout and people, and provide keys to open doors.

      7. @Whatever, I have nine years experience as a Coast Guard Boarding Officer. I also trained a lot of young men to do that job. Your assertion that only Special Forces have the training to do this kind of work is just plain ignorance with more than a bit of misplaced arrogance. My people everyone could that job and do it well. So kindly think before you open your moth ands hove both feet in it up to your knees.

      8. Whatever (The poster) is your typical “concern troll”. He says “I’m like you but I have a concern…”. And it’s all BS.

        “You can´t tell me teachers or weekend-course trained personnel won´t react like that as well.”

        Exactly how much range time does the average LEO have, genius? Yet the arrival of said officers is what almost always triggers the deranged shooter to off himself. When the threat that they will deal with an armed opponent is presented they almost always suicide. That was the lesson from Columbine and why we teach LEOs to go to the sound of the gun and not wait for SWAT. Which is exactly what teh brave officers of the Newtown PD did. And from time lines it appears he did himself when they arrived.

        “The only ones who are reliably chosen and trained keeping their calm under any circumstances are special forces personnel. Experienced veterans might achieve that level of competence as well.”

        Utter fucking nonsense. We’ve been training room to room since I went through IOBC in 1981. I trained situational awareness in MOUT training at Reaganstadt training area in Ft Bragg to thousands of soldiers, noncoms and butter bars.

        Furthermore, I can tell you even basic training prepares our soldiers for exactly this sort of combat. A man I was commissioned with was a reserve infantry officer. When the Reserve’s had their combat units pulled he went to Transportation. His unit was called up at the start of the Iraqi phase. His Transport soldiers, as untrained at weapons as they were (I led a MTT that tried to train soldiers belonging to CSS units combat skills…it’s hard) were able to defeat many an ambush. It was an IED that killed my friend.

        Finally, Whatever, have you ever been to a Practical Pistol Shoot competition, let alone a civilian range? These people take shooting far more seriously then most soldiers. They do it because they like to shoot. They try hard. All it needs is one of these in a school to run to the sound of the gun to keep our children safe.

        When confronted with the threat of violence the vast, whopping majority of these sick twists will take their own life…no second party shooter required.

      9. I’m trying to respond to “Whatever’s” comments and I really take some umbrage with it. I’ve been working with ordnance all of my adult life, since enlisting at 17 and even before then. I have helped protect two Presidents and been on the sharp end more than once, and that includes hearing the frag buzz past my ears and being faster and more accurate that the other guy. My skills are enough that I have been told by a top-level operator that he would go though a door with me. If you don’t know what that means, just stop reading this.
        You don’t have to be a tier-1 trained operator to be able to fight the bad guys. Yes, tunnel-vision in a combat environment is the big thing you have to fight (funny, you didn’t mention that). Go towards the shooter and find half-a dozen armed guys? You’re either outnumbered or late for the party. And you go back and protect the kids. How many of those teachers in Israel are ex-operators? But they can handle a rifle – and they have them available!
        For a teacher, they would be protecting the kids first and foremost. If they have the means to, they take cover with the children and anyone who comes through that door firing is in a world of hurt. But you don’t expect someone in that position to go out hunting the bad guy.
        Your points are those of someone who has read a bit, trained a bit, and thinks they know it all. Until you have heard the snap go by, you can’t be positive of what you will do. But you can come damned close. No. it isn’t the best situation, a building full of kids and a gunman opening up at any and all who get in front of him. But you can harden up the target a bit.
        Oh, and if your going to talk about them, you can at least show the courtesy of knowing how to write their name. It’s SEAL.

      10. @whatever “You got a gun, run towards the shooting and find half a dozen armed guys. Who is friend, who is the assailant? Are you waiting until you have figured everything out?”

        The assailant is the one who wasn’t in the faculty meeting last week.
        The assailant is the one trying to hide from everybody else
        The assailant is the one with 4 guns and magazines sticking out everywhere.
        The assailant is the one with the body armor
        The assailant is the one with the blood spatters
        The assailant is the one with the smoking gun.

        Actually I lied.

        The assailant is the dead one on the floor.

        The body will have flash burns under his chin and the top/back of his head blown off.

        ———————-

        I’m a military vet, as I felt it was my duty to put my life on the line for my country.

        I’ve only had guns pointed at me twice in earnest that I know of, and only one of those times was there shooting. Both times were civilian. The shooter fired a few of times and ran. His shooting was so bad I started walking to the side slowly, so as not to accidentally run into his aim. Random idiot, probably gang initiation or something.

        The punk non-shooter surprised me with a revolver almost in my belly button. I was scared as hell, and my stomach tried to wrap itself around my spine, but I decided then and there I wasn’t dying on my knees.

        The hammer was down, and even if it were single action, he couldn’t have pulled the trigger faster than I could slap it away. We both hung on, and when I twisted around to his face, he suddenly remembered a pressing appointment elsewhere.

        Stories of heroic bravery? I wasn’t even scared by the first guy. I was alone and it was obvious he’d only get me by accident (he was at least a couple of hundred feet away) The second time, I just did what needed to be done. I survived both, and at least know how I’ll react under fire, so that particular terror is gone.

      11. @whatever

        I am a Special Forces trained soldier. I have been deployed to multiple combat zones in my nearly 26 years in my time in Special Forces. I taught at the Special Forces Qualification Course. I now teach protective security skills for the State Dept. in Baghdad. Let me tell you that there is nothing magical about Special Forces training that would make us the only ones capable of stopping the psychopathic murderer. The only thing our training really does is weed out the undesirables like you.

        There are countless examples cited of non Special Forces personnel who have actually stopped these types of events so your argument is clearly invalid. Go back you your fobbit rack and leave the discussion to people who know what they are talking about.

    2. It’s easy actually. You can’t stop such things from happening if someone wants to commit such an act. All you can do is be prepared to deal with it. Larry wrote about what happens to mass shooters when they are opposed, so there is no reason to say it again.

      So in the end, either you can quiver in your shoes and be a sheep or you can be a sheepdog and not be a victim.

    3. Mark,
      Very nice comment. But i would ask you this:
      When it comes down to you witnessing an atrocity in progress ( Its happening right now and every second you delay another person dies. No debate, not time to call police, no politics.), and you have the means to stop the slaughter of innocents within your grasp, the question is…do you stop the butcher in his tracks or throw away the tools to save the innocent because of personal limitations, ignorance, or political dogma, and therefore be complicit in their murder?
      Now would you also deny others that same means to stop the butcher?

    4. “… the bottom line comes down to that having a tool of violence in a classroom is in many ways the antithesis of a nurturing and healthy learning environment for young kids….”

      I’ve been to a world’s fair, a rodeo, and a picnic, and that is the silliest thing I’ve heard come over a headset, even for an Obama voter.

      However, it reveals typical irrational and emotional thought, as well as the intellectual vacuity of the therapeutic culture spawned from flakey leftist drivel that has brought this country to the sorry pass we find ourselves in.

      What is sad is that you that you can only see a firearm in the liberal dogma duckspeak of “tool of violence”. Were you open minded in the least, as oxymoronic as “open minded liberal” is, you would have to admit that any firearm, as a deterrent, is as much a tool of peace as a tool of violence. Actually, given that the vast majority of firearms in the entire world will never be used to do anything more violent than to put a hole in a can or piece of paper, your argument holds less water than the aforementioned can, unless you are so degraded you think target shooting as sport (cans or otherwise) is “violence”. If that is so, you are beyond hope.

      The fact, as anathema as it likely will be to you, is that weapons of various sorts, to include firearms, have been in schools throughout much of this country’s history, to include teachers packing heat, yet without mass shootings. It is not mere coincidence that the rise in incidence of shootings has occurred during a rise in “gun free zones”, media circuses attendant to each event, abrogation of blame and responsibility, moral equivalence, “zero tolerance” asininity where kids get thrown out of school for drawing pictures of firearms, fall in academic standards and achievement, and all the other detritus your tie-dyed world view has inflicted on the civilized world.

    5. Mark,

      Denying gun purchases based on association with a “mentally disturbed” individual sounds kinda like denying someone their constitutional rights without due process of law to me. Plus, how do you determine who is or isn’t “mentally disturbed”? In a nation where an estimated 17% of the population is clinically depressed at some point in their lives, do you propose that nearly a fifth of the population has their rights permanently stripped, as well as all of their friends and family? It sounds incredibly authoritarian with a lot of potential for abuse.

      As for preventing more school shootings, you’re asking the wrong questions. You’re asking “how can we keep bad guys from getting weapons?” The answer to that is, ultimately, we can’t. It is impossible to keep a truly dedicated individual from obtaining the means to kill large numbers of people. If it’s not guns, it’ll be knives, or bombs, or gasoline, or cars, or any number of things. At some point, prevention will fail. At that point, you need to ask the question “what do we do when prevention fails?” In that case, the right thing to do is call for help immediately, protect children as best as possible, perhaps by blocking doors or evacuating students out ground floor windows depending on what is feasible, and having the fastest armed response possible. It doesn’t necessarily have to be someone with a CCW, that’s just the easiest and cheapest method. A pair of armed security guards in every school would be an excellent deterrent and a much faster response than the police. You seem to understand self defense as a martial artist, but self defense only works if you can meet the attacker on equal ground. The only true way to stop an active shooter is to have a responsible adult on scene capable of responding to him or her with equivalent force.

    6. My wife is a teacher and she disagrees with you because she is strongly opposed to her or her students dying. That is also not conducive to a positive learning environment.

      Look, no words persuade people like you. You’ve already stated that you are politically active and told your representatives to punish me because of what some asshole in Connecticut — a state with great “person control” and some of the strictest gun control in the country already — did. The only effective technique I’ve seen for changing the minds of people who are already politically active is (A) taking them to the range, or (B) if a horrible tragedy occurs to them or a close friend/family member. That’s tough to say, but true.

      You need to consider the outcome of your “person control,” though, as a self-described liberal. As I understand it, part of being a liberal is believing that all people deserve to enjoy specific enumerated rights regardless of color, creed, gender, etc. “Person control” in the gun world often involves giving local officials discretion to deny or revoke gun rights. CT has a discretionary “may issue” permit system where local and state officials “may issue” a pistol permit — or not, depending on how they feel.

      These systems are notorious for abuse. Guess how many poor black people living in shitty wards have pistol permits in DC in the post-Heller world? Do you think it is more, or less, than the number of rich white people in nice lofts with permits? Look back historically. Why was a bunch of gun control with discretionary permit schemes instituted in the south in the late 19th century? What could possibly have been occuring in that time frame? Buller? Bueller?

      If you’re cool with taking rights away from poor people, minorities, and so on as “collateral damage,” then sure, bring on the “people control.” Just something to think about.

    7. Mark:

      No matter which way you spin it, the bottom line comes down to that having a tool of violence in a classroom is in many ways the antithesis of a nurturing and healthy learning environment for young kids.

      That is an emotional argument. You are saying that a classroom with an armed teacher is not the way you feel a classroom should be. Well, MY emotional argument is that I don’t feel a classroom should be filled with dead kids.

      And Mr. Correia’s argument is not an emotional argument at all. He’s talking about what works, why it works, and he’s pointing out that it’s been shown to work.

      So ask yourself: do you want to feel good about the nurturing environment of your child’s classroom? Or to you want to stop having school shootouts? Assume you can’t have both. Which is more important to you?

      But for whatever reasons, I think we both know it’s not going to be a popular decision with the national public if that’s the best solution offered up by well-meaning pro-gun advocates like yourself.

      That depends on whether we can move the discussion from an emotional one (“that solution bother me, so I won’t stand for letting it be tried!”) to a practical one (“let’s look at what’s worked and what hasn’t, and do more of what worked and less of what hasn’t”).

      As Mr. Correia says, several states already allow their teachers to be armed, and no doubt there will now be more. So you don’t have to do ANYTHING; just watch! Note that, as “soft” targets are hardened, the mass murderers will still go for whatever “soft” targets they can find.

      (Are you familiar with the term “going postal”? How did we get this stereotype of people going on mad shooting sprees in post offices? Well, post offices are Federally-mandated “gun free zones”. They might as well put up signs: “WARNING: no guns or illiterate people”. Illiterate people can’t read the sign, and criminals will ignore it.)

      Let me end with a suggestion. If you want to be part of the gun-control debate, go take a class, one that includes live-fire. It’ll take a few hours of your time, nothing more, and you’ll learn a lot. You should also experience what it’s like to fire a gun; all the reading in the world won’t equal the experience of actually doing it.

      Trust me. It’s worth your time to understand gun owners better. Even if your opinions don’t change a whit, they will now be INFORMED opinions… and you’ll no longer risk using the terminology incorrectly, and thereby having gun owners immediately stop taking you seriously.

      1. Daniel in Brookline,

        I think you missed the elephant in the tent in that comment: the assumption that armed teachers is somehow in opposition to a “nurturing” environment.

        The message (the Left is all about “messages” isn’t it?) of an armed teacher: life is worth protecting and if someone comes to harm you I am prepared to stop them.

        It doesn’t _get_ more nurturing than that.

          1. “Personally, I think a big part of being a nurturing parent is protecting my children from harm.”

            Bingo!

            I would go further and say that protecting _myself_ so that my children _have_ a father to come home and be nurturing is big part of that.

            As I have said in other venues, I’m not a little guy (nowhere near you, of course. 😉 ) and I’m in pretty good shape for my age (“for my age” note that), and I’m a brown belt in judo. I’m also a 51 (almost 52) year old man with bad knees. Running is not an option. And on balance I might give myself even money against some young punk who decides to try me unarmed, well, even money is not good enough. Bring a club or a knife into the equation and even if I’m similarly armed, well, the winner of a knife fight goes to the hospital. And again, we’re talking even money at best.

            Nope. Given a choice I’m not going to match muscle against muscle, knife against knife, or anything like that. I’m going to use the best means to make sure that my wife’s husband, and my daughter’s father, come home safe to continue caring for them.

            Also, I am Asatru (well, Asatru leaning agnostic). Part of my belief system is always being ready to fight evil. Courage, Honor, and Self-Reliance are three of the Nine Noble Virtues.

            So it’s not just the 2nd that’s involved but the 1st.

        1. After retiring from my career in military LE, I became a teacher. Fromt he first of my teacher licensing classes, I have been told “The foundation of effective teaching is for you to create a ‘safe environment’ for your students”.

          Me being unarmed, defesneless, and unable to help them does not allow me to create a ‘safe environment’ for them. Me being trained and armed does.

          After living through my first “armed intruder on campus” incident (nobody died – thankfully) and spending hours crouched on the floor of my darkened classroom with about fifty kids (the intruders entered the campus during lunch, and my room was by the picnic tables, so I got extra kids), I decided that, if an attacker ever entered my classroom, I would fight with whatever was at hand, and make sur ethat they would have to kill me first. Not because I’m heroic, or brave, but because I am too much of a coward to face the possibility fo living through an attack where my studnets – my kids – died. Better to go out swinging than to have to face the grieving families of kids I was uanble to protect. But I would far prefer being given the opportunity to effectively protect my kids – the tools to be able to have a chance to actually stop an attacker.

          I have a whole prior career of knowledge, skills, and abilities that are all based around using firearms to protect people – why do politicians tell me I can not use those skills to protect my students?

      2. Well said,Daniel. Nothing to add but “fantastic job”.

        @ David Burkhead

        Good thoughts on the matter, which I agree with, concerning “nurturing”. And cheers from a practicing Sumerian pagan.

      3. David and Anarchanonymous you do know Larry is advocating concealed carry. The students wouldn’t know that the teacher has a gun. If a whack job tries to hurt the students the teacher protects the kids. Until that moment they don’t know the teacher has a gun.

        Which would you think is more traumatic for little Timmy, seeing Bobby and Susy bleed out with blood and possibly brain splatter all over him. Or quick decisive action of a teacher who protects them by stopping the bad guy?

      4. @Spencer

        Of course I’m aware that’s what he’s advocating. I am for it. I wouldn’t mind open carry either, or letting 17+ year old kids carry .25’s or .22’s after a thorough safety course and proper certification. No reason why they should have stronger guns. Minors can’t really be expected to be responsible for themselves, but for adults it should be mandatory. The .25 or .22 would be a last line of defense in case the adult in charge of safety is incapacitated.

        “Which would you think is more traumatic for little Timmy, seeing Bobby and Susy bleed out with blood and possibly brain splatter all over him. Or quick decisive action of a teacher who protects them by stopping the bad guy?”

        I have no idea. I’ve been around violence my entire life and have been the recipient of mild to severe violence throughout much of it. I’ve never been traumatized by any of it,although people around me have, so I couldn’t say. Being in my position, the idea of trauma from witnessing violence sounds like a made up condition to my mind,but it seems real enough to others. Regardless of trauma, I believe it is better to be alive than dead, and I’d much rather see an innocent come out of a violent encounter unscathed than a wicked person because I am a just person.

        I don’t believe in all this sheep-bleating about “healthy and nurturing environments” because,more often than not, in the mind of those advocating them, “healthy and nurturing environments” consist of a pedophile safe schools czar teaching 5 year old boys how to put a condom on a banana with their mouths. That, in my opinion, would be much more traumatic with far more life-altering consequences than witnessing a crazed shooter get his brains splattered all over the projector screen.

        I didn’t have a healthy or nurturing environment growing up. All it did was teach me to value peace and freedom and personal responsibility. These liberals presumably did, and they’re sexually molesting kids and having sex change operations and/or firebombing police in “anti-war” protests.

        So you tell me how well that horseshit works.

      5. Anarchanonymous I think the fault in communication lies with me. There were so many posts and it looked like you were agreeing with David. The entire post was directed at him, and I mentioned you because I thought you were agreeing with him.

        For that I apologize.

        As far as upbringing I was around violence much of my life and like you I value peace, and and responsibility. Personally I go out of my way to avoid physical altercations, and never start them. I will finish them as quick as possible once one starts, once someone attacks me I don’t play around. I finish the fight as soon as possible so I can go back to not having to fight.

        That’s part of the reason why I studied martial arts so I could end fights fast. The other part is I do actually enjoy fighting but would never dream of violating another persons personal liberty and harming them. So I would spar in a controlled environment for pleasure and to prepare for when I would need to act fast and decisive.

        Again sorry you were caught in the cross fire, this thread is getting long and hard to keep track of.

      6. My mom is a teacher. I would not arm her in the classroom or anywhere else for that matter. That’s not to say that teachers should not be allowed to carry on a voluntary basis, given the proper training. Our cops do active shooter training IN a local school building. It would be a great idea for them to include both armed and unarmed teachers as an exercise of what to do in that situation. Some of the volunteers who help with the training, which is led by the swat team for all the city’s personnel who would be expected to respond, bring their children to participate. They shoot paint simunitions.

    8. “No matter which way you spin it, the bottom line comes down to that having a tool of violence in a classroom is in many ways the antithesis of a nurturing and healthy learning environment for young kids. Yes, I know it can be concealed. Yes, I realize that they may never know it’s there. But for whatever reasons, I think we both know it’s not going to be a popular decision with the national public if that’s the best solution offered up by well-meaning pro-gun advocates like yourself.”

      I’m of a mind that agrees and disagrees. Every teacher is not a CCW candidate, there is a protective mindset and training that one must willingly partake. Larry covers that. the bigger thing is if there are a few that can or will carry then the school is no longer defenseless and if the word is out that this is so then it does have the desired effect
      of making it a no killing zone or reducing the likelihood. The undesired effect is that crime will go elsewhere, a partial success.

      Further the concept that carrying a firearm is not a “nurturing or healthy” thing in a school is faulty. The first purpose of teachers, mothers, fathers and mentors is to teach and keep safe and healthy
      the charges in their care. Is protecting them from harm violating that?
      I think not. Like everything the confusion here is the idea that children should be kept innocent from the idea that crime and evil exist and they needs to be aware and protected from it. At some point Santa, Easter bunny and the good fairy need to become the myths they are.
      People need to grow up and understand where those myths come from and learn they are expect to integrate aspects of good, giving and protection into their nature.

      Last on this issue, It is my understanding that a few teachers and administrators put their life between the criminal and the children.
      It would have been better for all if they have the tools to be more successful in stopping the carnage rather than dead for their efforts.
      As an emotional response I call them heroes. As a logical response
      I would rather they had a bullet proof vest and combat training or a weapon effective enough to have stopped the attacker sooner and also kept their lives.

      In the end we cannot make crime and evil go away by magic, we can be effective in avoiding and stopping it if it come near. I leave offering
      a firearm is only one means but one is better than none.

      Eck!

    9. “the bottom line comes down to that having a tool of violence in a classroom is in many ways the antithesis of a nurturing and healthy learning environment for young kids.”

      I see from other responses that the above phrase caught eyes other than mine. But why do you feel that way? Speaking as an NPR-listening, Harvard-trained, non-gun-owning resident of a blue state (how anti-gun should that make me?) please help me understand why the presence of a firearm would make a school the opposite of a healthy leaning environment. Is it because it will make the children think about violence or death? (Because they sure haven’t been exposed to information about that elsewhere.) Then let’s get rid of the fire extinguishers and fire hoses as well. Wouldn’t want impressionable young minds worrying about dying or being horrifically injured in a conflagration. And those eyewash stations in the chemistry lab need to go. Must protect the kids from worrying about chemical burns or losing their vision.

      A gun is just a tool like any other. Plenty of other tools have the capacity to do great harm, but most people don’t seem to have emotional responses against chainsaws, pneumatic nail-drivers or hot-water heaters set to “scald.” We won’t even get into the carnage wreaked by incompetently or irresponsibly used motor vehicles (even hybrids, hard as that may be to believe). Perhaps if we demystified firearms people would have a better understanding of what they can and can’t do, and consider them rationally instead of emotionally.

      Should we mandate arming all teachers? Of course not. They didn’t sign up for that duty, and not everyone is physically or psychologically suited to carry, or wants the responsibility. That’s fine, but please, let’s not treat firearms the way Victorians treated sex.

    10. Mark,
      Thank you for at least appearing to be open to evaluating your own biases. Several other responders have already commented on the glaring flaws in your belief;

      “No matter which way you spin it, the bottom line comes down to that having a tool of violence in a classroom is in many ways the antithesis of a nurturing and healthy learning environment for young kids.”

      A firearm is a tool, a machine. Using that tool to murder is violent. Do you consider using the same tool to stop murder, especially of children, violent?
      How can a fully nurturing and healthy learning environment for children not include taking ultimate responsibility for one’s own actions and safety? Why should we protect children from visceral realities of life, and then fail to protect them from physical harm or death?

      1. Appearing is the main thing here.

        He’s a concern troll.

        The first thing a concern troll does is pretend to be like the posters, and then he tries to tell us how we are all wrong.

        I wouldn’t even believe he is a vet or a martial artist without seeing his DD214 or talking to the head of his dojo.

        Even if he is, he is just spewing the “only the well trained should be allowed to use self-defense” propaganda lie.

    11. Hi, Mark,

      Others have refuted various other elements of your comment, so I’ll take a couple they’ve missed.

      1. “No matter which way you spin it, the bottom line comes down to that having a tool of violence in a classroom is in many ways the antithesis of a nurturing and healthy learning environment for young kids.”

      Israel has armed teachers (heck, it has armed school bus drivers) and has no trouble maintaining a ‘nurturing and healthy learning environment’ for their children. That’s because they and their children recognize that this ‘tool of violence’ hogwash is, well, hogwash. It’s spin, to use your word. A gun is a tool, period. 100,000 times (most likely more) a year in this country, it’s a /defensive/ tool, which is pretty much the epitome of ‘nurturing and healthy.’ Which class is in a more nurtured and healthy environment, the one that knows the grown-up in the room will AND CAN protect them if a monster comes through the door, or the one that has always at the edge of their minds that even the adults are helpless and nothing can save them from the Bad Man? It’s the pearl-clutchers shrieking ‘eek! a gun!’ doing the damage to their minds, not any magically evil ‘tool of violence.’

      2. “With the exception of the far right, it seems like the average American is writing off Governor Perry’s statements about arming teachers. ”

      Guess again. Blue state urban areas and leftist mass media are not representative of average Americans. From a recent Gallup poll about preventing mass school shootings, almost 2/3rds of the respondents felt that having at least one armed school official would be either very or somewhat effective.

    12. Mark,

      First, let me thank you for expressing an opposing view that is interested in learning my side of the story without branding me as a blood hungry right wing terrorist.

      Second, find a friend to teach you about how a gun works and will help you put a few rounds downrange at a safe target, I guarantee you won’t turn into a mass killer. Not sure of where you are located but I’m in BF TX where several mountain lion attacks have occurred this year. Maybe Brewster County should hire you as the non-violent animal control officer.

      “No matter which way you spin it, the bottom line comes down to that having a tool of violence in a classroom is in many ways the antithesis of a nurturing and healthy learning environment for young kids.Really? So what what tools do you teach these kids?

      Last, explain how I might have misunderstood the historical use of the 2nd Amendment, it was my understanding it was in place that I may protect myself. In the same paragraph you describe yourself as an accomplished martial artist. Not saying you’re predisposed to this type of activity but if synapses crossed in your head could you not go rogue and kill children in a school with those skills? In fact you could probably access to the school easier.

      Rick Perry is a politician, someone that panders to both sides with no real solution. There is at least one school in Texas that has given teachers the choice to carry if they so desire to do so since 2007, not a mandate, teacher’s choice,

      Your question “what_else_can be done?” How about parenting? How about knowledge? Learn about guns yourself, my kids have been educated since birth, it’s no longer a mystery or tempatation.

    13. I don’t have a problem with armed teachers, but I can see why the thought of it can bring up an emotional resistance.

      How would you feel if it wasn’t teachers per se, but other school workers, such as custodians, principals, or other administrators, who don’t have direct teaching/in classroom contact? They would still be on-site, and would be seconds rather than minutes away, but wouldn’t have precisely the same cognitive dissonance vis-a-vis the reason they are there.

    14. “Also, before you write me off completely, understand that I am a big advocate of self-defense (I’m a long-time accomplished martial artist and have been in fights).”

      So, you prefer a country where only fully trained martial artists can defend themselves?

      Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

      I prefer to live in a country where a little old lady can shoot the ass off of some big, violent, and well trained gang banger if needed.

      Take your elitist martial arts attitude and shove it up your elitist liberal ass.

    15. Your response comes down to two things: “it doesn’t feel good” and “it wouldn’t be politically expedient.” If those are your only arguments, you have nothing to add but emotion.

      As for the argument about mentally disturbed people–by what criteria would you deny gun permits? Based on a visit to a psychiatrist? A neighbor’s visit to a psychiatrist? A visit to a hospital? Because the person you pass on your way to work MIGHT be unstable?

      Every person in this country will, can or has had a mentally ill person living with or near them. That means that taking all the guns away is the only alternative. According to your argument.

    16. As a teacher, I take exception to your idea that a concealed gun in my classroom somehow mysteriously negates any nurturing or healthy learning that will go on in my classroom. Why on earth do you assume the two are incompatible? Does having a gun in my pocket somehow make me mean and incapable of caring?
      Honestly, this is so absurd!

    17. Um, watching a bunch of anime doesn’t make you a martial artist. Just saying.

      Normally I’d give you the benefit of the doubt, but so many leftists who claim to love martial arts seem to think a good enough martial artist can stop/dodge bullets/cancel out one with a timed ki blast. They never seem to figure out Dragonball Z isn’t actually real.

      1. Most of the serious martial artists I know have no problem with guns, and many carry them. Why? Because real martial artists know how actual violence works, thier own personal vulnerabilities, and they understand the neccesity of tools.

      2. I agree with Larry. I was alwayse taught that you should avoid using physical force as long as possible. Once it starts, if you are unable to subdue your opponent all bets are off. So if you could have a tool that would prevent violence from escalating in the first place say a gun. It would be judicious to do everything in your power as a martial artist to prevent violence. That would include holding the aggressor at gun point until the cops arrive to arrest them. In Gun-Free areas if confronted with danger/violence a martial artist has to start fighting sooner and that can include causing permanent injury or death to the aggressor. Having a gun as a deterrent is a good thing.

  35. I agree with most of your points on the impracticality of gun control and its limited effect on reducing crime, but while gun regulation may not reduce crime, your point that criminals will still have weapons fails to address the fact that thinking of school shooters and their ilk are not best thought of as criminals, but as much victims as the ones they kill. They are socially marginalized and psychologically vulnerable, almost universally bullied and abused with no hope of escape. These are not just unpopular kids, but young men with absolutely no source of validation: no friends, no group affiliations, no support networks. These shootings are a means of proving that they aren’t worthless or pathetic, of being noticed and respected the only way they can. The vast majority of the blame falls on the culture of bullying, lack of support for the mentally ill, and the cultural scripts of masculine identity and success. These are the problems that have to be addressed to fix the problem. Arming teachers will perhaps reduce the body count, but there will almost always be at least one: the would-be shooter, and I for one think we should do better. I’m not opposed to your proposal, I just think we should also work on solving the real problems.

    1. Boo hoo, people might have been mean to them.

      A lot of us were bullied in school, but we don’t all turn into killers.

      They aren’t victims, they are EVIL.

      1. I was the bullied one in school. From a broken home. Poor (really, really poor). Spent much of my life suffering from depression. Pretty much all the stuff the Left uses as excuses for violent crime.

        Somehow I’ve managed to avoid shooting up a neighborhood. In fact, I’ve never shot anybody.

        So, not I do not buy these “he’s a victim too” excuses.

      2. Insanity as a defense has to go.

        I don’t care what your reason was for being a mass murderer. The hangman is waiting for you.

      3. I can’t stand to here people say that anyone committing a crime is a victim. Sorry, but in historic society if someone committed a crime against their society they were removed, usually permanently, from that society. And the modern belief that someone isn’t responsible makes no sense. WE are making excuses for people who don’t deserve them. I come from a family that has an insane person in it (bipolar individual) and I suffered with that person for years. The last thing I will ever do is tell that person that something wasn’t their fault. If they did something wrong or stupid I pointed it out to them. They might not have liked it but they learned to function within the rules, which is the whole point. If someone can’t function or learn to do it they need to be removed (to a mental hospital).

    2. Serious mental illness is indeed a problem and it should be addressed.

      However, once the active shooter is kicking in the door, there’s no time to determine if they are evil or sick. You need to stop the threat. I agree that both the options are bad (option 1: Massacre. Option 2: dead sick person) but option 2 is clearly less bad.

    3. “I was the bullied one in school. From a broken home. Poor (really, really poor). Spent much of my life suffering from depression. Pretty much all the stuff the Left uses as excuses for violent crime.

      Somehow I’ve managed to avoid shooting up a neighborhood. In fact, I’ve never shot anybody.”

      Same here,though I have had to defend myself numerous times.

      “The vast majority of the blame falls on the culture of bullying, lack of support for the mentally ill, and the cultural scripts of masculine identity and success.”

      If bullying causes these shootings then bullying a healthy well-adjusted heterosexual male into acting like a homosexual or a woman would be sixty gigabillion (just made that word up) times more likely to cause shootings. As far as I’m concerned, what you’re recommending here (bullying boys into acting like girls) is a form of psychological abuse that probably IS outlawed by the Geneva convention and should be considered child sexual abuse if done to a minor. You act like masculinity is a disease. Now ask yourself, is a person more or less likely to consider other human life as valuable as their own if they think their identity is the same as everyone else’s (which it is), or if they think they are some kind of freak of nature? I could easily see your form of masculinity-denigration setting up neurotic psychosis-causing stressors in a man as he struggles to choose between what is hardwired and mostly innocuous in himself and what society tells him is “good”.

      Masculinity has nothing to do with this. Some of the most prolific mass-murderers in history have been female. There’s even been an African female Hitler who ordered the genocide of hundreds of thousands of African people.

      DON’T experiment on little kids with your pet leftwing theories, it’s wrong. A child has a right to find themselves without you shoving your program down their throats. Society isn’t programming kids, you are. You assume others are doing it, because that is what you want to do. I think it should be outlawed,but I recognize that I have no right to extend any influence over another person on how they raise their children.

      1. Er, maybe I missed a comment but I don’t see anybody advocating “bullying boys into acting like girls.” The comment about masculine identity is referring to the fact that many boys feel pressure to act *more* masculine, not that boys feel pressured to act feminine.

        Masculinity isn’t a disease. And neither is femininity. I agree that a child has a right to find themselves without being forced toward one end or the other. There are ways to be masculine without being violent. Unfortunately, a lot of confused boys can’t tell the difference, and try to prove their masculinity through violent, aggressive behavior.

    4. As a child I was bullied all through school as well as at home, even as I aged I found myself being bullied by other adults and sometimes children. Fortunately I had strong women who taught me right and wrong and the difference between the two. I learned to respect the law and those who serve it. But most importantly I learned to value life. I will do whatever I have to in order to protect those around me, loved ones or complete strangers. But I will never kill someone because they bullied me, I most definately will fantasize about beating their asses bloody though (lol).

  36. Just gained a fan after reading your article. I come from almost the same background. Ex law enforcement officer, firearms/self defense instructor (licensed in NC). I’m so glad more people with firearms knowledge are speaking up.

  37. Sir I commend you on your post! I actually have contacted my state representative earlier this week proposing the same exact idea. Having been in law enforcement and now teaching at a local college. I believe if I am in charge of my classroom and my learning environment, that I also need to be prepared to protect my students by any means possible. The state of Kansas has been toying with this legislation for a couple of years. If it is okay with you I will share your article with my legislator.

  38. I’m a liberal, and I don’t like guns. When I first started reading this article, I almost closed it, thinking it was just going to be some closed-minded rhetoric (and I realize there’s some inherent hypocrisy there). Before I did, I noticed it was Correia’s blog I was on. I haven’t actually read any of your books yet (they’re on my list, but it’s a BIG list), but I’ve heard you on Writing Excuses, and the one thing I know about you is that you are a person who’s spent a lot of time thinking about the cause and effects of guns.

    So I kept reading, and wasn’t surprised to see some very good points being made.

    My fundamental position hasn’t changed. I don’t like guns, and I think if we could get rid of all the guns in the country, we’d be better off. Some will argue against me, but that doesn’t really matter, since we can’t get rid of all the guns in the country. It’s just not feasible.

    Your point about arming teachers was, in my opinion, the most potent. I mean, we’re already trusting these people with our children’s lives, and if this tragedy showed us anything, it’s that when push comes to shove, good teachers will die to protect the children in their care. My only concern is making sure that that there aren’t any accidents, but proper gun safety classes should be able to keep that number far lower than the amount of lives armed teachers would save.

    Ultimately, like most problems, there isn’t a single one thing that caused all this. There were likely dozens of places where this could have been stopped, and it’s foolish to go after only one.

    If we could come up with regulations that would effectively keep guns out of these people’s hands, then I’m all for that. Legislation just to look like we’re doing something (and, as you pointed out, which might do more harm than good) is less likely.

    The solution is probably somewhere in the middle (it almost always is). If we honestly want to stop this from happening again, we need politicians on both sides who can enter discussions with an open mind, who are willing to compromise, not just as a bartering tool, but because they are actually listening to what the other has to say.

    Not likely these days, but maybe someday we’ll be better than all this.

    1. How would you get rid of all the guns? How would you enforce this to law to criminals who don’t obey laws in the first place?

      This is where you liberal anti-gun people just don’t connect with reality. You cannot get rid of guns. There will always be guns. The only thing that gun laws do is hurt citizens.

      1. Please read that paragraph again. I address this point. I understand that it’s simply not feasible. I realize that trying to enforce an absolute “no gun” policy would get rid of far more guns used to protect than it would guns used to hurt. It’s an ideal, and like most ideals, it needs to be compromised in the face of reality.

        I disagree that the only thing that gun laws do is hurt citizens. Excessive gun laws hurt citizens, but a certain degree of regulation is necessary, like it is with anything dangerous.

      2. Brook: It’s an “ideal” that puts people who are physically weak completely at the mercy of those who are strong.

        As such, you need to re-examine your “ideal”. Do you really want a society where might makes right?

        I suggest you websearch for Mark Kloos’ article “Why the gun is Civilization”, and get back to us.

    2. Sure, get rid of all the guns. Mr. Correia and I would be OK. We’re big and scary.

      Pity for all the small women out there though.

      1. Brook – I think you vastly underestimate the difference sheer size and muscle make in a melee of any sort. Then you need to look at the average size of men and women, respectively.

      2. Brook, training helps but in the end, size does matter. If the female is not armed, she will lose the fight if she has a determined attacker. A handgun changes the equation dramatically.

        As to gun laws hurting citizens. What do you think the laws do? Criminals do not obey them, so they hurt the citizen who wants to arm themselves, makes it that much harder for them to be able to defend themselves.

      3. Brook, as a small woman who doesn’t own a gun (because I’m being responsible having some of the red flags in my family), I pray someone else near me does have one if something happens. I’m trained in martial arts, but I’m a goner if some junkie tries to take me out. And if he or she has a gun, it’s over. Even if they have a bat or a lead pipe. I am in a position where I feel I have to remain unarmed and, no, I do not feel safer at all for that.

      4. Brook — At 5’10” and reasonably fit, I am not a small woman. I’m also a martial artist. A determined or hopped-up attacker is still going to give me at the very least a lot of trouble, and Goddess help me if he’s armed or there’s more than one of them. The more petite members of my gender are toast from the get go.

        I also notice you don’t list any of your ‘plenty’ of ‘feasible ways.’ Funny that.

        1. I have to agree with this, and so I’m not coming across from the biased perspective of a 6’5″ thickset guy who liked to lift heavy things, my aunt is about one of the toughest females you will find short of Gina Carano. My aunt was a career prison guard at a maximum security (male!) prison in California, and she was hired as a guard back before they lowered the physical standards for female employees. She was strong, tough, and also nearly 6 feet tall. She had a few knock down, drag out, fights against prisoners who intended to murder her during her career.

          And you ask this woman about male versus females in a fight, and she will be the very first person to admit that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a woman to win, just because of mass and bone density. The toughest woman can barely hold her own against an average male. Against a big, tough male, you’re screwed. She was probably the 99.99% percentile of female toughness, and in her fights against average sized male prisoners, it usually turned into holding on, not letting them get a clean shot, until her help arrived.

          She was also vehemently against lowering the physical standards for females in military and law enforcement jobs, interestingly enough, after she nearly got killed because her backup was a woman hired after the lowering of the standards who totally wussed out and couldn’t run up the stairs in time to help. 🙂

      5. Bullshit, Brook.

        I am a 6’1″ heavy-set male with fairly extensive Karate and Kendo training.

        If I needed to fend off a small unarmed woman, I would simply hold her at arm’s length, and wait for her to run out of steam.

        If she does not have a weapon, she ain’t winning, no matter how many martial arts / dance classes she has taken.

        Weapons are what allow civilized people to prevail against brutes like me who won the size and strength lottery.

      6. In response to everyone who thinks that guns are the only thing keeping women from being assaulted by men, I was not trying to suggest that martial arts training was a viable solution. There are plenty of non-lethal self-defense weapons like pepper spray and stun guns.

        Yes, there will still be violence. I never claimed that guns were responsible for all violence. But given that we don’t live in a world where every woman needs to be armed in order to get home unmolested, I don’t think that the removal of all guns would suddenly make them all walking targets.

        Rob: My statement that I don’t like guns was to provide reference for my point of view, specifically the fact that despite entering this article without much expectations, I was willing to open my mind and consider what was being said here.

        Kristopher: I don’t want a society where might makes right, but guns just change the definition of “might” from more muscles to better guns. I am not a strong man, nor do I carry a gun. I rely on the law and civilization to make right.

        Joeseph Capdepon: By your logic, there’s no point in any law.

        Chris from AK: As I said in my initial post, I already have changed my mind. Not all the way. I will likely never change my mind all the way. As I said, most solutions are found in the middle, but I learned a lot from this article, most notably what kinds of gun regulations are more likely to help than hinder. And I’ve been meaning to go to a shooting range for a while, if for no other reason than as an aspiring writer, knowing what it feels like to shoot a gun would be a good experience for me.

        Travis, LepusKhan, David Sohm, and RS : Thank you for actually reading what I had to say and not feeling the need to try to tear me down simply because I have stated I am, in general, anti-gun. As I said, we need people on both sides willing to listen to the other if we’re ever going to solve these problems for good. Like with most things, the loudest group of people are often not the majority, and it’s nice to be reminded that there are sensible people who, while they may not agree with me, are willing to actually discuss the issue.

        1. “There are plenty of non-lethal self-defense weapons like pepper spray and stun guns.”

          And the police have them too. And, strangely enough, the police still carry guns for the very simple reason that when your life is on the line pepper spray and stun guns (or tasers) don’t work as well as firearms.

          The police use pepper spray and stun guns to subdue and unruly suspect for arrest, not to defend the police officer’s life.

          If they’re not good enough for the police, they’re not good enough for me and mine.

          ” I don’t think that the removal of all guns would suddenly make them all walking targets.”

          Are you familiar with the concept of “herd immunity”? Not everyone in a group has to be “innoculated” to get the advantage immunization against a disease. If enough other people are innoculated, then the disease doesn’t get a chance to spread.

          Likewise, if enough people are armed and willing to use lethal force in self defense, the “problem” for someone looking to commit violence is complicated enormously. Is that particular potential target armed or not? They don’t know. And maybe they choose a different approach.

          Also, nobody said “all”. That’s a straw man. Disarming the population (the vast majority of whom are law abiding citizens) does nothing to make my wife, or my daughter, safer. It may well put her more at risk. Maybe she’ll be lucky and never be the one the criminal “picks” to abduct, rape, and murder. Maybe. Or maybe not. No possible gun control can prevent that. Her being armed just might.

          And while it might not be my wife, it will be somebody’s. And just as gun control can’t save my wife or daughter it won’t save theirs. And just as I’d want to give my wife or daughter a fighting chance I figure they want to give theirs the same chance. And I’m willing to give them that chance because, well, if it were my wife and daughter. . . .

          It’s called “empathy.”

          “: I don’t want a society where might makes right, but guns just change the definition of “might” from more muscles to better guns.”

          Incorrect. Do you think the criminal having a “better gun” makes him suddenly bulletproof?

          While I sometimes carry a 1911 (I just like the 1911. It fits my hand well. And it points for me so naturally I can get on target with it faster than anything else I’ve shot), mostly I carry a little Kel Tec P-3AT. The thing is that the criminal can get just as dead when shot by the little .380 than by the much bigger and more powerful .45 ACP.

          It isn’t an “arms race” of who’s got the bigger gun. If you’re carrying at all you have just changed the equation for a bad guy to “am I willing to die to rob/rape/assault/kill that person?” because no matter how big they are, how big a gun they have, how many bullets it holds, what fancy bells and whistles it might have, you are their equal. The playing field, as they say, is leveled.

          This is why, far from being uncivilized, the gun is civilization. It’s what makes for the very possibility of equality. It’s very much what brought about the end of the feudal age where one had to prostrate oneself before somebody big and strong, who had the resources to get the very expensive weapons and armor and the extensive time training it took to get good at those things in order to protect yourself against the depredations of other big, strong, armed, skilled people. Sure, you had to put up with taxes and maybe the local “lord” boinking your daughter, but at least he left the daughter alive (and maybe even gave any bastards a place in his household) and left you enough to feed your family (not enough, perhaps, but some) because he expected to be back next year and the year after that. Raiders wouldn’t be so generous.

          I can understand nervousness around guns. Having that much power in ones hands is a tremendous responsibility. But the only other choice is to abdicate that power and, in so doing, you can be sure of one thing: the person or persons to whom you abdicate that responsibility will have their own interests uppermost, not yours.

          I don’t know of anybody who has a greater interest in keeping me and my family safe than I do. Thus, I don’t know of anybody I trust as much to do so as myself. And I extend that same prerogative to everyone else until and unless they prove they are incapable of handling it appropriately.

          1. “This is why, far from being uncivilized, the gun is civilization. It’s what makes for the very possibility of equality.” The gods made men, Samuel Colt made them equal? 😀

      7. @Brook Kuhn “There are plenty of non-lethal self-defense weapons like pepper spray and stun guns”

        I know this discussion is growing long in the tooth but go back and look. Many posters have pointed out that your “non-lethal” suggestions don’t do squat. There is a reason why cops generally only use pepper spray and stun guns when there are two or more officers present(there are a few exceptions). You can’t reliably stop one attacker with those methods unless you have a means of subduing them right away. Two or more attackers forget about it. You’ll most likely just incur a more severe beating.

        There there are the technical aspects, stun guns aren’t as accurate or reliable on their own as guns. The more technology an item has the more likely it will break.

        That’s not to say these items can’t protect you, they just can’t do as good of a job as a gun. Pulling out pepper spray won’t stop someone from bull rushing you. Drawing a gun can be a deterrent without even firing one bullet.

        “I don’t want a society where might makes right, but guns just change the definition of “might” from more muscles to better guns. I am not a strong man, nor do I carry a gun. I rely on the law and civilization to make right.”

        Self defense isn’t might making right. It’s taking the might away from the criminals. As far as relying on law and civilization to protect you, I honestly hope you are never in a position to defend yourself because when you’re being attack the only laws that count are the law of the jungle and survival of the fittest. Law and Order is good as an after thought but it isn’t a deterrent.

        Lets face it there will most likely alwayse be crime and criminals. People will be mugged every day, killed, attacked for no reason. I like to turn to the old adage when it comes to protecting yourself from criminals. “How do you out swim an alligator? You don’t, you swim faster than the guy next to you”. A gun is the same as strapping on swim fins and having a power assist motor while pepper spray is a set of arm float things. Heck even the possibility of guns scares criminals that’s why all these shootings happen in known gun free zones. They don’t want to runt he risk of just one civilian being able to defend themselves.

        While I’m responding, why suggest pepper spray or stun guns at all? Isn’t that “might making right”? Why not rely on Law and civilization to protect you or others? After all any tool of self defense is a form of “might”. So how is it that you have this tier system of what is allowed in terms of self defense/protection? Shouldn’t we all just wait for the cops to show up 5+ min after the bad guys have violated our liberties?

        I’m not trying to tare you down, I just find your statements are a little disconnected. They don’t seem to line up.

        In the end you can chose whatever means of safety and survival you are comfortable with. All we ask is that you let the rest of us chose the level of safety we are comfortable with. Our(pro-gun folks) having concealed weapons for self defense that we are knowledgeable in their use and safety does not affect your safety at all. Criminals affect your safety, but law abiding citizens who just want to protect themselves does not affect your safety. It’s even possible that if a criminal even thinks we might have a gun they won’t attack and if you are in the same area you will be afforded that umbrella of protection.

    3. Thank you for reading this with an open mind and actually thinking about the items it contains. You’re obviously seeking a working solution and willing to discuss it- while I don’t necessarily agree with you on all points, this is EXACTLY the sort of civil, thoughtful discussion we need. So far I’ve been very impressed with most of the responses here- whether I agree with them or not…

    4. “My only concern is making sure that that there aren’t any accidents, but proper gun safety classes should be able to keep that number far lower than the amount of lives armed teachers would save.”

      And you know what Brook? Proper gun safety classes, as well as defensive shooting classes are readily available. There are a number of high-profile trainers, but there are probably a few local trainers in you area as well. The handgun classes that Larry used to teach cost $200 and took up just one Saturday. There are lots of classes like that.

    5. And I sincerely hope that the majority of the portion of the country who are not gun owners would take the time to look at the issue as a whole with logic instead of emotion as you have done today. Between reasonable citizens we can agree to disagree on issues without heated rhetoric. However, the only place I’d like to disagree is being better off with no guns at all.

      Perhaps my perspective is as a sport shooter and hunter with less specific interest in self defense (I have a CHL and use it 50/50 or so but am not overly concerned about it). My introduction to guns was different than most here. I’m 25, and decided with a friend 3 years ago that I’d like to try shooting for once – so I did (he had before and helped get me started). I was immediately addicted. No, not to the “empowerment of a weapon” nor to the “feeling of security” (although the latter is certainly valid and fair) – for me, it was the activity itself. I have since branched from handguns into shotguns, which I promptly ragequitted due to sucking too much and returned to recently, then to rifles. I do not currently own an AR-15 as I haven’t had the funds yet and decided to start with the handgun games (USPSA and IDPA) for my competitive focus, and also due to deciding to hunt this past season for the first time. However, an AR-15 is my next planned purchase so that I can branch into the 3-gun and multigun competitions. Now, I have a knee-jerking portion of the country wanting to take that away from me for a nonstarter fix, and are using dead children as political advertisements towards a goal that has been tried and failed before.

    6. Our side has compromised. Look at the gun laws in Connecticut. They have discretionary “may issue” pistol licenses so that rich white women can get them, and poor minorities can be denied arbitrarily. They have pistol registration. They have safe storage laws. They have closed the “gun show loophole.” THey forbid men and women under age 21 from owning a handgun. They have an assault weapons ban.

      My wife is a teacher, she holds a Concealed Weapons Permit valid in the majority of states, she is a pistol instructor certified to teach the safety class requried by CT — yet CT refuses to grant her reciprocity so when she goes there to visit friends she must be disarmed, and subject to physical assault by people larger than her. That’s just a smattering of CT specific laws which were entirely ineffective!

      We’ve tried your stupid Gun Free School Zones since 1990. They get people killed. The experiment is a failure.

      Thank you for reading Larry’s article, however, I fear you will not change your opinion unless you (A) go to the range and go shooting, or (B) become a crime victim. I know; my wife and I used to be antigun, too; she took a lady’s firearms class and I had a wakeup call overseas.

      So, no. The solution is not in the middle. We are already “in the middle.” The solution is to get rid of stupid victim disarmament zones.

  39. Larry,

    Since you do go on for some time about all of your impressive qualifications for talking about guns I have the moral obligation to point out that this is exactly why your opinion on gun control is completely invalid. You are so completely immersed in the gun culture that you are incapable of thinking anything else. If you’re a plumber, after all, every problem can be solved with a pipe wrench.

    You also fail to mention one very important point. The guns used at Sandy Hook belonged to one of those very teachers that you would have us arm. Her psychotic son shot her in the face and then took them to the school and turned them on her students.

    Now, I’m sure he would have found some way to harm others,regardless of having access to those particular weapons, but he didn’t need to find another way. He already had all the all the access he needed; the perfect arsenal. An arsenal that allowed him to gun down all those babies and poor teachers in a matter of minutes. This despite the fact that his mother reportedly knew he was unstable.

    The solution to gun violence is….. more guns. The reason that sounds so stupid is because it is. I’m not saying that we need to disarm the entire country, but aren’t there other constructive steps we could take to help avoid tragedies like this? How about a law that at least says you have to prove you own a gun safe before you can by a rifle? Would that desecrate your sacred 2nd Ammendment Rights? What about better physical security for the schools? Why can’t each school have a cop on site? How about good disaster planning or maybe a little Evade and Escape training for the teachers?

    Arming civillians who will spend the bulk of their day around little kids is total lunacy. Let the professionals handle the guns and let the teachers teach.

    -CC

    1. Wow. And we conservatives get called elitists. “Arming civillians who will spend the bulk of their day around little kids is total lunacy. Let the professionals handle the guns and let the teachers teach.”

      You don’ trust regular people much, do you? Not even teachers, who’ve completed more than 16 years of education and have a college degree and who we already entrust with kids?

      1. I trust teachers to teach, not to carry out counter-terrorist operations. Call me silly, but there’s a reason they went through all that education you’re talking about and it wasn’t to fight off psychopaths.

      2. Ahhh… I loves me some condescension in the morning. Yup. Holding on to a gun and pointing it at a bad guy is just toooooo complicated.

        What kind of an education do you need to conflate “self defense, and safe handling of weapons” with “antiterrorist operations”? 4th grade?

        I think even Sesame Street taught how to tell when things were not the same….

    2. So because Larry is an expert on guns…his opinions on gun control are invalid? Is Stephen Hawking’s opinion of physics irrelevant because he is a physicist? Is Steven Spielberg disqualified from instructing people on how movies are to be filmed because he is too caught up in movie culture?

      You’re saying that his reason sounds stupid only because it is? Are you not familiar with logic? Perhaps we should ban you from saying idiotic things, because apparently you are an expert.

      1. Yes Alan, that’s precisely the case. For the same reason I wouldn’t expect Stephen Hawking to be a reasonable and impartial judge of competing theories in physics or Steven Spielberg to solely decide the categories for the Oscars. They just have too much skin in their particular games to maintain any balance at all. Larry is an expert in guns. He probably isn’t an expert at reducing violence in our society.

      2. It’s okay. I’m used to people who disagree with me always bringing up some reason why my opinions should be dismissed rather than debated. Usually it is because I’m not a real writer (by some arbitrary standard), or I’m part of the evil military industrial complex. But dismissing me because I know too much about the subject is a new one. 🙂

      3. Sorry Larry, but I dismiss this particular set of your opinions because you are biased. I guess you could say that it’s because you know too much about only one side of the issue. That’s a far cry from saying that you know too much about the actual topic of your post (reduction of gun violence in our country).

        I will give those books of yours a read though. They look pretty good!

        -CC

      4. So I am not an expert and a person in the middle… I fully agree with every statement made in that letter. So my opinion should be more valuable?

      5. C.C. Rider, on December 21, 2012 at 2:45 am said:
        “Larry is an expert in guns. He probably isn’t an expert at reducing violence in our society.”
        Why would you trust an expert at reducing violence in our society? Obviously as an expert their opinions would be invalid because they cannot be impartial and reasonable.

        1. Oh come on, Felix. There you go being reasonable. We’d totally be better off if all of our important decisions were left totally in the hands of people who don’t pay attention. I am happy to say that I am the new head of Health and Human Services. I have no idea what HHS actually does, but hey, friggin’ sweet! 😀

      6. CC Rider, ‘Yes Alan, that’s precisely the case. For the same reason I wouldn’t expect Stephen Hawking to be a reasonable and impartial judge of competing theories in physics or Steven Spielberg to solely decide the categories for the Oscars. They just have too much skin in their particular games to maintain any balance at all. Larry is an expert in guns. He probably isn’t an expert at reducing violence in our society.’

        This may be the most ridiculous statement I’ve ever read on the internet.

      7. “I will give those books of yours a read though. They look pretty good!

        A little bit of sugar helps the medicine go down???
        lmao
        when i read this i immediately had the picture in my mind of an adult patting the head of a child.

      8. To CC rider
        You wrote, “Yes Alan, that’s precisely the case. For the same reason I wouldn’t expect Stephen Hawking to be a reasonable and impartial judge of competing theories in physics”

        WTF!! Hawking is a scientist. The process of science is to evaluate evidence WITHOUT relying on emotion but purely on the validity of the facts.

        Given that preposterously ridiculous reply, I really wonder how you look at the world around you. It appears not to be based on logic and reason as such things (based on what you said) are completely suspect.

        Based on that, you definitely should not be allowed access to weapons of any sort, much less firearms.

    3. You understand that there are already armed people around children everyday. There are many, many people who carry legally and illegally. To say that Larry’s opinion is invalid because he is an expert in this field is retarded. Quite ridiculous.

      1. You’re right Joseph, there are too many armed people around our children already. We don’t need more. If the question were a matter of which gun to use in a particular situation, where to shoot an assailant to stop them immediately, or even how best to load a clip then I think Larry’s opinion would be of serious value. In the question of how to reduce gun violence in our society, I believe you’d have to agree that his credentials are somewhat lacking. Retarded? Well maybe, because arguing with people like you kind of makes me feel like I’m in the Special Olympics.

      2. That’s an awful lot of condescension coming from a guy who can’t beat Sesame Street puzzles. Repeat after me: “one of these things is doing its own thing, one of these things is not the same.”

        I mean, really now. Even teachers are too stupid to hold a gun without killing themselves? We are retards, and we can’t seem to understand that safe gun handling and where to point the bangey end are the same thing as extensive counterterrorism ops training?

        Since we don’t find the idea that they ARE different things too hard to process, unlike you, then perhaps the fact that (per you) teachers can’t either is an excellent argument for homeschooling, as why should I let such incompetent people anywhere near my kids?

      3. Actually, there aren’t enough armed people.

        Where to shoot an assailant to stop them immediately? Usually a head shot will do that, but in such a situation, head shots are a little hard to get. In some of the training I’ve done, they’ve talked about guys taking 7, 10, 14 rounds before going down. You shoot until the attacker is no longer a threat.

        I take it that you are not a gun owner.

        As to his credentials to speak one the subject, he has the best ones. Obviously you have no idea what you are speaking about. He has experience in the field, etc, etc, etc. It’s all spelled out in the blog post. You just choose to ignore cold hard facts.

        I’m always curious why people like you enjoy being sheep. Seriously, I really want to understand why you choose to be a willing victim. Why would someone not want to be able to fight back against the wolves? Why would they disarm others so that they are unable to fight back?

        Also, thanks for the insult. I didn’t call you retarded, just you assertion that Larry is not qualified to speak on the subject.

      4. In fact, I am a gun owner and former Military Policeman. Never underestimate your opponent. Don’t they teach that in civvy gun school? Because that was the first thing they taught us at Fort McClellan back in the day.

        Don’t confuse the ability to think critically about a source’s qualifications/motivations/bias with being a sheep. If you bother to read what I have written you’ll see that my stated opinions refute the idea that we should arm teachers (primarily while on-campus). Not that there isn’t a place in society for guns and gun-owners.

        Right, you didn’t say I was retarded…..just that my opinion is. Well, for the record, I didn’t insult you either….under those rules.

      5. Darius, come on man! If you try really really hard I bet you could squeeze out a real opinion or two. Your frail attempts at hurting my feelings aren’t really adding anything to the conversation.

      6. C.C. Rider, on December 21, 2012 at 4:07 am said:
        Darius, come on man! If you try really really hard I bet you could squeeze out a real opinion or two. Your frail attempts at hurting my feelings aren’t really adding anything to the conversation.

        Nahhh… I stopped thinking of you as an adult when you proved you WOULD not differentiate between someone learning weapons handling and counter-terrorist ops. And I’m sure referring to us as retards and this place as the special olympics just added soooooooo much to the conversation.

        On top of that add in the condescension of believing that Larry, or anyone else here steeped in gun knowledge, had to pull a “Far side” style “Can I leave now, my brain is full” after learning their gun stuff and is ignorant of other sides of the argument, or incapable of learning or disqualified from discussing how to minimize violence..

        Actually, that’s a petty and tyrannical piece of kafkatrapping. You wont listen to us, because being the wrong type of people, we have nothing valid to add.

        So when you come out and say “naya nayah I’m not listening to you because you’re a bad meanie and because of that nothing you say can possibly be valid” – I’ll either mock you for being childish, or ignore you. Or be rude right back. You’ve proven you’re not interested in being civil, so I won’t be bothered dignifying petty, childish tyranny trying to define what we’re allowed to say in front of you.

        Add to that the arrogance of thinking you’re just soooooo special that we should listen to your opinion anyway, after proving that you think any opinion from people here with the wrong attitudes is pre-emptively not worth listening to.

        It’s a sign of a petty mind.

        I’m just not sure if you’re simply that arrogantly unaware of how insulting and consecending the assumptions behind your statements are, as well as some of what you flat out said, or if you’re being deliberately rude. You might even think you’re all ballsy coming here to speak “truth” – but can’t be bothered to actually process what’s being said.

        That makes you lazy too.

        There’s plenty of places in this thread to add my insight to the conversation. Responding to you aint one of them.

        Holding up a mirror to your pettiness…. priceless.

      7. “In fact, I am a gun owner and former Military Policeman.”

        Of course you are.

        Which, if true, renders your opinion on this subject invalid. By your own standards.

      8. In my opinion the best way for a disparate group of people to come to a logical solution to a problem is this:
        Find several “EXPERTS” (the more the merrier) and ask them to express their “OPINIONS” in an attempt to educate everyone involved. Find as much factual information on the subject.
        Attempt to make an informed, educated decision.
        Thus Larry’s opinion is more necessary than yours or ours due to the fact that he IS an EXPERT.

      9. No one in the military would refer to a magazine as a clip, C.C. Rider. The last weapon the US military used that was fed with a clip was an M-1 Garand.

        Post a copy of your DD-214 please. You can redact your name and number if you wish.

        I don’t believe you were an MP.

    4. Someone who is an expert on guns, gun safety, gun laws, gun statistics, gun sales, gun handling, etc has no valid opinion about guns and gun control? Instead we should value the opinions of people who have little to no understanding of how guns work, what they can do etc to make laws about guns? Do you have any idea how incredibly ignorant and idiotic you sound? I have the moral obligation to tell you to become educated on a subject before you try to argue merits for or against it.

      1. That’s right, Jeff. Just like you wouldn’t trust an alcholic to hold the keys to the liquor cabinet or set the blood alcohol levels for drunk driving laws. By the way, before you pass judgement on people you don’t know anything about, my MOS in the Army was 95b, Military Police. I can assure you that I am quite well-educated on the subject.

      2. Absolutely, Wesley. My opinion on that subject would probably be too pro-police. You wouldn’t want to live in a police state, would you? However, I’m not claiming I’m an expert on the law enforcement or reduction of gun violence here. I’m just pointing out that we should critically evaluate our sources and look for bias before we accept anything we read.

      3. Nothing you’re saying strikes me as particularly rational or well thought out. Larry gave an extensively thought out argument against restricting one of our fundamental civil rights and you say that argument is invalid because he’s too in favor of that right and to involved in the subject of arms.

      4. “I can assure you that I am quite well-educated on the subject.”

        By your own standards, then, you should just STFU, as you’re too close to the subject to be trustworthy.

      5. “That’s right, Jeff. Just like you wouldn’t trust an alcholic [sic] to hold the keys to the liquor cabinet or set the blood alcohol levels for drunk driving laws. By the way, before you pass judgement on people you don’t know anything about, my MOS in the Army was 95b, Military Police. I can assure you that I am quite well-educated on the subject.”

        Way to beat the hell out of that straw-man! A better example would have been a bar owner or a alcohol distributor having input on alcohol laws, since it is them that get sued when a DUI happens they might have a informed opinion.

        Also just because you were an MP over 20 years ago (MPs became 31B ~1993) doesn’t mean you know squat about civilian gun laws or regulations. Being an MP you A: Picked up your weapon when you started your shift and put it away at the end of it. B: Open carried with a huge arm band showing you were a MP, and C: Had your own RoE when you could draw and fire your weapon that has nothing to do with civilian law… Not sure how that automatically translates into understanding civilian gun laws.

    5. So an armed cop around children is socially acceptable because he is part of the government but an armed citizen is lunacy? And you come here to call arguments invalid? Sorry, don’t even have a reply to that one.

      Also, more guns may not be the only nor even the best answer, but nobody has yet suggested a better one among the hysteria. It is certainly not the answer people want to hear, because they’ve found a banner of gun control to rally behind that doesn’t affect them but will make them feel better. There were very good points made above about how, regardless of your opinion, less guns is an unfeasible solution because it simply cannot happen and banning random features or magazine capacity is irrelevant as well due to current supply and the ease of reloading.

      Unfortunately, a large number of people have decided that these things must go because they are scary and dangerous without ever even having held one. I think it’s a VERY fair thing to ask that anyone who wants to add gun laws first get to a range and rent one (with instruction if necessary – MANY will do this for free if asked) and gain an understanding of what you want to legislate. Barring that, I’d have to conclude logically that those familiar with the objects in question have a more relevant opinion that should take priority over those who don’t, for the same reason that I’d take an engineer’s point of view on the structural details of an airplane wing over that of a restaurant owner.

    6. I’m the son of a plumber whose been doing that job and growing his knowledge of it since he was 14yrs old. I find you’re opening comparison rather obtuse old boy. Actually I find it downright insultingly stupid. Larry probably failed to mention it[though I don’t think he did..] because it’s been blazed across the news.
      Yep Adam would definitely have found another way to harm others. Same as suicides will always find a way to suicide.

      Actually it’s not stupid old boy. It’s rather logical. All Larry is saying is let those who wish to carry, carry. Stop putting restrictions on where…it just makes the ‘where’ a nice fat target rich environment full of lambs that can’t fight back.

      No…it’s not lunacy…lunacy is disarming the teachers, administrators etc that around our kids most of the day and are responsible for their safety while in their care.

    7. CC, you dismiss Larry’s opinions because you say he’s biased — even though he provided specific facts and figures for his assertions — and you offer nothing to refute. You object to teachers being armed because they’re teachers? Leave it to the professionals? The police, in general, have far less range time than the average CCW holder. Who is better trained?

      In Larry’s post he points out multiple situations where an armed citizen stopped a potential rampage or a rampage in progress, yet you dismiss these events just because Larry’s too close to the subject? Baffling.

      You know what? If there was even the rumor that school staff might be armed a school would be much safer than one with a big old “Gun Free Zone” sign on the front. Rampagers don’t want armed responders butting in on their rampage before they’ve gotten a high body count.

      I think you are the one who is biased. I also suspect you didn’t read the post once you determined that Larry was just too darned informed on this subject to be allowed to weigh in. I think you stopped reading right there and thought yourself quite smart to do so.

      I wonder if you object to the Bradys or Carolyn McCarthy speaking out on this issue. I mean, clearly their experiences have given them a certain bias. Do you take that into account or dismiss their opinions? Somehow … I’m going out on a limb here … I doubt it.

    8. Connecticut has safe storage laws. The killer exploited the “shoot your mother in the face and take her stuff” loophole.

      Imagine the problem in context of another right: the first amendment.

      Most reasonable people agree that Westboro Baptist Church (you know, the ones that picket the funerals of soldiers and AIDS victims) are compete and total assholes. With your model, we would need to put some Speech Control on them. They need some licenses to protest, right? Let’s make those expensive, require them to sit through 12 hours of Speech Training first, and issue them based on arbitrary criteria, too! OOh — they want to cross state lines to protest — I bet we can restrict that! And you know — the founders never intended to let people use electric megaphones, so we can just ban that technology. Bam! Westboro is hamstrung! That’ll show those assholes!

      But that’s not how we work in a free society. Instead, Patriot Guard Riders shows up and revs motorcycle engines to drown them out, communities literally link arms and chant, etc etc. The answer to hate speech is apparently — get this — MORE SPEECH.

      Whoa. I guess that idea just sounds stupid though. Say, I’m going to need to see your Internet Usage license first with the Interstate Blog COmmenting stamp endorsmet though first, ok?

    9. “Arming civillians who will spend the bulk of their day around little kids is total lunacy. ”

      So no police in the schools?

    10. “The guns used at Sandy Hook belonged to one of those very teachers that you would have us arm. Her psychotic son shot her in the face and then took them to the school and turned them on her students”

      Ah, someone else who bases their whole argument on false statements. I’ll skip the obvious Obama voter jokes.

      His mother was not, and had never been, a teacher. Therefore he did not shoot any of her students.

      I live in CT, work not far from Sandy Hook, as a matter of fact, in a job that has me working with both first responders AND school teacher and administrators on a regular basis. I’m not looking for pity, or prayers, just to point out I’m not some internet monkey across the country, this event hit me on a personal level.

      There are approximately 2.5 million people above the age of 21 in CT. Despite having some of the strictest gun laws in the country (and being one of the most liberal states), almost 180,000 of them have a permit to legally carry a weapon in public. That’s 1 out of every 14 adults, and that doesnt include current or former law enforcement who don’t need that permit, or armed security who require a different permit. In a school the size of Sandy Hook Elementary (over 600 students) the odds are at least 2-3 school employees ALREADY have a permit to carry a gun, except they were required by law to leave them home that day. I’m sure Larry can talk about this more, but in general the average police officer (with the exception of the “gun nut” cops) have little more gun training then what is required to even BUY a handgun here in CT. And after that training, most are lucky if they practice once a year. Police are great at what they do; which is respond and investigate after the fact. There has been no official timeline published, but I have been told by local LEOs that the first officer was on scene within 3 minutes of the first 911 call (police station is just down the road a few miles from the school), with backup units arriving in under 5. Much better then average. The shooter suicided as soon as police arrived.

      While the cries for MORE gun control are stronger here then anywhere else, I can assure you that there are 26 families, who at least privately wish there had been someone else with a gun, ANYONE else, 3 minutes closer then the police were.

    11. ” I have the moral obligation to point out that this is exactly why your opinion on gun control is completely invalid.”
      Claiming the moral high ground quite early in your response there. Alwayse great when someone actually admits they are claiming the moral high ground. After all once you have the high ground 60% of your battle is over right?

      To use a recent example, do you think Steve Jobs regrets not seeking an Oncologists advice sooner? Or did their impressive qualifications make him think their ideas and solutions were invalid. Oh wait he actually did admit to regretting going the homeopathy route in an interview shortly before his death.

      I just love the debate tactic you use here. Larry’s points are invalid because he is over qualified… Who would be better qualified a laymen who as Larry pointed out thinks a barrel shroud is “a shoulder thing which goes up”.

      Perhaps I should visit the English department when I am struggling with my Differential Equations because when you’re a higher level math professor you think everything can be solved with a Laplace Transform or Eigen values/vectors or.(inside joke after a really long semester turns out we really needed was the two methods I mentioned everything else was the long way around to give us the foundation). Obviously the English professor could recommend a good iambic pentameter approach, besides it’s not like lives will be in danger if I get the equations wrong when working on a jet engine or buildings framework. Oh wait…

      Next time your throat hurts skip seeing the ENT doctor and see a Proctologist because the ENT doctor is completely immersed in the ear nose and throat. Let us know how that works out for you.

      Have I broken from my normally civil discourse and started using ad absurdum analogies. Yes, but there comes a point when the person you are addressing is for far out in la la land that a civil post is unable to point out how off base they are.

      1. That is an interesting read, and I need to digest it some. I have noticed the use of the kafkatrap before though it wasn’t defined.

        Since I am still digesting this, I have a question. Are you saying that I was engaging in a kafkatrap? I’ll admit I was being absurd and completely breaking from the tone of civil discourse that I normally adhere to. I was doing this on purpose to mirror the original posters absurdity and an effort to show them what they said was hogwash. I had simply become tired of politely and correctly countering points of those who are not themselves engaging in civil discourse.

        So are you saying that while being absurd I was engaging in this new fallacy? Anyway it’s an interesting read and something I need to digest as it could give me a new blade in my debate tactics if I can effectively counter the kafkatrap. Thanks.

    12. “The guns used at Sandy Hook belonged to one of those very teachers that you would have us arm. Her psychotic son shot her in the face and then took them to the school and turned them on her students.”

      Her psychotic son killed her in her sleep. Are you so dense that you believe all the teachers that we could arm would be simultaneously snoozing during a moment of crisis, or are you deliberately trying to muddy the waters out of mendacious political conviction?

      “How about good disaster planning or maybe a little Evade and Escape training for the teachers?”

      Have you ever been shot at? I have. Running away means you die. Cowering on the spot,more often than not, means you die. The fact that I am talking to you should tell you that I know what I am talking about.

      You couldn’t evacuate a team of Navy SEALS without taking casualties in that situation.

      “The solution to gun violence is….. more guns. The reason that sounds so stupid is because it is”

      The solution IS more guns in the right hands. The reason it sounds stupid to you is because YOU ARE STUPID. It worked alright for feudal defense for centuries until cannons became powerful enough to decimate entire castles in hours,at which point better guns and tactics became necessary. What is more idiotic than ignoring what worked in warfare for centuries in favor of what has never worked…ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME?

      I’d like to know how that works, being able to ignore plain naked reality,cause and effect,being able to mentally insulate yourself against information so successfully that you reach an age where you know how to read and write and can still compose something so fundamentally lacking in reason. I could think circles around you when I was a child.

      “Let the professionals handle the guns and let the teachers teach.”

      Ah yes, the “appeal to the authorities” approach. Your safety is your responsibility. I AM the authority on defense of my own hide. There is no such thing as a “professional” in a moment where lives are being snuffed left and right. EVERYONE turns to jello sooner or later. Those who survive are the ones who did so later, and believe it or not (probably not,you sound like a flaming liberal) the ones with badges or camo uniforms do not always hold up the best in those situations. In a liberal society,these people are selected on willingness to show up, not merit. If you wanted to try this approach,you should have done it sixty years ago before you destroyed the standards which ensured excellence in the field.

    13. @C.C. Rider “The solution to gun violence is….. more guns. The reason that sounds so stupid is because it is.”

      At least you list some alternatives. Let’s see them one at a time.

      @C.C. Rider: “What about better physical security for the schools?”

      Meaning what? Armed guards?That’s “more guns”.

      Making it a locked prison where you have to be ‘buzzed in’? I think it already was. Locked facilities are a big problem once the bad guys is inside and help is outside, by the way. Think ‘entrance choke points’ and ‘unable to escape’.

      “Why can’t each school have a cop on site?”
      Is the cop to be armed? If so, it’s “more guns”. If not, what is he supposed to do in this situation? Call for “more guns” to arrive in 20 minutes with 911? That’s what already happened.

      @C.C. Rider: “How about good disaster planning or maybe a little Evade and Escape training for the teachers?”

      Sounds like the disaster was pretty well planned out already. Do you have anything in mind that should have been done differently than “herd the kids into a corner and stand in front of them.”?

      @C.C. Rider: “Evade and Escape” training. OK, the teachers have ‘evaded and escaped’. What about the kids they left behind? Oh, you want them to evade and escape too? remember, you have already improved ‘physical security’ and every exit is a potential entrance for a bad guy (see the Batman movie shooting – secure emergency exit opened by inside guy.)

      If you want the school full of kids ‘evading and escaping’ that means the halls are jammed so full of kids all leaving at the same time that bullets will go through multiple bodies. Even worse for higher powered rifle bullets, the last kind gun grabbers are able to snatch.

      CC, I’m unable to see where any of your suggestions are helpful in the slightest. In fact, aside of your suggestion of “cop on site” which is really “more guns”, every last one of them are already implemented and didn’t work, or would make things worse.

      By the way, “escape and evasion” training for teachers AND STUDENTS is already required by law and practiced in most places around the world: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_drill

      Your entire position is “Guns are evil, the fewer the better”. By your logic, schools would be safer if cops had no guns. You consider “The only gun was in the hands of a homicidal sociopath” to be a safer situation than “The sociopath had a gun, and so did 5 people in the principals office.”

      Your position will be vindicated once Obama announces that he’s forbidden his Secret Service bodyguards to carry guns.

      1. CC rider:

        You truly need to find out what really is already going on at schools. There is not a teacher I know that wouldn’t do everything to protect the lives of all the children in a school. Bad guys don’t follow the rules and will get a gun regardless. These massacres are well-planned out and they will find a way to make it happen. As the sitting duck in a school with no recourse but to look my door and go into lockdown mode, I would prefer that there was at least an armed security guard that is well trained. As I have seen..If you unarm the secret service that protect the president , then maybe I will go along with no guns anywhere. Probably not….

    14. Oh man, as a hack historian does this mean I can’t write about history because I know about history? Crap. I’ll need to change my website. So, whenever an expert witness is called on, we should ignore them. Okay, I hate to say this, but you make no sense. Someone who knows more about the subject has a more valid opinion than someone who is ignorant of it…like you for example.

      1. I responded to his silliness, but your post triggered memories/knowledge. I first learned it in debate, and learned it again when I recently had to take a speech class.

        When citing expert source material you must use a qualifying statement basically giving the sources bona fides. In a debate if you are the expert source, and your expertise is not known in your opening statement you are expected to give your bona fides. In court the Lawyer who calls the wittiness will open with questions providing the witnesses bona fides.

        So by saying being an expert is a bad thing, they must not know anything about speech giving, debate, or legal testimony. Just a funny random thought that popped in my head after reading your post.

    15. cc rider…. him being a gun expert is exact why this is more than valid… you dont ask your doctor neighbor about your plumbing problems no more than you talk to your plumber about your health problems. and the gun used wasnt owner by a teacher, she was just his mother period. didnt work at the school. she did however make one fatal error in not locking her guns up so her son couldnt get to them.

    16. Professionals like the TSA, I suppose?

      I’d prefer more armed teachers, and less “professional” security kabuki.

      Just because you are too retarded to trust yourself with a gun does not mean that others are.

      Oh, and thanx for pointing out the “murder a gun owner and take his gun” loophole. We should also disarm police to prevent nutters from running down traffic cops with pickup trucks in order to loot guns from their bodies as well.

      1. Don’t forget to take the keys off the cop’s body too, because the really good stuff is always in the trunk.

  40. Read Opinion on gun control & loved it! I call NO GUNS signs ‘Feel Good Signs’ cause poster feels good. I agree w/CCW teachers, really believe schools would be safer in that case. You write very well. I’d like to share your blog on facebook, but I’m not sure how. I am a strong Democrat, have a CCW, and carry a 32 revolver.

  41. Hi Larry, a nicely reasoned and well written article, thank you. I am an Aussie, but I now live in the US. I lived through the whole debacle of the removal of semi automatic weapons but I do want to offer a perspective on the relationship between this and crime.

    Essentially it was always difficult to own a pistol and the notion that there was a deterrent between removal of firearms and an increase in crime doesn’t hold up. It did piss off a bunch of law abiding citizens but that was about it. Crime did rise during this period, but it coincided with a rise of unemployment to a peak of about 12% and around 25% in the under 20 age group.

    I play with statistics with my work so I will offer an interesting data point. There is a direct correlation between ice cream sales and shark attacks. (True!!). So, if we banned ice cream sales would we reduce shark attacks ?. Nope. Why does this correlation exist ? Because more people buy ice cream and go swimming in the hot weather.

    Same argument for the removal of semi automatic rifles and shot guns, it probably had no effect on crime. Pistols were always hard to own, unless of course you were a criminal.

    Regards, Paul

    1. No, people who eat ice cream have more bodyfat and when they drip it down their chins and bellies, they smell even better to sharks.

      Duh!!!

      Correlation IS causation, and anyone who believes otherwise has never held public office.

  42. Larry,

    Thanks for that interesting, well-reasoned perspective. I’m from Australia, so I don’t feel qualified to comment directly on much of your post. However, I do have a couple of points (or really, one point and one question):

    1. You mentioned the Australian gun ban and suggested that violent crime is up as a result. In fact, the situation here is not so clear cut. Many of the top Google results are, unfortunately, rather one-sided, but Wikipedia has a fairly good overview. Briefly: (i) while there were a dozen or so mass shootings in the decade-and-a-half before Port Arthur, there have been none since. However, it’s not clear to what extent this was a direct result of the gun ban. (ii) Rates of suicide by firearm appear to have dropped significantly since the ban, although this appears at least in part to be a continuation of a trend that began before the ban. (iii) After some rather alarmist reports in the first year or two of the ban, there’s not much evidence to support the claim that the ban has led to increases in other forms of violent crime.

    In sum, the net effect of the ban is contested, and it’s not fair to characterise the ban as having clearly had a detrimental outcome.

    2. The most baffling part of all this for an outsider like me is finding an explanation for why rates of death by firearm are so high for the USA compared to the rest of the western world (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate). It’s easy for someone like me to see the correlation between that statistic and the high levels of gun ownership in America, and assume that correlation is in fact causation. Clearly you don’t believe there’s any causal link between the two. What, then, do you believe is the reason for America’s vastly higher gun death rate? This a genuine question, and one I can’t seem to find an answer to from anybody on the no-gun-control side of the debate over there.

    1. For the first bit, that’s why I said that you can find stats being argued in both directions, with Australia being more unclear.

      For the second part, I can comment. If you look at where the vast overwhelming majority of our gun deaths come from, it is from America’s urban innercities, and is usually gang related violence. These areas usually have the strictest gun control in the nation. Per capita ownership of firearms is far higher in the rural and suburban areas, yet those places have much lower crime. If you pull out gang related, drug related violence, America’s murder rate plummets.

      1. Continuing the question…

        But if you pull out the gang and drug related deaths in other countries, their murder rates will drop drastically too, right?? It is hard to make the case that the US does not have a higher incidence of firearm violence than other developed nations.

        1. Then the question becomes how much and what is the nature of the gang and drug related crime, in say a smaller population, well off, ethnically and socially homogeneous country? Does Oslo have MS13? Or on the other hand you can compare it to the murder rate in a strict gun control high gang/crime/drug country like Mexico. (more killed than Afghanistan).

          The highest per capita gun ownership in America is in Utah and Idaho, yet we don’t have big urban innercities with racial tensions and drug crime, so Idaho and Utah are two of the safest states in America.

          Basically, unless you are capable of Mayor Bloomberg level mental gymnastics, you can’t pin your big innercity murder rates on lower crime states which own tons of guns.

      2. @Bill: American gangs are pretty unique to us and their violent culture is protected. They are glorified and encouraged by the entertainment industry and exploited by political class. Their violence is romanticized and then dismissed as something no one can do anything about.

        I doubt your stats would go down as much as ours would if the gang gun violence was taken out.

      3. ” American gangs are pretty unique to us and their violent culture is protected. They are glorified and encouraged by the entertainment industry and exploited by political class.”

        The inner-city political class is joined at the hip with the gangs. Chicago pays “former” gang members to run a “violence intervention” operation — whose members have repeatedly been arrested for dealing drugs while conducting their “interventions”.

        (And how successful is the “intervention”? Chicago may break 500 gun murders this year!)

      4. Yep, Rob. There’s a lot of money from the gang culture going into the hands of politicians. And they’re covered by political correctness. It’s a lifestyle choice, doncha know. The president of the United States hosts gangster rappers at the White House. This is why they like to ignore gang violence, but they love to include the numbers in their stats.

    2. I don’t look at per capita data myself. I tend to look at total numbers and percentages. Just for kicks here’s an interesting set of numbers for you to compare.
      America has been trending down down down…in many numbers including murders. Total population 312+ million according to current census estimates. Total number of murders. In the 14,000’s for the last couple of years. Last year it was 14,126..Down from 14,700+. By comparison…Venezeula…a country with a population density similar to my STATE of Texas. Venezuela as of this years estimates at a shade over 28 million. they will finish the year with right around 20,000 murders. How do I know this? Well because it’s been at that number or better for the last couple years. Plus they had 9500 and change, murders in the first 6 months of this year alone.

      12.5 times LESS population…than the US and yet they have conservatively…5700 -6000 more murders a year? WTF? If we had the same comparative murder rate…we’d be running right at a quarter million murders a year.

      Question for you though just because I’m curious…after guns were taken out of the picture…did the rates of suicides by other means go up and how much? I’d be not surprised if the two most popular, Suffocation [ie, hanging, taping a bag around your head etc] and chemically induced deaths..[ie mixing pills and alcohol…or just flat out purposely OD’ing..even without the mixing of the pills and booze] went up a nice chunk.

    3. Thee UK and Australia have a total murder rate of about 1.3 per 100K The US murder rate excluding firearms is about 1.9 per 100K. Hence the right question isn’t “why is the US firearms murder rate so high?” but instead it’s “why are people in the US so much more willing to commit murder?”. And the answer to that requires looking into exactly who is doing the murdering and why.

      As a starting point, keeping in mind that 12.6% of the US population is “Black”, look at this FBI table: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3

      You can also see some interesting things in the regional table. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-4 For example, the murder rate in Puerto Rico is kind of amazingly high, as in > 600% of the US average. It’s possible that living in Puerto Rico inspires people to murder, but it seems to me a lot more likely that it has to do with culture.

  43. I’m a 19 year State Trooper, firearms instructor. For those who think martial arts will save them, a young man just started training at the dojo my son trains at. He won the “Grand Master” trophy at a tourney as a yellow belt because he is 6’6″ and about 300 pounds.

    1. What martial art, and how was it scored? I’m assuming it’s more of a grappling/wrestling form like jujitsu, rather than fancy kicks and punches like Taekwondo.

      1. Taekwondo tends to discourage full contact. Which is why I consider boxing to be better training for a real fight, even though I personally prefer Karate and Kendo for self defense.

        Get rid of artificial restrictions, partial contact, and dance form “points”, and make the bout more realistic … then bigger people tend to win.

    2. The point system for tournaments is why when I was able to spar I switched from point tournaments to knock out/ submission tournaments. In point tournaments most judges look for “flare” and yelling. I’ve had opponents miss be by a mile and get a point when I’ve hit them so hard they stumble and I didn’t get a point.

      The whole being loud isn’t how I fight, I get in I get out. When I’m looking for a way in I don’t make much noise as I don’t want to telegraph anything. Once my master realized this was how I fought he changed up his sparing style and started kicking my ass again.

      God I miss sparing…

  44. The clackamas town center (the Oregon shooting) is a gun free zone. Luckily a responsible gun owner and former security guard at the mall ignored the posting and saved lives.

    1. Without even firing a shot. The shooter wasn’t sure if he could make the shot without missing and hitting a bystander behind the madman. Yet the madman’s bubble of invincibility was burst and he turned the gun on himself after just a show of force.

  45. Excellent post. I am a teacher in the public school system in Virginia (high school), and I agree with your comments regarding teachers being armed. I would be among the first to volunteer if we had the capability. Until that day comes (if it ever does), we do have an armed deputy assigned to each high school in our district, so that’s at least something.

    1. I take it that that armed deputy is wearing uniform. That would make him the first target for a would-be-mass-murderer. Much more effective defense would be the deputy in plainclothes (clothes that resemble–in style— those generally worn by school staff (teachers or admin or even janitorial). However, let’s take this protection a step further. Any willing teacher or school staff could also be permitted CCW (proper training would, I am sure, be provided, gratis by local professionals.)

      Just simply declare school grounds (and why not movie theatres and/or Malls) “No-longer-Gun-Free” Zones. “There be armed citizens allowed here!”

      Has anyone noticed the number of hijacked planes going dramatically down after a) Federal Air Marshalls and b) allowed pilots to “carry”?

      As has been said by others, much more eloquently: Those assailants, attackers, mass shooters are basically cowards who crumble at the first sign of armed response and usually take their own lives when they “see” a gun or hear the sirens approaching.

      Let them know that there will no longer be open Season in certain zones. No Zone will be gun-free. Expect to be met with armed (and concealed carry) citizens at any place, at any time. You will no longer have killing zones.

  46. Fantastic article! Common sense prevails as you covered every single argument the “other” side tries to come up with to take away our liberties. I WILL be sharing with all my FB friends! THANK YOU!

    1. Sadly, I can’t. I gave up my instructor certifications last year and I’m no longer insured for that. Too many novels under contract and too many deadlines. 🙂

      Though I’ve seen a bunch of posts on FB over the last week of instructors now doing the same thing. If you are in Utah, I believe OpsGear is doing something like that soon.

    1. That one is worth a whole post on its own. Basically the loophole bit just means that if you own a gun, you can sell it to somebody, just like you would any other private property. Same thing if you want to give a gun to one of your kids. Contrary to popular belief, any gun sold by an actual dealer always has to have a 4473 form filled out and a background check performed. Regardless of if it is at a gunshow or anywhere else, if it is through a licensed FFL, then they have to do the paperwork no matter what.

      1. Larry.. I apologize to for my comments to C.C. above. It’s your house, and since I did not play nice, I’ll bow out.

      2. Thanks. That was my understanding too, but I have lots of liberal friends who say that when you sell your car, you have to transfer the title and register it in your name. We don’t do that with guns, and I think it would be impractical but what are you arguments against a national registry for every gun. (other than it would just be creepy.)

      3. Travis: The thing about having a registration and title transfer when you sell a car is about taxation (proving who owns what property and should be paying taxes on it) and not about safety at all. You don’t need a license to buy a car, just to drive one off the lot.

        1. “The thing about having a registration and title transfer when you sell a car”

          is that it’s only required if you plan to use the car on public streets.

          Back when I was autocrossing regularly I saw (and drove–on private property only) lots of cars which were neither license, titled, nor registered, nor required to be since there was no intent to use them on public streets.

      4. As far as a national gun registry goes: the experiences of New York, california (repeatedly), Massachusetts, England, and Austrailia prove beyond a doubt that gun registries almost always precede gun confiscations. Sorry, no.

    2. If it can be solved logistically without undue burden on private sales, I think most gun owners would be accepting of it. This logistical hurdle may be the legacy of the events last week in the end, as a new AWB is (at least seemingly) going to face a VERY difficult time getting through.

    3. There is no “gun show loophole.” Federally licensed dealers (anyone engaging in the buying and selling of guns as a business) must perform background checks at gun shows exactly the same as in their normal places of business. Private individuals, selling their private guns, may do so exactly the same as they can any place else.

      The “gun show loophole” is a complete fabrication of the anti-gun crowd.

      1. David and Larry-

        Yes, dealers must perform checks. That is not, and never has been, the issue.

        Private sellers can sell to ANYONE with NO background check of any sort. In quite a few states (TX, VA, FL, others) the seller is ONLY required to verify that the person is…

        1. Not a minor
        2. A legal resident of their state

        This is accomplished with a drivers license. That is the ONLY thing you have to have to buy a gun in these states.

        There is no record of these sales and no penalty to the seller if the buyer is a criminal.

        It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that, if someone has a clean record, they can buy 100 guns from a dealer and turn around and sell them off to anyone who doesn’t want to be background checked (ie: Gang members).

        Effectively, there is NO gun control because of this policy.

        1. Actually your last part is already illegal. If you buy and sell a large number of firearms, then the BATF declares that you are engaging in business, and thus you have to have an FFL. If you actually conducting a business in firearms sales without a license, then the BATF squishes you like a bug. For example, at any gun show you go to, there will be BATF agents walking around, dressed in normal clothing, looking for people who are selling guns who are not FFLs. If they note somebody who is constantly buying and selling, then they will say that he is engaging in business, and that person is now in trouble.

          On that same note, if somebody comes up to you at a gunshow and asks for you to do something illegal, that’s an ATF informant. 🙂

        2. “Private sellers can sell to ANYONE with NO background check of any sort.”

          Exactly the same as they can do anyplace else. This is not a “gun show loophole.”

          But there’s more. You are aware, are you not, that to knowingly sell or otherwise transfer a firearm to a “prohibited person” is a felony, right? You also know that “straw sales” such as you describe are illegal, right?

          Oh, and buying 100 guns and turning around and selling them would be to engage in the business of buying and selling guns which, without an FFL is _illegal_. You knew that, right? Oh, and since dealers are required to report multiple sales of handguns to the authorities, this practice would soon be found.

          You are also aware that at least larger gun shows have police _on_ _site_, aren’t you? That BATF agents wander the show _looking_ for violations. At least at the events I attend, you have to run a gauntlet of police officers checking for loaded guns, putting zipties through the actions of guns that people either have for sale or people carry. I’m sure your felon who wants a gun is confident that none of the LEOs present are going to recognize him or her as a “prohibited person” (“Hey! Didn’t I arrest you for felony battery?”)

          The gun show loophole is a myth. In order to get significant numbers of American guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels the BATF had to _order_ gun dealers to complete sales they were going to refuse because the dealer smelled a “straw sale” such as you describe.

      2. “It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that, if someone has a clean record, they can buy 100 guns from a dealer and turn around and sell them off to anyone who doesn’t want to be background checked (ie: Gang members).”

        Only the BATFE can do that without being arrested by the BATFE.

      3. I know it is illegal, but is there any effective mechanism to prosecute it?

        I exagerated a bit with 100, obviously, how about this scenario.

        Person A goes to a gun show
        Person A makes 5 private purchases (no background check) with cash
        Person A takes those 5 guns home
        Person A meets Persons 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 and sells them each a gun in a private transaction (no background check)
        Persons 1, 3, and 5 are violent felons who use the gun to commit a crime

        Is there anything to prevent this type of scenario?

        Is there any penatly to anyone in the chain of sales leading to a felon acquiring a gun to deter it from happening again?

        As I understand it, in many states, there is nothing to deter this scenario.

        Person A, as long as he verified they were a resident of his state and acquired a bill of sale, has no penalty for selling a gun to felons. And, even if there WERE a penalty, there is no mechanism for tracing the sale of the gun to Person A unless the felon says “I bought the gun from Person A.”

        Do you see this as a problem?

        1. Yes, I do see that as a problem. However, as the law currently reads knowingly selling a gun to a person in order to cirmuvent a legal background check is what is known as a Strawman Purchase, and is already a felony. FFLs are required to know about Strawman Purchasing, and we are already required to notify our ATF inspector.

          Interestingly enough, it was FFL’s informing about Strawman Purchasing which started the Fast & Furious debacle, in which our Justice Department engaged in over 2,000 Strawman Purchases in a sloppy attempt to justify more new gun control laws. http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/why-eric-holder-should-being-jail-and-the-wapo-sucks-balls/

        2. Criminals often prefer to buy guns from other criminals, who have stolen those guns, and thus don’t need to be paid as much for them.

          Stolen goods can often be purchased at a fratcion of retail price.

      4. “FFLs are required to know about Strawman Purchasing, and we are already required to notify our ATF inspector. ”

        The scenario I laid out did not involve an FFL, so that has no impact.

        “knowingly selling a gun to a person in order to cirmuvent a legal background check is what is known as a Strawman Purchase, and is already a felony.”

        Again, yes, it is a felony, but it is unenforced.

        Take my scenario.

        Person A didn’t “KNOW” that persons 1, 3, and 5 were felons. At least, if you ask him he will say “No, I did not know or have suspicion that the buyer was a felon. I checked their drivers license and got a bill of sale, that is all the law requires.”

        Then what?? Ok…you didn’t know… it is ok then???

        There is no background check required, so there is no evidence that Person A did or did not know the buyers were felons. Unless the buyer comes out and says “Oh yeah, btw, I am a felon!” there is no requirement that the seller establishes that the person is NOT a felon.

        So, while selling the guns to the felons was illegal, sellers can do so with impunity.

        What would be the downside of requiring the sale to go through an FFL to see if they are felons with a background check?

        1. Actually, no. That isn’t unenforced at all. It is enforced quite a bit actually. It is a felony to knowingly sell or provide a firearm to somebody who you know is a restricted person, i.e. somebody who could not pass a background check. So no, they can’t do it with impunity, and yes, people do get prosecuted for this now.

          In fact, it is fear of this law, which causes most regular law abiding gun owners to only sell their guns to people they are familiar with, or in the case of my state which has tons of concealed weapons permits, it is fairly common for people to only sell their guns to people they aren’t friends with who can show they have a permit.

          Are there bad, illegal gun dealers, who specialize in selling guns to criminals? Why yes. Of course. Those are the people you are concerned about. They are certainly not FFLs. I’m willing to bet you can find dozens of men on street corners in gun free Chicago who would be happy to sell you a firearm. Now, what law, pray tell, would you pass which would stop these people?

          This is actually very interesting to me. Most people like me who are known gun owners, who own lots of guns, don’t mind buying guns and filling out the paperwork. Do you know who I have found are the people who are the most likely to try to buy through a 3rd party selling their private property? First time gun owners, often people who politically come from moderate or liberal backgrounds, who are scared of filling out a 4473 and ending up on a “government list”. I find that ironic and hilarious. 🙂

      5. The thing is that felons and criminals do not for the most part go to gun shows to purchase weapons. I take it you’ve never been to one. There are police everywhere, there are plain clothes cops and ATF looking, observing as Larry has mentioned above. Obviously you just choose to ignore the facts he presents to you.

      6. Joseph Capdepon II

        Read the scenario I laid out.

        Person A goes to a gun show
        Person A makes 5 private purchases (no background check) with cash

        PERSON A TAKES THOSE 5 GUNS HOME

        Person A meets Persons 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 and sells them each a gun in a private transaction (no background check)
        Persons 1, 3, and 5 are violent felons who use the gun to commit a crime

        You will notice, upon re-reading, that the felons in this scenario did NOT go to a gun show, they bought it from the seller in a private transaction away from a gun show.

        I understand that most criminals do not go to gun shows to buy their guns. I also feel that the phrase “gun show loophole” is a poor term, because the real problem is unregulated private transfers, not gun shows. Those transfers can happen at gun shows, but the issue is the purchase with no background check, not where it happens.

      7. I appreciate that you (a highly responsible gun owner) and most of the people you know are careful about your sales. Maybe even most gunowners, as you describe. However, if I go on a site like this:

        http://floridaguntrader.com/index.php

        There are 3000+ guns for sale in my state on this one site alone, all private transactions, most only requesting that the exchange be face to face, open to anyone with an internet connection. Maybe MOST gun owners are more careful, but there plenty who are not that the options are wide open to any criminal who wants a gun.

        As I have researched this, I have seen gun owners basically BRAGGING about the fact that they can sell their gun to anyone and as long as they don’t KNOW they are a felon (which can be accomplished by not asking), they are safe from prosecution. Proving KNOWLEDGE of a previous conviction, especially about a stranger you have never met, is very unlikely in court, so the chances of prosecution are very low.

        While it may be a non-issue for most gun owners (like yourself), it is clear there are MANY people who are not particularly careful and the chance of prosecution is low. (BTW, if you can find a crime report on convictions of sellers, I’d be interested, I looked a bit and couldn’t find anything yet)

        This essentially sets up an unregulated marketplace where criminals know they can acquire guns easily.

        You say… “I’m willing to bet you can find dozens of men on street corners in gun free Chicago who would be happy to sell you a firearm.” … but I don’t know that it is true. Why would you stand on a street corner to sell a gun when you can advertise on the internet (obviously not in chicago, but in big chunks of the country)?

        Here is a simple law:

        ~~~
        Every transfer of firearms must go through an FFL.

        Every transfer is recorded in a database that is accessed ONLY when a crime is committed with a firearm

        When a crime is committed with a firearm by someone who should NOT have been able to purchase the firearm (ie: a felon who would have been barred through a proper transaction at an FFL), the firearm is traced through its sales history to the last legitimate transfer.

        That owner/seller is subject to criminal charges for an improper transfer unless the gun was reported stolen.
        ~~~

        First, yes, I know, there are a LOT of guns out there that would be “off the grid” and out of the system for a long time. Not saying this law would solve the problem tomorrow. But, over the years of application, most guns would end up on the system and could be tracked if they were used in a crime.

        Sellers would now have a real threat of prosecution if they transferred a gun to someone who should not have it.

        And, before someone replies, yes, I know that there are still other ways for criminals to get guns. Yes, I know that this would not solve every problem everywhere. But, it is a fairly easy step that over time would cut off one extremely easy source of guns for criminals.

        I see a lot of benefit to a law like this. What would be the downside?

        1. The usefullness of background checks at all for stopping gun violence is up for debate, and I thank you for approaching this in such a reasonable manner. Personally, I don’t get particularly fired up about background checks, provided they are instant, however I have little, if any belief that they stop violent criminals at all. Like I said earlier, the people who are the most worried about them are the ones who want to “stay off a list”. The main concern being that they are scared of some of the things that I talked about in the confiscation portion of this blog post, and like I said, they are usually not of my political persuasion and don’t trust the government not to take their gun (ironic, that).

          Having called in a lot of background checks in my life, zero faith, whatsoever. What I have seen however is lots of good people turned away for stupid paperwork things, having a name similar to a criminal, or vindictive ex wives taking advantage of the Lautenberg Amendment. (didn’t know about that one? If you’ve got a restraining order, no gun for you, even if there was nothing violent at all, and the restraining order was merely because the divorce lawyer said that their clients should do that everytime).

          You’ve got 3,000 guns on a classified ad in Florida. Okay… So? Do you have any evidence at all that people being able to sell their property without background checks increases crime? I’ll save you time, you won’t be able to find that, because there isn’t any actual evidence that background checks reduce crime either.

          So then we’ve got school shooters who could pass background checks getting guns legally, and then we’ve got school shooters who couldn’t pass background checks getting guns illegaly, up to and including murdering their parents, but either way, they’ve proven they are going to get a weapon, or god help us, learn basic chemistry and go to Home Depot.

          Like I said, not a particular gun law that I am hung up on, but I really don’t think expanding them is going to make much difference at all. If the Closing The Gun Show Loophole people proposed legislation similiar to what you are stating then you wouldn’t meet such vehement resistence, but that’s never the law they propose. Instead it is always a Bloombergian registration scheme on a national level, and that’s just more people control.

      8. Anyone have any data on how many guns used in violent crime are purchased from a legal owner by a criminal vs. how many were stolen prior to the criminal using them in a crime?

        And in Oregon you cannot buy or sell a firearm at a gun show without going through an NICS background check. This extends to sales of guns outside of the gun show but still on the property where said gun show is taking place (i.e. you can’t meet out in the parking lot to circumvent this). Every gun show has uniformed police presence. But guess what? There are still guns used in crimes here in Oregon, just a couple of weeks ago you might have seen one on the news. Where did the guy who shot up the Clackamas Town Center get his gun? He sure as shit didn’t buy it from some nefarious profiteer picking up guns at gun shows to later sell to criminals before feigning innocence. He stole it from an acquaintance.

        The “gun show loophole” is a buzz word used by those who have never been to a gun show. When you say “gun show loophole” people who do own guns immediately put you in a category and assume (often rightly so) you’re ignorant. Any point you were going to make has just been relegated to the status of “inane drivel that spills from the suck-hole of a gun-grabber.” Same goes for using the term “clip.” Unless you’re talking about something like an M1 Garand. BoomboomboomboomboomboomboomboomPing!

      9. Tuco-

        “Anyone have any data on how many guns used in violent crime are purchased from a legal owner by a criminal vs. how many were stolen prior to the criminal using them in a crime?”

        No, no one has that data because there is no tracking of private sales. Again, part of the problem. If we made every gun transfer go through an FFL, we could learn information like this. Maybe we would find that this isn’t a problem or maybe we will find it is the primary source of guns. But, until it is tracked, we won’t know.

        “The “gun show loophole” is a buzz word used by those who have never been to a gun show.”

        Like I have said, the problem is unregulated private transfers, not gun shows.

      10. North Carolina “closed the gun show loophole” a long time ago by requiring that EVERY handgun purchaser possesses either a pistol purchase permit (requiring a background check) or a concealed permit. As a result, as you well know, North Carolina has absolutely no gun violence whatsoever.

        What? We do?

        uh…nevermind…

      11. Unregulated firearm transfers are a feature, not a bug.

        I want the government to not have a fucking clue which honest citizens have firearms.

        If someone is not allowed to have firearms, then the government needs to properly supervise that person until they are trusted with full civil rights again, and not punish citizens for the State’s failure to control felons.

      12. Historian:

        “So, pizza, you want to make a law that’s impossible to enforce? Or make a registry that leads to confiscation? Did I get that right?”

        Explain how it is impossible to enforce. The NCIS system is already in place. FFLs already know how to run background checks. Databases are an easy technology to build and use. What part is impossible?

        What mention did I make of confiscation? When was the last time there was a mass confiscation of FFL Class 2 weapons? We have been registering them for 70+ years now, right?

        You need to present some darn good evidence that tracking sales in a database to be accessed only when a crime is committed leads to confiscation.

        Larry:

        What state forms 330 miles of the northern border of North Carolina? Virginia.
        What are Virginia’s laws on private transfers? Essentially unregulated
        You think people who want a gun but can’t pass a background check don’t know this?

        Good for North Carolina, but trying to regulate small pockets of the country while the rest is wide open is not effective. And yes, I agree that current gun control legislation is not effective, because every attempt in one locale is undermined by the lack of control in others.

        Kristophr:

        I don’t share your concerns about gov’t tyranny. If I was concerned, I don’t think civilian firearms are our best defense. But, even if they were, you would have to convince me that my plan in any way endangers you (or other honest citizens) possessing firearms. Call me an optimist, but we likely won’t have a meaningful conversation about that so I won’t try to dispute that point.

        Clarify what you mean by “properly supervise?”

        Give a realistic plan to “properly supervise” that is feasible. I’m willing to listen.

        Also, how does my plan “punish” citizens?

      13. Larry Correia

        I know you are taking a much deserved break for the holidays, thanks for taking the time to have these conversations though and maybe we can continue at some point.

        I wish that there was more attention paid to more reasonable gun control legislation like controlling the path a gun takes to reach a criminal (as opposed to laws like “you can’t have guns in this city” or ill-fated “assault” weapons bans). But, it seems that one side goes after the easiest targets (“assault weapons”) and local laws they can control (city gov’t) which are ineffective. They target these because they can be achieved because the other side (NRA, etc.) prevents them from enacting broad reaching (national) measure that are less dramatic than bans, but might actually be effective.

        Just a frustrating system.

        1. “broad reaching (national) measure that are less dramatic than bans, but might actually be effective.”

          Like what? There are already more than 300 million guns in the US, most of which are not in any way, shape, or form registered. There are antiques (my ’93 Argentine) which the Federal government doesn’t control at all being made before 1899 (note that there are several semi-automatic rifles that date from that same era).

          So what “less dramatic” proposal do you suggest that “might actually be effective”? A national registration when gun owners have a history of seeing “register your guns” being followed by “the guns you just registered, and we now know that you have, they’re prohibited now so you have to get rid of them”?

          What, exactly?

      14. thewriterinblack/David Burkhead

        From my post above, an example:
        ~~

        Every transfer of firearms must go through an FFL.
        Every transfer is recorded in a database that is accessed ONLY when a crime is committed with a firearm
        When a crime is committed with a firearm by someone who should NOT have been able to purchase the firearm (ie: a felon who would have been barred through a proper transaction at an FFL), the firearm is traced through its sales history to the last legitimate transfer.
        That owner/seller is subject to criminal charges for an improper transfer unless the gun was reported stolen.

        ~~

        Aside from your fear of “registration = confiscation,” what objection would you have to a national law such as this?

        Per your comment:

        ” gun owners have a history of seeing “register your guns” being followed by “the guns you just registered, and we now know that you have, they’re prohibited now so you have to get rid of them””

        Could you expand that? When and where has that happened in the US?

        1. “Every transfer of firearms must go through an FFL.”

          Does nothing to stop illegal gun trade.

          “Every transfer is recorded in a database that is accessed ONLY when a crime is committed with a firearm”

          How incredibly naive. It may start that way but . . . my Social Security Card says that the SSN is not to be used for Identification but only for Social Security Purposes. We see how long that lasted.

          “through its sales history to the last legitimate transfer”

          Unless, of course, the firearm is one of the 300 million plus that are _already_ out there that _aren’t_ in any such data base.

          “what objection would you have”

          It’s bullshit nonsense that would accomplish nothing while wasting _tremendous_ resources.

          “in the US?”
          Because “it can never happen here” right? The very folk who are pushing registration are also pushing bans but if they get the one they’ll never get the other, right?

          But consider California. While existing “Registered Assault Weapons” have not been confiscated per se (apparently California hasn’t quite gotten to the point of open violation of that part of the Fifth yet), they may not be transferred within the State of California. None may be bought and, if sold, they must be sold _outside_ of California. Thus, nobody who does not already own one, in California, may acquire one.

      15. All NEW firearms take a path to reach a criminal. That path usually starts like this:

        PATH:
        Manufacturer
        Wholesaler
        FFL
        Legitimate Buyer (someone who passes FFL check)

        Once a legitimate buyer has a weapon out in the public, the possibility of it falling into criminal hands is there through one of several ways.

        1. Criminal steals weapon
        2. Legitimate buyer becomes criminal once they already own the weapon
        3. Legitimate buyer unknowingly sells the weapon to a criminal in a private transfer with no required background check
        4. Legitimate buyer knowingly sells the weapon to a criminal in a private transfer

        There may be others, but you get the idea.

        The policy I proposed addresses items 3 and 4.

        The legitimate buyer will no longer inadvertently sell to a prohibited person, as transfers must go through and FFL.
        The legitimate buyer who chooses to sell to a known prohibited person (item 4) will have to do so illegally. The gun will remain attached to their person and if the gun is used in a crime, they will be charged with a crime for an illegal transfer. This is a severe deterrent to transferring a weapon illegally that the current system does not have.

        The law I proposed effectively addresses two possible sources of weapons into illegal hands. How does that “do nothing to stop the illegal gun trade?”

        And yes, there are 300 million plus already out there. I COULD propose that all existing firearms must be subjected to the registration policy, but you would flip out if I did and it is logistically very difficult and would take massive resources to make it impractical.

        I would rather let the system catch new weapons as they enter the system and over time the number of weapons outside of the database will shrink as owners sell, weapons wear out, police collect them as crimes are committed or as law abiding citizens begin transferring weapons legally under the new system. No, this would not immediately wipe out all gun violence, nothing will. In fact I suspect it would have little impact for several years as the existing supply of weapons would remain extremely high. But it is a step that will have an impact over time.

        “while wasting _tremendous_ resources”

        What tremendous resources?? The FFLs are already in place. The NCIS system is already in place. A database is not that expensive to establish and maintain, it is just a bunch of comptuers. You just have to add a few lines to the NCIS check and record the data.

        Right now you apparently have ATF agents walking around to gun shows and trying to “sting” people through online auction sites because there is no other effective means of tracking and deterring illegal weapons sales. You think this system would take more resources than that?

        “The very folk who are pushing registration are also pushing bans”

        This is a false assumption. I am advocating for this system that involves a national database. I would oppose a ban and be very wary of a national politician who put serious weight behind a ban. I am not the only person who thinks this way.

        California:

        So what you are saying is, they BANNED assault weapons for future transfers, but did NOT confiscate them?

        Thank you for providing a case in which even a weapons BAN did NOT lead to confiscation. Was that supposed to support your claim that registration DOES lead to confiscation?

        So sum up your objections:

        1. You fear registration inevitably leads to confiscation. I don’t think this is the case and I see little evidence to support it, but I understand your fear.

        2. You don’t think it will be effective: I suspect you reflexively think that ALL gun control of any type will be ineffective. I have provided a clear description of how it would affect the gun market, why do you think it would not?

        Do you have other objections/reasons you think a law like this would be problematic?

        1. “There may be others, but you get the idea.”

          5. Gun is passed from one illegal person to another again and again and is used in many crimes before it’s finally.*
          6. Guns disappear from police evidence room, later turn up at crime scene.
          7. “Zip” gun manufactured by criminals, never seen in the “legal” market at all.
          8. “Gunrunners” bring guns across the border illegally. Gun never in “legal” market at all.
          And on and on and on.

          You look at two, and only two, possibilities and even one of them fails
          4a. Legitimate buyer knowingly sells weapon to a criminal in a private transfer and then reports the gun as “missing, presumed stolen” (“What happened?” “I don’t know! I mean, it was right _there_, then I came back today and . . . gone.”)
          4b. Legitimate buyer knowingly…then reports gun “lost in boating accident”.
          4c Legitimate buyer knowingly sells one of the 300 million plus guns that isn’t currently “registered” and, thus, won’t show up later. At current crime rates, if each gun is used for one, and only one, homicide, that’s enough for close to 20,000 years of homicides.
          I’m sure you can come up with more if you really try.

          So for the single case of “legal owner unknowingly sells firearm to prohibited person” you create an expanded government bureaucracy, increase costs to buy and sell (the FFL’s do _not_ perform transfer services for free) and don’t appreciably reduce the availability of guns to criminals anyway. (The purpose of the exercise.)

          How about this instead: While it is legitimate to restrict someone’s liberty (including the liberty to exercise RKBA) as a condition of sentence as a result of “due process” (under the 5th Amendment) why must said restriction _only_ be to 2nd Amendment rights? Why not include “and for the duration of this sentence” (which may be for life in appropriate circumstances) “your person, your possessions, and your dwelling are subject to search at any time by any sword law enforcement officer or any person appointed to that task by the court, and any violation of the terms of the sentence, including possession of firearms, shall lead to your immediate return to prison for the remaining duration of the sentence plus ten years.”

          Punish the _criminals_, not everybody else.

        2. *Back in the mid-80’s, when there was another “gun-control” push in the media, one of the networks (IIRC, NBC, of “Ford trucks explode–at least if you attach a pyrotechnic device to their fuel tanks” fame) did a special on the history of a gun. They “tracked” a single gun as it was used in various crimes, transferred to another criminal, then used in other crimes, through several states and over a period of time.

          The point they were trying to sell was how very dangerous a gun could be (look at all the crime that was “caused” by this one gun!).

          The “take away” I got from it was “look how few guns are required to fill criminal ‘needs.'” This one gun was used over and over again. This just goes to show how hopeless the idea of cutting off the supply of guns to criminals because not that many are needed to supply all criminal “needs”. They can keep using the existing guns and “losses” guns captured by police or taken “out of circulation” by other means, can be replaced from any of a number of sources not just “straw sales.”

      16. Pizza:

        Properly supervise: Serve full term unless they can prove to be trustworthy. Serve even more time if they violate parole in the slightest. Once they are out of state supervision, they should have their rights restored.

        As for longarms vs. tyranny, both the US Military and the old Soviet army learned some hard lessons in that in Afghanistan. Nothing is harder for a tyrannical government to deal with than a completely intractable man with a rifle.

        As for registration -> confiscation, that has been exactly the case in NY, NJ, and Chicago. The dems in CA seem content with attrition, as they realized that only a fraction of the rifles in the state were registered.

  47. Superb writeup, however there is one thing I must say, where you mentioned India, India never really had a gun culture, only a tiny handful of the population could afford guns in the past. Nowadays however with the growth of the Indian middle-class there is a fluorescing gun culture there. Although this is proving to be awkward since the country is still trying to dig itself out from under decades of disastrous Fabian socialist rule and millennia of grinding corruption. A couple of years ago I heard a story about a district in India which offered men expedited gun permits in exchange for vasectomies, ugh!

  48. Very well written and thank you. I have 10 years educational experience including 1 year as principal. Sadly my state does not allow me to have my CC with me. Instead locked in my car unloaded across the street. While I would hope to never have this issue come up, my vehicle was always parked every day across the street. In addition, as a shop teacher I always needed WASP spray in my office. Never new when I would need to kill a few out of the wood pile, etc.

    Today I watched as a marine stood infront of his kids school for 7 hours unarmed for security. I ma glad for his service, but I only see him as victim. Pilots have guns, judges have armed guards, 300 kids have… Well a locked door and policy that calls for teachers and kids to hide in corners hoping to be found before the cops show up.

    I also remember as a student in school in 1996. We had 2 school resource officers who were assigned to the school. They would be on rotating shifts so one was almost always on grounds. My senior year I we have a perfect morning to dump some ducks. So my buddy and I skipped out… At 10:00 my mother showed up at the river and threatened sever consequences(ending of my duck season season) if I was not in the school in 20 minutes. Needless to say my decoys were tossed in and the gun in the gun rack and off we went to school.

    When we pulled into the school parking lot, we saw the officer. He promptly pulled in behind us and looked at the shot guns… Our small pile of ducks… Said we were truant and to head to the office. We had detention that afternoon. The officer showed up, as a result he went hunting with us the next weekend on Saturday morning…

    I never did and can not understand the irrational fear of a gun. I however always have a level playing field and as a result do not have nearly as much to fear as some.

  49. Agreed with everything you said, said almost exactly the same things myself in my blog post on the subject.

    On the subject of mental health reform and keeping weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill, here are my suggestions:

    1. Mandate reporting by psychiatrists to the NICS system for suicidal ideation, homicidal ideation, sociopathic or delusional behavior. This would apply to their office visits as well, but there would have to be adequate safeguards to restore those rights if or when the psychiatrist feels the patient is no longer a threat to himself or others.

    2. Computerized reporting of PEC’s to the NICS system. Fill out a PEC, 5150, mental health hold, or whatever you want to call it, you must upload it to the NICS database before that patient leaves the ED, or before that patient is discharged from the psych unit, and WITH all the safeguards mentioned in #1, and restoration of those rights has to be as timely as the denial of them.

    That does not happen now. A PEC because your girlfriend called you suicidal out of spite can dog you for years. As a medic, I see that sort of thing every single day.

    3. No more mental health techs doing intake evaluations. In fact, don’t let the ED physician do it, either. They have enough shit to deal with already. If your facility operates an inpatient psychiatric unit, you should have a psychiatrist on ED call to do PEC’s 24/7/365.

    If a patient is transported from an ED without an inpatient psych unit to a residential facility or an ED that does, the psychiatrist must countersign the PEC after his own evaluation BEFORE the patient is admitted. If the PEC was done by an ED physician, it should not be uploaded to NICS until the psychiatrist has countersigned.

    4. Government forgiveness of med school loans for any doctor entering a primary care profession or specialty area where there is a significant physician shortage. A lot of the cracks in the mental health care system are symptoms of a sick healthcare system, period, and Obamacare did absolutely nothing to address it.

    We simply don’t have enough physicians, period. The ones graduating now are going into lucrative specialties or adopting cash-only concierge practices, as are an ever-increasing number of physicians currently practicing.

    Those things would go a long way toward lessening the likelihood of the mentally ill getting their hands on a weapon, and #3 would provide better safeguards against inappropriate psych holds.

    Of course, you will still have some acutely ill (mentally, that is) patients who have access to the weapons they already own.

    And we will never be able to stop those, outside of implementing a full-on police state.

    1. It was my understanding that the Aurora shooter was reported by his psychiatrist and no one did anything for fear of lawsuits, etc. If you have a reporting system and no one acts on it, what good is it?

      1. Probably because it was reported to local law enforcement, as is the norm, and they never reported it to NICS because there is no legal requirement to do so.

        Usually only adjudication measures through the courts get reported, and rarely instantaneously. There is a backlog of reporting, both of new holds, and for release of holds.

    2. “Mandate reporting by psychiatrists to the NICS system for suicidal ideation, homicidal ideation, sociopathic or delusional behavior. This would apply to their office visits as well, but there would have to be adequate safeguards to restore those rights if or when the psychiatrist feels the patient is no longer a threat to himself or others.”

      Disagree. This is dangerous and wrong, even if your intention is good. Re suicidal ideation, the overwhelming effect would be to seriously discourage patients from seeking help. If I were concerned about my mental health (e.g. feeling hopeless and overwhelmed, “can’t see the point of going on” yet intact enough to seek help), I’d be VERY reluctant to discuss anything with a mental health professional, for fear of literally being criminalized. Even if we had great, reproducible and predictive criteria for who will be a real danger to themselves (which we do not, DSM V or no), many people would be afraid of seeking help, thereby leading to more, not fewer, people truly losing it and harming themselves or others.

      Regarding homicidal ideation, most states (but not all) already have some version of a Tarasoff statute (where if a patient expresses a specific threat against a specific person, e.g. “I’m going to stab my boss Mr Jones in the neck with a steak knife”) there is already a duty to warn on the part of the physician. Apart from that, a remark of “man, some days I’d like to take a bazooka to those jerks who drive 60 mph through my residential neighborhood” can get you in trouble with some MDs. Usually enlightened Progressive ones of the sort who come to a bad end in Tom Kratman novels, but I’m sidetracking. And having a psychiatrist doing the evaluation does not make it better. (As a cardiologist, my response to the hypothetical “bazooka” remark would probably be along the lines of “I’ll help you carry more ammo.” The stereotypes about medical specialties and personality types are not universally true, but they didn’t come from nowhere.)

      1. Great response, Mike C. While I think we do need to reform our mental health system (by digging into all the damage the ACLU did and trying to untangle that mess), I am leery of reporting these psychiatric evals in an effort to deny someone a right in perpetuity. First, you’re depending on a psychiatrist, a good percentage of whom are nutjobs themselves with deeply held biases. Second, exactly what you said. People who need help won’t go for fear of being tagged as dangerous/suicidal for the rest of their lives. 3. Psychiatrists (like one convicted in France just last week because one of his patients went off and killed someone with an axe) will be targeted by the emotionalist Do Something crowd if they have a patient and they missed bad intent. So, they will label more people dangerous/suicidal to keep that from happening.

      2. It is problematic, yes.

        And it may even have the detrimental effect of making people less likely to seek help.

        I think that effect can be mitigated by building adequate statutory safeguards into the system for restoration of rights.

        For example, require an expiration date on the hold.

        Secondly, it is only going to affect new gun purchases, not confiscation of the weapons they already own. I won’t support even one step on that slippery slope.

        On that note, one of the triggers mental health professionals consider for involuntary committal of suicidal patients is the verbalization of a defined plan to carry out the act.

        Suicidal ideation alone is often not enough.

        Again, these are just ideas. Shoot holes in them, tweak and improve them if you can.

        That’s why I posted them.

  50. “The distinction between national and state citizenship and their respective privileges there drawn has come to be firmly established.”
    “Privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, on the other hand, are only such as arise out of the nature and essential character of the national government, or are specifically granted or secured to all citizens or persons by the Constitution of the United States.”
    “The right of trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment (Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90, 23 L. ed. 678), and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2d Amendment (Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 29 L. ed. 615, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580), have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment against abridgment by the states…”
    Twining v. New Jersey 1908, 211 US 78

    Have you wondered why the states act like there is no Bill of Rights?

    http://www.constitution.org/ussc/211-078a.htm

  51. Larry,

    First, I think this is a great post and generally well thought out.

    However, I am one who will get labeled as “anti-gun” because I am in favor increased regulation. But, I think I have only ever made two of the arguments you cite and I actually agree with most of what you say. So I may not be your target audience. But, the two I would have disagreement with.

    Teachers:

    The issue of arming teachers is very dependent on the situation. I definitely think a rapid, armed response is the best response once an incident starts. I would prefer that response come from someone dedicated to security or another non-classroom job rather than a teacher.

    Reasons:

    1. Like you say, the shooters are not stupid. Even carrying concealed, students will pretty quickly figure out what teachers are armed. If a shooter knows Mr. Smith has a gun and is always in room 1010 at 2:30, a shooter will be able to start their action away from room 1010 at 2:30. In such a scenario, Mr. Smith’s response could possibly still be minutes away. For this reason, someone who is NOT a teacher and whose location is less fixed is a good idea. I actually like that you said you had a janitor in your training more than a teacher. That type of position is a lot more suitable to an armed response.

    2. This is not the case in all schools, obviously, but I have been in some schools where I would be TERRIFIED to carry a weapon or for anyone else outside of a highly trained individual (IE: Police Officer). The level of discipline among the students is so low that a teacher with a gun could become a target of student violence in an attempt to take the gun. I know it sounds dramatic, but there are some dramatic schools. Obviously there are other issues in that situation, but putting a gun into those classrooms creates a very dangerous situation.

    If we WERE to arm teachers, I think the level of training and screening of those teachers would need to be very high to make it safe, but it could be done in many cases.

    High Capacity Magazines:

    This is one that I WISH there were an effective way to control, but you are right that there are so many magazines out there that real regulation would be very tough.

    I understand your assessment that there are times when a large magazine would be a benefit in a self-defense situation, but I suspect those are the very rare exception.

    For most of the mass shooters (which are also the exception, but a particularly deadly one), the large magazine makes a shooter who may not be particularly experienced significantly more dangerous. The difference between being able to fire 10 rounds vs. 30 IS substantial, especially in classroom situations where the number of students is over 10 but under 30.

    On balance, and this may sound cold, but if there WERE a way to regulate magazine effectively, I would trade the possibility of rare failure in self defense because of smaller magazines in exchange for reduced death tolls in mass shooting situations.

    But, regulating them is very tough, not sure it is at all feasible, and it isn’t my biggest issue at all.

    So, on those two issues, we may have some disagreements, but I am not too worried about it.

    BUT, here is where I am hoping for a response that is as well reasoned as your article.

    Two parts:

    1. Arguments the PRO-GUN side uses that I find ludicrous
    2. Some issues that may be common ground?? Hopefully??

    Part 1

    Reading a few of the comments here, it seems there are a lot of reasonable responses, which has not always been the case trying to have this discussion.

    Pro Gun arguments I have heard that are ludicrous and the rest of you who ARE reasonable should try to squelch:

    Argument: “Knives/Bats/Spoons/Screwdrivers can also kill people, we don’t try to ban them.”

    Response: First, no one except talking heads trying to drive ratings is calling for a BAN on guns. Regulation, not bans.

    Second, as gun owners, do you REALLY think a gun = a knife/bat/spoon/screwdriver?

    I certainly understand that there are other objects that can be dangerous in life, but guns were developed over many years of technological advancement to be really good at killing people and they are capable of doing that in a manner that nothing else comes close to. They do other things also (sport, hunting, deterrent), but regardless of their other uses, guns are more efficient tools for killing people than pretty much anything else.

    If you are a responsible gun owner, you should understand that a gun is NOT like other tools. I certainly hope you don’t treat your gun like you would treat a hammer…I worked construction, I’d drop/throw a hammer from a rooftop. I would never do that with a gun. They are different. Doesn’t mean they are “evil” or anything like that, but they are something very different from basically any other object in civilian circulation.

    Argument:

    “More people die in car wrecks than from guns!!”

    Yes. They do. But what does that have to do with gun legislation? More than one object can be dangerous and worthy of regulation. I think guns and cars are both worthy of regulation.

    If there are any ideas about how to reduce traffic accidents and deaths, I would love to hear it. I am happy to talk about reducing traffic fatalities and if someone has regulations to suggest, by all means suggest it, lets discuss it.

    Why are some many pro-gun advocates unwilling to discuss regulations to reduce firearm fatalities?

    Argument:

    “People already have to get background checks and licenses and stuff to get a gun. There are too many regulations already!!”

    This one astounds me. Many pro-gun advocates really don’t know that in many states private transfers do NOT require a background check and there is no license or registration requirement. More on this in part II.

    Ok….those were just a few rants that really annoy me. Like you, I have heard them many times and, frankly, they don’t have a place in a reasonable discussion.

    Now, on to part II

    Reasonable regulations:

    I think a gun ban is a terrible idea. I think that the AWB is a pretty bad idea too for most of the same reasons you cite. BUT, I think people go after an AWB not because it is well reasoned, but because that is what they think they can get BECAUSE pro-gun advocates, and the NRA in particular, fight tooth and nail against more effective and meaningful regulations.

    For me, the biggest one is this:

    Why do we allow unregulated private transfers?

    It seems like the argument that “criminals will always have guns” comes up a lot and yes, in the current system where someone can buy a gun with nothing but a drivers license, it is exceedingly easy for criminals to get guns. I realize that criminals will always work to obtain weapons, but current regulations are SO lax that they don’t even have to work.

    Just requiring every firearm transfer to go through an FFL would, over time, have an impact on the ease with which criminals can get weapons. It wouldn’t happen immediately, obviously, but over time this very simple step would help.

    And that is just the simplest of regulations that, to me, seems like a “DUH” regulation.

    Why do pro-gun advocates fight against something that simple? What is the negative of requiring gun transfers to go through an FFL nationwide?

    Ok, enough writing for the night. Hoping for some well-reasoned replies so I can understand this better.

    1. I can sell my car without a dealer, and per your post above if someone buys 100 guns at a dealer they will almost certainly get an ATF visit. Stolen guns are more prevalent among criminals than bought ones.

      1. Not sure that is true, actually…

        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

        “Responding to a question of how they obtained their most recent handgun, the arrestees answered as follows: 56% said they paid cash; 15% said it was a gift; 10% said they borrowed it; 8% said they traded for it; while 5% only said that they stole it.”

        Obviously the accuracy can be questioned, but it isn’t clear cut that criminals get their guns by stealing.

        1. “Paid cash”. For a legal or stolen gun?

          The link you posted does _not_ refute the idea that most guns used in crime come from stealing. The “end user” may not have stole it but buying, borrowing, or being given a stolen gun still comes from stealing.

        2. A survey? Of criminals? And they payed cash to who exactly? Because I can head down to Ogden right now and I’m pretty sure I could find a guy to buy a gun from and pay cash in probably less than an hour. And want to take any bets about whether than gun was stolen or not?

          So, not that I don’t trust PBS, but http://extranosalley.com/?p=12198 and you can reconfirm that blogger’s stats in other places, but like he said, it is murky.

          Not that I don’t trust government gun stats, because Eric Holder once told us all that Mexican Drug Cartels which own their own submarines and buy whole military units are all armed by American gunshows, but he left out all the guns he shipped them to try to bolster that number of course. http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/why-eric-holder-should-being-jail-and-the-wapo-sucks-balls/

      2. Definitely agree that you can’t really “trust” a survey of criminals, but the point of the article is that “criminal use mostly stolen guns” is a piece of conventional wisdom that may or may not be true.

        Regardless, stolen weapons are an issue, but one that is very difficult to address. My interest is in those issues where poor regulation allows criminals to easily exploit a system that does little to slow them getting a gun. Basically, if I were a criminal, I would never steal a gun. Way too risky when I can just go to a website, pick the gun I want, send a couple emails and meet someone and buy it for cash with no background check or real risk.

        Those are the types of issues that meaningful regulation can address.

        1. I don’t think you realize just how it works. You send a couple emails to have somebody pick you up a gun and odds are they are an ATF informant. 😀

        1. “Title” is only necessary for registration, and registration is only necessary for operation of the car on public streets. That’s it.

          Mind you, once a car is titled for one owner it might be worthwhile for the new owner to transfer the title to avoid the original owner being able to come back and claim ownership but it’s not necessary provided you are not going to operate the car on the public streets.

          As I’ve said before, in Autocross I ran across cars not titled, licensed, or registered all the time. Folk would trailer them to the events. Drive them in the competition (on private property) and then trailer them home.

          No laws broken.

          Title, licensing, and registration are only required for operation of the cars on the public streets.

      3. “I don’t think you realize just how it works. You send a couple emails to have somebody pick you up a gun and odds are they are an ATF informant.”

        I think you misunderstand. I am not sending emails to have someone buy a gun for me. I am sending emails to buy a gun myself.

        I am pretty sure that not all the ads listed here:

        http://www.armslist.com/classifieds/florida

        or here

        http://floridaguntrader.com/

        or here

        http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx?Cats=851&PageSize=75

        are ATF agents. These sales are arranged via email. You meet the person face to face, trade the gun for the cash, and part ways. The seller should check your ID and fill out a bill of sale, but little else.

        This method of arranging and selling is legal. It is only illegal if the buyer is prohibited, but there is no requirement that the seller make any sort of check to determine if they are prohibited.

        Granted, I have not tried to buy a gun this way. I may soon and if I do, I’ll be sure to let you know how easy/difficult it was.

      4. But you also have to transfer title when you privately sell a car. In California, at least, you have to report the sale to the DMV within 5 days so the new owner is on record.

      5. Amanda T: Look up “farm vehicle”.

        Titles, even in CA, are only needed if you drive on a public road.

        If the car is never driven on the street, you can just send a shoebox of money to the seller, and have it delivered to your back 40.

    2. Thank you thank you. These are the same arguments that bother me. To me, unrestricted private transfers is too lax.

      The argument that I hear is “well the criminals will get them no matter what so there’s no point regulating this”. Well… that remains to be seen. I haven’t seen the evidence that we’ve tried discouraging private sales by law. Just because criminals do break the law doesn’t mean we have to make it easier for them to legally obtain what they want.

      The other one that bothers me is “well gun control law X in state/city Y was ineffective (just look at these stats) therefore it is always ineffective”. The part that bothers me here is that gun laws vary widely and guns in state/city Y do not have to come from state/city Y. They may have just passed a law banning all sales and illegal ownership but someone can go one region over, legally register a weapon and bring it back. Yup pretty ineffective law… but if every state/city implements different laws how can we pick the ideas that would work when implemented consistently?

      I feel like we don’t really know the downstream benefits/deficits of discouraging private sales at a national level. How can we absolutely pre-judge this to be ineffective? I would welcome anyone who has statistics that debunks/weakens my position. Personally I feel it would be a good thing to try that does not burden/punish anyone. I have not seen many people pushing to abolish background checks. They seem to be an acceptable level of “burden” for law-abiding citizens.

      Here’s my current proposal (evolving as I am better informed):
      1. Make CCW legal nationally. I would like to see this licensed with some sort of training (like Texas).
      2. Make all gun transfers go through some sort of background check/registration.

      1. Ryan: I don’t have to have a CCW to carry in Wyoming, and I don’t have to sell through a dealer here.

        I have an even better proposal:

        Make open carry mandatory, and required in order to vote.

        Make all people who refuse to open carry register. If they are hopeless hopolophobes, I don’t want them voting, or making other political decisions.

        I think my proposal is far more reasonable than your proposal to make adults get permission to have the tools to exercise a basic human right.

    3. I treat my firearms exactly like I would any dangerous power tool with an extended reach.
      A large number of traffic fatalities can be traced to driving while impaired. Simply installing a breathalizer in the ignition circuit of every automobile would likely cut car wrecks in half. Sure it would be terribly convenient for everyone else, but hey, it’s for the children.
      Most of us familiar with the whole gun control movement believe that the ultimate goal of the Bradys and such is total confiscation, and registration is just the first step on a long slippery slope. You can call us paranoid if you please, but how then do you explain Great Britain, Australia, or for that matter California?

    4. “I certainly understand that there are other objects that can be dangerous in life, but guns were developed over many years of technological advancement to be really good at killing people and they are capable of doing that in a manner that nothing else comes close to. They do other things also (sport, hunting, deterrent), but regardless of their other uses, guns are more efficient tools for killing people than pretty much anything else.”

      This is just a really ignorant idea. Biological weapons were developed over many years to be really good at killing people. They are far more effective than guns at doing it. It’s a lot easier to spread anthrax around a community than it is to assassinate them with even the scariest liberal nightmare of a gun. In sheer human carnage,bombs also trump guns with the added “bonus” of being less able to be directed towards a specific target in non-controlled situations. Your beliefs about guns are based on prejudice and emotion. You seem a lot more reasonable than others,but your beliefs are frankly ignorant. I don’t believe you are STUPID, based on the caliber of your comments, so there is the possibility of you educating yourself. I recommend you do so.

      “They are different. Doesn’t mean they are “evil” or anything like that, but they are something very different from basically any other object in civilian circulation.”

      Again,this is not true. The sugar substitute you use is probably far more dangerous. Money is a dangerous weapon in the right hands. With 10,000 dollars I could have your head bashed in with a crowbar. Would you be willing to give up your life savings to prevent something like that from happening?

      ” Many pro-gun advocates really don’t know that in many states private transfers do NOT require a background check and there is no license or registration requirement.”

      Yes, this is known as “private enterprise” and serves as the backbone of our economy. It is a healthy endeavor and should be vigorously protected unless you want to live like the average Cuban does,i.e., on about 45$ a year.

      I’ll assume you are a male,if you are female substitute ovaries. You have testicles. These testicles can get cancer and kill you. Do you cut off your healthy testicles to prevent them from becoming cancerous or do you hold onto as much of them as you can until you are forced to choose between your testicles or your life? If you’re like the typical person, you choose the latter. All forms of violent crime have continuously trended downwards for years. Our society has become safer and more peaceable over the years. We are getting healthier, not sicker. Regulating private enterprise in that environment is insane and self-destructive.

      “Just requiring every firearm transfer to go through an FFL would, over time, have an impact on the ease with which criminals can get weapons. It wouldn’t happen immediately, obviously, but over time this very simple step would help.

      And that is just the simplest of regulations that, to me, seems like a “DUH” regulation.”

      It is quite an intuitive solution that occurs naturally….to a Communist. See Cuba or the Soviet Union for examples of how well Communist economics works.

      While you’re busy running yourself ragged trying to prevent criminals from getting guns, I could make one out of a heavy spring and a ballpoint pen in about 30 minutes.You don’t even have to have a high school education to fabricate a gun. Mechanical actions are very simple. All you will be doing is (a) harming the economy and (b) hamstringing law-abiding citizens with pointless regulations.

      “Why do pro-gun advocates fight against something that simple? What is the negative of requiring gun transfers to go through an FFL nationwide?”

      How would you like to have to register with the government in order to buy the tools you need to do your job? Every time you buy a nail, you have to go through a background check and sit on a waiting list. After a while,I imagine you would find a different profession.

      My resistance to the idea is that it is irrational. I could build a gun capable of firing thousands of rounds per minute for under 100$ and no part of it would be flagged,assuming I did my own machining. So what is the point of bothering law-abiding people when you’re not even accomplishing the goal you’re setting out to accomplish?

      The reason why we need warrants to arrest people is because people who aren’t doing anything wrong deserve to not be hassled. I imagine you support that. So why can’t you support the same sentiment with regard to gun owners? Just because you’re afraid? Your neighbors could be cannibal necrophiliacs for all you know, but that doesn’t give you the right to arbitrarily search their house or steal their property.

      The solution to gun violence without heavy-handed and ineffectual meddling in the affairs of the law-abiding is neutralization of the shooter quickly and effectively after they show their intention to harm others. Yes, that requires you to stand up and be a man. That might be difficult for you,but I’m sure you saw it done on t.v. once, so you’ll manage .

      The will to live is a pretty powerful motivator.

      1. You can build a full auto submachine gun with a trip to home depot, and a junkyard, and hand tools. 3 moving parts, 4 springs. No, I will not tell you how.

      2. Matthew House my friend and I were each going to build a semi-auto pistol from home depot parts and test them for, reliability, accuracy, ease of use etc… We wanted to test our fabrication/engineering skills on a project neither of us have worked on before. Just for bragging rights, and to expand our knowledge. While researching how to do this we found out it would have been illegal to do this. Which is lame, we are studying to be engineers and physicists. We aren’t criminals we just wanted to test the bounds of our abilities…

      3. I say guns are the most efficient tool for killing available to civilians. You reply with two items (biological weapons and bombs) that are available only to the military. I think I feel my point is proved.

        I am 100% certain that no sugar substitute or dollar bills can kill me in seconds from 30 feet away. A gun can.

        Are you really trying to argue that if we make private transfers go through an FFL, the whole US economy will collapse?

        We already require NCIS checks on firearm purchases through FFLs. Is it that dramatic a change or threat to free enterprise to say:

        “If you want to sell your gun to a friend, go to the local gun shop and run the check through them for $10.”

        You are going to have to do some pretty substantial mental gymnastics to convince anyone that this is a threat to the economy.

        It is fascinating that you a lot of you (in theory) can make a gun. If we ever reach a point where any significant number of crimes are committed with homemade guns, I’d be happy to talk about it. But, truth is, most criminals can’t make a gun and if they did, it would not be a very good one.

        I mean… “assuming I did my own machining”?? Really?? How many criminals A. have the technical expertise to machine gun parts and B. have access to the machining tools required to do it??

        You talk about “heavy handed” meddling. Is it REALLY a HUGE interference in your life that on the few occasions you want to sell or buy a gun, you go to the gun store to have them facilitate the transaction? I mean, I don’t know about you, but I have at least 5 FFLs within a few miles of my house. Not exactly a big burden.

      4. pizza pinochle, said: I say guns are the most efficient tool for killing available to civilians.

        Correct. Government should fear the governed. Making government fear the governed requires that we be effectively armed.

        This is a feature, not a bug. If you want to be under the government’s thumb completely, move to Europe.

        If you are such a rabbit person that you do n ot trust yourself with the means for effective self-defense, then I pity you.

      5. Kristophr-

        You may want to talk to Anarchanonymous above and get your stories straight. His response to my evaluation of guns as the most efficient weapon available to civilians was that I was ignorant, prejudiced, emotional and stupid. Yup. All four of those, just for saying that guns are the most efficient tool for killing available to civilians.

        I never said it was a feature or a bug. I just stated the fact that guns are not like other objects/tools in civilian circulation because they are so efficient when it comes to killing people. It seems you agree, which is actually a rarity among pro-gun advocates I have talked to who frequently advocate that all sorts of things (like sugar substitutes, spoons, and ropes) are just as effective at killing as guns.

        BTW, to both of you, congratulations on not stooping to name calling and personal insults…oh wait…

        “Yes, that requires you to stand up and be a man. That might be difficult for you, but I’m sure you saw it done on t.v. once, so you’ll manage .”

        “If you are such a rabbit person that you do not trust yourself with the means for effective self-defense, then I pity you.”

        Well, I guess thanks for limiting it to meaningless sniping at the end of your post?

        Try to stick with discussing facts and information, not taking middle school level cheap shots with no relevance to the conversation.

      6. Blotto,

        I’ll reply to you, but it probably will be a brief exchange.

        I can find 100 anti-gun people with just as many studies and stats as WriterInBlack “proving” gun control works and that the best approach is a total ban on all weapons.

        If Writer and those people want to take turns presenting their version of the “facts” and ignoring each other while pretending they are having a debate, they are free to do so. I’m not really interested and NEITHER side in those types of broadside exchanges is remotely convincing to me.

        I’m not declaring victory. I am declaring that the exchange is of no benefit, thus, I am not going to continue. If this WAS a “logically rigorous” exchange, maybe that would be different, but there is very little that has been logical in Writers approach.

        You, of course, think that I am the one not using logic. I’m not going to get back into a full-fledged discussion, but I will give one very concrete example that Writer has been going to over and over that is a clear demonstration.

        ~~~

        Fire vs. Guns

        Writer repeatedly claims that fire is just as effective/dangerous as guns, arguing that there is no reason to have gun control because fire can do the same thing.

        He cites as evidence mass killings using fire, focusing on the Happy Land fire from 1990.

        Points he has correct:

        -In very specific circumstances, a fire can be as or more deadly than firearms and can be easier to execute. Happy Land is an example…an old building that had been repeatedly cited for fire code violations, an illegal social club, too many people in too small a space, no fire alarms, no fire suppression system, no fire exits. In very unique circumstances, fire can be an effective tool for mass murder.

        Logical failings of his position:

        – While you can find specific instances of deadly mass killings through fire, these are extremely limited and the annual rate of fire homicide is very low. The exceptional cases (Happy Land) do not indicate a widespread trend. Simply put, while arson supplies are easily and readily available, more so than guns, they are NOT used with the same frequency as guns.

        – Fire is not effective in other criminal activity (robbery, etc) where guns are frequently used, so the effectiveness of fire in mass killings has no relevance to a discussion about gun use in criminal activity outside of mass killings, which is where the vast majority of firearm violence takes place.

        – The use of fire in mass killings does not change the fact that guns are used in homicides and violent more than any other method. If fire is used in a significant number of crimes, propose legislative changes to protect from fire. Currently, guns are used in a significant number of crimes, more than any other method, so there is good cause to consider legislative changes to protect from gun violence. Both can be a problem, the fact that fire is a possible problem does not negate the problem already posed by guns.

        ~~~

        The logic of his position on fire arson vs. guns simply does not stand up. Most of his positions suffer from similar logical fallacies, but when those are pointed out to him, he simply moves on to his next poorly supported position.

        Want proof? Go back and read the section on explosives. I ask how many deaths the explosives used at Columbine caused. Writer’s response: “Irrelevant.”

        Really?? That is irrelevant?? The fact that explosives, which you claim will take over for guns if gun control is improved, have not been largely ineffective when used in an identical situation [One incident, columbine: The same people use two methods (guns and bombs) to try and kill people. One succeeds (guns) one does not (bombs)] is not relevant?

        His response: “One of the common means of killing people in job lots is arson. Why do you continue to ignore that, focusing only on “bombs”?”

        You will notice, he never even replies to a significant position (bombs have not been effective in many situations when guns have been effective), instead, diverting the discussion because he has no reply. He jumps back to arson, which, as demonstrated above, is just as weak a position.

        Blotto, if you can reply to those points with clear logic, not diverting to new subjects or ignoring, I might reply if I see some benefit.

        I would suggest you reply to those points clearly (the logic of arson fires and explosives), and then present one counter point if you like. Don’t spew out 15 paragraphs of rehtorical questions and speculation, present clear points with facts.

        The discussion probably won’t go in a direction that is useful to me or worth the time, but I’ll give you a chance. Writer has demonstrated that his primary methods are evasion and distraction, which serves to waste time and reinforce previously held positions, but serves no real purpose.

        1. “I can find 100 anti-gun people with just as many studies and stats as WriterInBlack “proving” gun control works and that the best approach is a total ban on all weapons.”

          Well, you can find lot’s of people who make that claim anyway.

          But I’ll lay you odds you haven’t actually looked at the studies, how they were done, and the data behind them.

          These “studies” always . . . always . . . use some kind of “sampling” method. Total stats on what weapons are used in most crimes simply are not kept nationally. When you have sampling there’s always the risk of sample bias.

          Second, these studies generally make claims about “gun crime” as if being killed by a gun or being robbed at gunpoint or being raped with a gun used to intimidate into compliance (rare, BTW, per the DOJ), or assaulted where there is significant risk of death or serious bodily injury (“aggravated assault” by definition) is so much worse than the same crime committed with something else. A murder victim is a murder victim whether shot, stabbed, strangled, or beaten to death.

          Third, correlation != causation. They point to foreign nations with “gun control” and lower crime rates than the US but fail to mention that they had the lower crime rates before they had the gun control. They had low crime. They passed gun control. They still had low crime. (Although in many cases crime rates went up after passing “gun control”, but still could be claimed as “lower than the US.”) This bit of information, which invalidates the claim that gun control is the reason for the low crime, gets left out of those “studies”. Why is that, do you think?

          Fourth, when making international comparisons these studies are always limited to “developed nations” or “western nations”. Why? Why should that matter unless some factors other than gun control are more important? Why assume, then, that those factors stop working when the nation is “developed” or “western”?

          Fifth, the same people who trot out these studies are also the ones who predict “fender benders turning into shootouts” or “bar fights turning into gun fights” every time “shall issue” comes up in a State which doesn’t currently have it. They predict it every time. Shall issue then passes and their predictions fail to come true. If they are so consistently inaccurate here, where else are they being inaccurate? Maybe in the “studies” they conduct?

          You see, unlike you I looked at the studies, at what they claimed, at what they actually said, and at what went into them. And I made an informed assessment, not just a knee-jerk anti-gun reaction.

          When I did my study, and I did it myself because I was not taking anyone’s word on it, I took the DOJ’s own published stats, State by State for the violent felonies it tracks. I used an anti-gun organization’s assessment of the gun control in each State, the Brady Scorecard, which gave a numerical value for the strength of the gun control of each State. Then, having those numbers, I ran them looking for correlation., for whether there was a statistically significant correlation. Remember that “statistically significant” is simply a means of saying that one can be detected at all from other factors.

          There was none.

          Thus, in the US, gun control has no detectable effect on total violent crime. None.

          When I did my mass shooting study, (again, I did it because I wasn’t taking anybody’s word) I took every single one I could find, not cherry picking anything. I used an explicit, objective criterion to determine whether a particular incident should be included or not (4 or more killed as part of the same event). And, much as it might have been tempting to do so, I did not include shootings where the person was stopped (by an armed person at the scene) before the threshold of 4 or more killed was reached. Tempting as it was to include them as evidence that armed people present at the scene save lives, the criteria were the criteria and I wasn’t going to bend them in my favor either. Likewise, in categorizing “gun free zone”, “guns severely restricted”, and “guns allowed” I used the least restrictive category unless I could prove the higher restriction. And with that said more than 90% happened in “gun free” or “guns severely restricted” areas. More than 90%. Coincidence? Or could there be a reason for it?

          Again, unlike you, I looked at the actual data, at crime rates, at the “mass shootings” that are so often used to justify more restrictions on personal liberty. (Of course when one points out how data on mass shootings indicates that “gun free zones” cause more problems than they “cure”, why, then folk say “mass shootings are very rare and shouldn’t drive policy. Double standard much?)

          I looked. You jerked the knee.

          There is a difference.

        2. You assure me that you can produce “find 100 anti-gun people with just as many studies and stats as WriterInBlack” instead of actually posting anything beyond your beliefs, while we’re posting data from actual sources, though they’re questionable ones like the DoJ. It’s not our version of “the facts”, that’s what you seem to be doing. We’re digging for data and coming to a conclusion, while you seem to be doing the opposite.

          Your approach to “logically rigorous” exchange seems to be to continue to circle back to the one point you feel confident about, and ignore anything counter to your beliefs. Having said that, I’ll give it a shot.

          Not trying to put words in writerinblack’s mouth, but the point I believe he was trying to make was that spree shootings (which are rare, and represent a very specific subset of criminals using guns) are not the only means of criminal mass murder. That the frequency and body counts for these two methods are not equal was never meant to be the point. Arson mass murders are even more rare than mass shootings. Why is debatable, but access to firearms (legal and illegal) is not doubt a contributing factor. Media coverage probably plays a role too. The point was not that the two were in competition, but rather that even if firearms could be magically banned, confiscated, all smuggling halted, and knowledge of how to make them expunged from the collective consciousness, there would be another means available for sociopaths to kill lots of people. The solution of banning semi-automatic rifles only makes sense if you ignore this, and assume that sociopaths are only sociopathic in close proximity to guns.

          Fire is not effective in other criminal activities like robbery or rape, but that wasn’t the point. Fire is a lot more effective in insurance fraud, but that wasn’t the point, either. Guns can be used in criminal assaults, rapes, robberies and murders, but they can also be used effectively to defend against those crimes. You only seem to be willing to acknowledge the former. The fault isn’t with writerinblack’s logic, it’s with your selective interpretation of his logic. If you were truly interested in rigorous debate, you’d do some research for numbers on both sides of the argument (as we do) instead of waiting for us to bring them up, and then either ignoring them, or dismissing them as incapable of shaking your beliefs.

          At the risk of being accused of “diverting to other subjects”, substitution is perhaps more clearly documented in suicides. While teen suicides in Canada by firearm have gone down (even before more strict gun control was enacted in 1997), other methods have filled in any dip in the curve: http://stopbullyingcanada.wordpress.com/statistic/ Take the guns away from the suicidal, and they’re still suicidal. Taking guns away from sociopaths doesn’t cure them of their sociopathy. Lantz was intelligent and determined. He tried to buy a rifle at Dick’s Sporting Goods, but didn’t want to wait for the two week waiting period. If his mom didn’t have firearms, to you really think he would have just shrugged his shoulders and gone back to his quiescent life?

          Concerning bombs (sorry, “diverting to other subjects” again), Kiebold and Harris built duds, but again, that didn’t affect their sociopathy. If you think the Feds have your back on this one since Columbine and Oklahoma City, guess again: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0505/issues.htm, specifically “The ATF lacks the authority to regulate ammonium nitrate and some commonly used explosives”. The Taliban seems to have bombs figured out, and most of them can’t read. My point is not to commit tangenticide, but to point out that you can’t bubble-wrap the world. Banning the tools of man only makes sense if you focus on the evil uses and ignore the good. Guns have good uses, first and foremost in my mind, saving my life. Taking my guns away from me won’t make you any safer, but it will make me more vulnerable. Count on hope if you want to, I’d prefer to have a more reliable game plan.

    5. Every gun? My dad takes 100 or so year old barrels, rifles them, carves a stock, etc. and assembles black powder rifles. I dont have a clue how to load or shoot one of them, if i tried i would most likely hurt myself, at least. But some of these weapons will be a legacy passed on to me and my children. Should my eventual inheritance of this be scrutinised? These guns are new, fully functional. They will kill a person just like any other gun. If we say, we dont have to regulate these because they are unlikely to be used in that way, what then are the other requirements to be registered. We pick the features we dont like? That gun is scarier? That point was already made. We regulate the ar 15 cause more people use it for defense, cause it happens thats its main function for more people, not for massive shootings? Its commonly carried by law enforcement. It can be used by those who prefer to hunt small game. Im far from being an expert but i see these suggested regulations effecting the good guys more than the bad.

      1. However, just how much “scrutiny” are you worried about?

        When your dad gives you the gun, go to the shop and have them transfer it. Pay the $20.

        In 50 years, when you want to transfer it to your son, go to a shop and have them transfer it. Pay $20.

        Is $40 and w trips to a gun shop really that big of a deal over 100 years of passing a legacy/inheritance from father to son to grandson?

        That said…

        I definitely think there could be some exceptions for guns that are extremely unlikely to show up in criminal activity. Single shot muzzle loading blackpowder rifles, for example, are highly unlikely to be used in a robbery as they take 45 seconds to reload.

        Don’t think that is at all unreasonable.

        1. My property, be it my gun, my watch or whatever, is my property, and it’s no one else’s business if I want to pass it on to a relative or friend. Do you really want the government’s nose stuck in every aspect of your life? Why in hell should I pay a fee and fill out intrusive reports? Just to make a bunch of whiney libs feel good?

      2. Peter-

        How many of your other possessions require a background check if you purchase it from a retailer?

        Did you have to get a background check when you bought your watch at the store?

        Guns are different. They are not like other possessions. They currently require background checks in many sale/transfer situations, unlike anything else you own. All I propose is extending that regulation to private transfers as well.

        1. “Peter-

          How many of your other possessions require a background check if you purchase it from a retailer?

          Did you have to get a background check when you bought your watch at the store?

          Guns are different. They are not like other possessions. They currently require background checks in many sale/transfer situations, unlike anything else you own. All I propose is extending that regulation to private transfers as well.”

          Danger Will Robinson! Danger! Circular argument alert! Guns are a Special Case because there are laws around them that define their dangerousness. Because of this Dangerousness we need more Laws to contain this Special Case!.

          Wait. What? The circle is squared and divide by zero summons Cthulhu. Bring a bigger boat and more shotguns.

      3. Mike-

        Ha ha…

        While I definitely appreciate the humor in the assertion, this isn’t a circular argument. Although, I can see how you might think it is one based on how it was presented.

        Here is the argument from the starting point.

        Guns are dangerous and different from other objects, because they are the most efficient tool for killing people available to civilians.

        Because guns are dangerous, we place some limits on who can own them. Prohibited persons include felons etc.

        To ensure that prohibited persons do not acquire guns, we run background checks when purchasing at FFLs.

        To ensure that prohibited persons do not acquire guns, we should make all gun transfers go through the same process and be transferred through an FFL.

        The nature of the gun (as a dangerous tool) is the starting point for requiring background checks. The nature of the gun does not change if it is sold through an FFL or sold in a private sale. Why should one require safety while the other is unregulated?

        There are points you can make arguments, but if you think background checks are a fundamentally good idea (to prevent violent offendors from owning guns), why should it only be applied in certain situations? Does the gun become less dangerous because Bob down the street is selling it instead of “Bob’s Gun Shop?”

        1. “Guns are dangerous and different from other objects,”

          Different from other objects. Yes, in that they, along with other “weapons of offense or armor of defense” (legal definition of “arms”, per actual law dictionaries, at the time the Constitution was written) are the only objects possession of which by the people is explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution.

          “the most efficient tools for killing people available to civilians.”

          Assumes facts not in evidence. The largest school killing in the US was committed without guns. The largest mass murder in the US was committed without guns. Several other mass murders, larger than any committed with guns, were committed without guns.

          If guns actually were the most efficient tools for killing people then gun related mass murders would be the ones with the largest death tolls. They aren’t.

          “Prohibited persons include felons etc.”

          The FIfth Amendment says, among other things, “nor be deprived of life, liberty or property except by due process of law.”

          For convicted felons, due process has been satisfied. For those judged mentally incompetent in court, due process has been satisfied.

          The problem comes when one wants to extend restrictions on liberty to those who have not had due process.

          “To ensure that prohibited persons do not acquire guns, we should make all gun transfers go through the same process and be transferred through an FFL”

          And this is where you go wrong. By putting a requirement that all people must get government approval for the sale or transfer of their private property you are depriving them of liberty without due process of law. That is a violation of the fifth, let alone the second.

          Also, the “we should” is an assumption of the “proper” result. But that assumption is also your conclusion. Thus, circular logic.

          The practicality of using such a de-facto registration as a means of reducing criminal availability of guns has been pretty thoroughly demolished elsewhere in this discussion.

          Also, the concern about about universal registration (which is what this amounts to) being a prelude to ban/confiscation is also there, and quite justified when we have folk over on liberal boards discussing how to completely ban guns and how universal registration is a necessary step to that. It’s made even more of a concern when then Attorney General Janet Reno goes on national television (Good Morning America) and says that waiting periods are just a step, registration is just a step, that the goal is the complete prohibition of civilian ownership of firearms.”

          If you really want people to believe that registration is not just a step toward confiscation you really need to get the people proposing registration as “reasonable gun control” to stop saying that it is in unguarded moments. Mind you, that ship has probably sailed by this point–too many examples already of “reasonable gun control” proponents saying that they really want to ban them all. But that they continue to make such statements does not help your case.

        2. “A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey of 14,285 state prison inmates found that among those inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were sent to jail, 0.7% obtained the firearm at a gun show, 1% at a flea market, 3.8% from a pawn shop, 8.3% from a retail store, 39.2% through an illegal/street source, and 39.6% through family or friends.” (from: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940 via http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#background)

          The “Gun show loophole” gets mentioned often by the gun-control advocates, but I’m left to wonder if it’s not a case of the drunk losing his wallet in the dark alley, but looking for it under the lamp post because the light is better there.

          Others have made a point of asking why government should be involved in private sales, and I’ll leave that discussion elsewhere. My question is; If the Brady Campaign, VPC, etc. are truly committed to reducing criminal gun violence, why are they focusing the majority of their efforts on 0.7% of the criminal gun supply? If they want to reduce the numbers of guns in the hands of criminals, the most bang for the buck would seem to be to focus efforts on illegal street dealers and family/friends. That might require getting up-close and personal to armed criminals though, which might put a crimp in their beliefs, not to mention threaten their lives. Far better to bait the bear that they know is muzzled by responsibility and accountability.

      4. Two quick replies:

        “ The largest school killing in the US was committed without guns. The largest mass murder in the US was committed without guns. Several other mass murders, larger than any committed with guns, were committed without guns.
        If guns actually were the most efficient tools for killing people then gun related mass murders would be the ones with the largest death tolls. They aren’t.”

        Two problems:
        One, those other mass killings were carried out with bombs/explosives or a jumbo jet, items that are NOT available to the civilian population. Yes, you can attempt to manufacture them, but the success rate is pretty low.

        Two, if you choose “body count of single incident” as your standard then yes, more deaths in one incident from explosives. If you choose “body count over a year” as your standard, then more deaths from guns.

        This is what I am talking about. Pro-gun people acting like guns really aren’t that dangerous or really aren’t somehow easier to kill people with or all that other crap when all of reality screams differently.

        Simple situation: If you take an untrained person with a average education and say “You need to kill someone, here are your choices..” and give them a knife, a pile of explosive making supplies, a gun, and anything else, they are going to pick the gun. Any idiot who can pull back a slide/bolt/hammer and point in the right direction has a pretty good chance at killing someone with a gun. Nothing else comes close. Why is this so hard for you to admit?

        Second (and very short)

        You will have to explain how transferring through an FFL for the purpose of preventing a sale to a prohibited person is depriving someone of liberty. Second, in constitutional law, rights can be infringed/burdened if the burden is outweighed by the public good. In this case, the “burden” is a trip to an FFL and $20. Not much of a burden for a very large public good.

        1. “items that are NOT available to the civilian population.”

          That turns out not to be the case. For one thing several of the mass murders with higher death tolls than any mass shooting were committed with _fire_. Gasoline, Kerosene, and Matches are certainly still available to the “civilian population.”

          As for explosive, your “success rate is low” simply shows how very little you know about the subject. The largest mass murder in US history was committed using fertilizer and fuel oil–both still readily available and hardly “success rate is low.”

          As for others: you should know (since I’ve pointed it out more than once elsewhere in this discussion) the US Army has a training manual on improvised weapons which includes both firearms and explosives. It is intended for use by Special Forces to teach partisans in foreign wars how to fight resistance movements. The procedures provided in that manual work

          One downright easy high explosive is potassium chlorate. It’s trivially easy to make by not one but two different processes–both using commonly available materials. Mix it with common petroleum jelly and you have plastic explosive.

          Then there’s the case we had, just south of here where the “explosive” was apparently a removed gas valve and a microwave on a timer to serve as an ignition source–basically an improvised fuel-air explosive. It blew the house in question to smithereens, along with a neighboring house, and damaged four more.

          Now imagine the same thing only instead of a house in a suburban area it’s a warehouse near the city center. An order of magnitude more powerful explosion and lots more people nearby.

          Your assumption that the only alternative to guns is explosives is wrong.

          Your assumption about the availability of explosives to someone who wishes to cause harm is also wrong.

          You are basing your arguments on premises that just aren’t true.

          “If you choose body count over a year….” And the sound you hear is the great ripping sound of the goal posts being jerked up and moved.down the field. The argument is “most efficient means of killing” and murders that could equally well be committed with other methods don’t support that claim. You’d have to demonstrate that the killers would not use some other means if they didn’t simply happen to have guns available for that argument to be valid.

          “Simple situation:” Complete strawman. More accurate would be: you want to kill X. You don’t have legal access to guns. Can you still do it?”: Unless the answer is an unqualified “no” then “gun control” cannot help.

          This is why gun grabbers focus on “gun deaths” rather than simply “homicide” because even without firearms bad guys still kill people. This is why their are so few examples (as in none) of “country/State A had high violent crime, passed gun control, and then had low violent crime.” At best you get substitution. The murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults still happen, but with something else.

          But the claim was “most efficient” and history has shown that it’s not.

          “You will have to explain how transferring through an FFL for the purpose of preventing a sale to a prohibited person is depriving someone of liberty. ”

          Simple: if requiring a government background check is not a denial of liberty, you should have no problem with the government requiring you to pass a background check before making internet posts to insure that you’re not a purveyor of child porn.

          You’re not, of course, but some people are. And because some people are we need to check _everybody_ on that matter.

          “Second, in constitutional law, rights can be infringed/burdened if the burden is outweighed by the public good. ”

          No. It’s not a simple “outweighed” but “overwhelming” and there has to be no other way to accomplish the ends.

          But there are other ways to accomplish the ends. If, for instance, someone, after due process, has their right to keep and bear arms removed, why not also remove their “right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure” as well? Any convicted violent felon may be subject to search at any time on any pretext (including pure whim)?

          Or how about a “violent offenders registry” in the model of sexual offenders registries?

          Focus on the criminals and not on the folk who never shot anybody.

          Or a background check and a $20 fee to make internet posts. Surely your posts on the internet aren’t more important than stopping child pornography.

      5. Alright, a few simple things:

        1. How many people did the pipe bombs at comlumbine kill? How many people did the guns kill?

        2. When was the last mass killing in the US using improvised explosives?

        3. When was the last successful bombing of a school?

        4. Same two questions, now with guns.

        I made a quick statement and used “efficiency” as the word, you are trying to argue the minutia or rhetoric rather than meaningful, real life application.

        In real life, the easiest, quickest, least complicated, effective method for one civilian to kill another is with a gun. It is why criminals want guns, it is why YOU want a gun for self defense. It is what they were designed for.

        You can try to argue semantics all you want, but it won’t change that fact.

        “Unless the answer is an unqualified “no” then “gun control” cannot help.”

        This, is sheer idiocy.

        Basically you are saying “If gun control cannot wipe out every possibility of violence in our society, there is no reason to even think about it.”

        Frankly, I don’t care if other methods are available. Once we are killing 10,000 people a year using “other methods” I’ll admit you are right. Given that it doesn’t happen anywhere else in the world and in most civilized countries guns account for a MINORITY of killings, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for your proof.

        That is completely unreasonable. It is clear YOU are of the ilk that cannot see reason in a discussion and will twist and squirm in every way possible to give no ground on anything and throw up a thousand irrelevant arguments (child porn?? What does that have to do with anything???) because you are so convinced you are right. Basically, blind, stubborn, irrational belief. I’ll find others to talk to.

        1. 1. How many did they set off? Weapons not used don’t speak to effectiveness one way or another.

          2. Irrelevant. Weapons not used don’t speak to effectiveness one way or another.

          3. Irrelevant. Weapons not used don’t speak to effectiveness one way or another.

          “In real life, the easiest, quickest, least complicated, effective method for one civilian to kill another is with a gun. ” Even if true, irrelevant. I’m pretty sure the dead don’t _care_ how they died. And even if guns are “easier” (but, funny, the gun grabbers also say that guns are so difficult that only trained professionals can use them effectively), there are still plenty of other ways to kill that are easy enough _and_ that have been _proven_ to be able to kill more people in job lots than are firearms.

          When I did my informal study on mass shootings (every incident involving four or more people killed as part of a single event) the total number killed in mass shootings from 1949 to 2009 (when I did the study) was 602. The largest single incident was Virginia Tech (33).

          Happy Land Fire: 87 killed
          Upstairs Lounge Arson Attack: 32 killed
          Whiskey Au Go Go fire: 15 killed
          Beverly Hills Supper Club fire: 165 killed (although, to be fair, arson was never proven in this case)
          Reno arson fire: 9 killed
          And so on and so on and so on.

          Arson doesn’t get the press that “mass shootings” do (and nobody keeps track nationally on “number killed by arson” as they do by people using guns) but it should be pretty clear from this short sampling that using the same standard of “mass murder” used for mass shootings, arson is just as deadly as gunfire, with quite a few more killed at the “top end.”

          And thus the whole idea that if guns were somehow eliminated (let alone any lesser level of “gun control”) that criminals still wouldn’t kill people in pretty much the same numbers.

          What it will do is render the smaller and weaker, traditionally the chosen victims of violent criminal attack, helpless against those larger and stronger than they are.

          “This, is sheer idiocy.”

          That you don’t like it doesn’t make it wrong.

          Really, that’s the sum total of your argument: that you don’t like it.

          “Given that it doesn’t happen anywhere else in the world and in most civilized countries guns account for a MINORITY of killings”

          More fallacious reasoning. The “doesn’t happen anywhere else” is false. There are plenty of nations with higher homicide rates than the US. Oh, sure, you claim “but among ‘western’ or ‘civilized’ countries…” Well, why should that matter unless other factors than the availability of firearms are not immensely more important in those homicide rates.

          Also, the “usual suspects” had the lower homicide rates before passing “gun control.” And a fairly common pattern is for passing of gun control to be accompanied by violent crime rates going up. A robbed person is still robbed if a person used a chef’s knife rather than a gun. A rape victim is still raped even if the rapist didn’t use a gun (they usually don’t, even in the US). A murder victim is just as dead if they were beaten to death with a cricket bat as if they were shot. But, hay, at least the dead person wasn’t shot. And a tire iron is a far “cleaner” weapon to intimidate a woman into submitting to rape than is a firearm, right?

          After all, it’s the _tool_ that matters.

          “That is completely unreasonable.”

          That you don’t like it doesn’t make it unreasonable.

          But we see “gun grabber argument #6” You absolutely insist on something that has never worked (“registration” has never led to a reduction in violent crime), that is frequently used as a prelude to more severe restrictions including outright confiscation (and has many proponents, in unguarded moments admitting is a prelude to outright confiscation), and when called on it first move the goal posts, and when called on that simply declared that the other side was “unreasonable” and ran away.

          As Larry said in the OP, we’ve heard every single anti-gun argument. You never have anything new. You just keep trying them again, hoping they’ll “stick” this time.

        2. Oh, and I put on the table not one but two proposals that would be at least as effective at “keeping guns out of the hands of criminals” as would your proposed registration scheme and did it without running into either Constitutional issues or adding a new burden to legal gun owners. But you never addressed those, nor even acknowledged them.

          The same results as your stated goal could, therefore, be accomplished without gun registration. Yet you won’t even consider them and simply go with registration. One has to wonder than what goal isn’t being stated that these alternate proposals don’t serve.

      6. Let me put it an different way.

        If we ever get to the point that criminals are deciding that trying to build a bomb is going to be easier than just going and grabbing a gun, I will eat my shorts.

        And, don’t focus on just the mass killings. Focus on the thug who robs someone in the street with a gun. What are they going to do?? Park a fertilizer bomb next to you and say “Give me your wallet or I blow up the city block???”

        It isn’t going to happen.

        1. ” Focus on the thug who robs someone in the street with a gun. What are they going to do??”

          Pick somebody who’s smaller and weaker than them and rob them with a knife, length of pipe, or just beat the shit out of them and take the money off their unconscious body.

          Kind of like they do in all these countries that already have strict gun control.

          BTW, in at least one psychology experiments a knife is more intimidating than a gun. A lot of people fear disfigurement, which a knife represents, more than they fear death.

          Robberies happen just as often in States with strict gun control as in States without. Murders happen just as often in States with strict gun control as in Sates without. Aggravated assaults happen just as often in States.with strict gun control as in States without it.

          There is a very slight negative correlation between strength of gun control (measured by the Brady Campaign’s annual “scorecard”) and rape. However, per the DOJ the vast majority of rapes do not involve use of firearms so this simply indicates how very little such levels of correlation actually mean in practical terms.

          And I’ve already proposed not one but two alternatives to “gun control” that would be at least as effective (frankly, far more effective) at keeping guns out of criminal hands. Why is it you never address those? Why is the answer only “more gun control”? What unstated goal (beyond “keep guns out of criminal hands”) is not being served by these alternatives so that they aren’t worthy of consideration?

      7. Irrelevant?? So you claim bombs are easy and effective, but it is irrelevant to examine their use?? Funny logic.

        You say that bombs are as easy as baking a cake. At columbine, they had 70+ explosive devices. A few Detonated. Most failed to detonate because it turns out that making bombs isn’t easy. When the bombs didn’t go off, they grabbed their guns and very easily committed mass murder. Without the guns, no one dies because their bombs did not work. I can also point you to other stories where people ATTEMPT killings wi a bomb and fail because they don’t detonate or they had the wrong construction and it just made a bunch of smoke and fire, but no explosion.

        As for you “solutions.”

        You proposal was not clearly described, but basically it looks like you want the police to periodically search the house of every felon on parole to make sure they don’t have a gun. Do you have ANY idea e resources that it would take just to search each residence once a year, much less with enough frequency to be effective??

        That plan is completely impractical, questionable effectiveness (how hard is it to hide a handgun?) and is reactionay.

        Once the criminal has the gun, it is too late. Laws need to be preventetive, to keep them from getting the guns in the first place.

        Like you, i’ve heard all your arguments before and you continue on the same old path. You aren’t going to say anything new, but i’ll keep looking for others who might look for meaningful compromise and improvements that actually work.

        1. For somebody who said he was done you certainly are loquacious.

          First, I challenged the “most efficient” claim for guns by pointing out actual examples of people able to kill more people than any mass shooter by using other means.

          One of the common means of killing people in job lots is arson. Why do you continue to ignore that, focusing only on “bombs”?

          “Often enough to be effective.”

          Doesn’t have to be very often. The mere threat of doing so can act as a strong deterrent.

          As for the “massive resources”, you have got to be kidding me. As if maintaining a database of more than 300 million firearms, their owners, and who owns what wouldn’t. And how accurate would that database be? The NFA database is already known to have major errors and it’s much, much smaller than what you are proposing.

          And you object to my proposal for being impractical and of questionable effectiveness? That irony of that claim is downright breathtaking.

          How hard is it to hide a handgun? How hard is it to keep enough of the 300 million existing firearms off the “registry”? How hard is it to hide a handgun? How hard is it to smuggle one? How hard is it to hide a handgun? How hard is it to make one. (And the violent felon doesn’t have to be the one making the handgun–just someone in the “chain” has to make one.)

          “Laws need to be preventative.”

          That is utter nonsense. You want laws to be “preventative.” (Actually, I’m not sure that “preventing crime” is anything more than an excuse–your utter dismissal of even considering anything except “gun control” as a solution suggests otherwise.) But wanting is not the same as need. Let’s use the classic example used to justify restrictions on someone’s rights, shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. By your logic, everyone should be gagged before going into the theater to prevent someone shouting “fire” and getting a lot of people killed in the stampede.

          The only “preventative” nature appropriate to law is deterrence: the threat of being caught and punished making some people “think twice” about committing crimes. Unfortunately, when a person is planning to die in the process anyway, deterrence is not terribly effective except for one thing: out of the 90 separate events I studied covering the period from 1949 to 2009 (when I did the study) there were only 9 mass shooting incidents where I could not prove (with the resources available at the time of completing the study) were at locations where the killer could be highly confident that nobody would be armed. At at least 90 percent (“at least” because if I did not have complete information I assumed the _least_ restrictive category that I could prove–they could have been more restrictive but certainly were not less) of the incidents the killer chose, for whatever reason, a place where no one would be armed.

          90 percent. Have you even considered why that might be?

        2. One other thought. You are dismissive of the idea that registration leads to confiscation. Yet, we have then Attorney General Janet Reno saying in 1993 on national television (“Good Morning America” to be exact), “Registration is just a step. Waiting periods are just a step. The elimination of private firearms is the goal.”

          We have Dianne Feinstein saying “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in, I would have done it.”

          One of the Kos Kids, right now, is arguing about how to completely ban private firearms and, surprise, surprise, registration is a necessary first step in making that happen.

          Again and again in unguarded moments proponents of “reasonable gun control” admit that their eventual goal is total prohibition. And time after time the ink isn’t even dry on a “reasonable compromise” before the people who supposedly only wanted “reasonable gun control” were describing it as a “good first step” for further restrictions.

          So given that history how do you propose to allay the quite reasonable concerns that a “registration” scheme will just be used to lay the groundwork for further restrictions leading eventually to a complete ban?

          Until the proponents of such a system of registration can come up with a way to ensure that the Feinsteins and Renos and Kos Kids of the world cannot use it as a tool for confiscation, then it is simply unacceptable.

          And I don’t think any such insurance will ever be forthcoming because, frankly, the intent is to use it as a tool for confiscation and anyone who says otherwise is either . . . remarkably naive . . . or lying.

      8. I should have been more clear. I am not going to discuss things that are clearly beyond reason (ex: arguing that there is no gun problem, that gun control has to solve all violence or it is meaningless, or that all those uneducated, unskilled, untrained criminals could magically start producing bombs at the drop of a hat and that those bombs are useful in most criminal endeavors). Guns are used in more crimes than anything else. Guns cause more non-accidental deaths than anything else. When something else passes guns in these categories, I’ll happily talk about those items.
        So, back to your proposal. And admittedly, my initial response was a bit short/not all the info I should have given.
        First: News flash for you – that is already the law in many places. Parolees are already subject to suspicion-less/warrantless searches and it has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
        http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2006/09/point-of-law.aspx
        So, if that was going to make a difference, it already would have.
        Second, your proposal is basically that the criminal justice system should do a better job of monitoring parolees. Well, I agree. There are a LOT of things the criminal justice system should do better. But, just saying “this should happen” does not mean it is feasible.
        Currently, every parolee already has an officer assigned to them. Would it be great to cut the work load of these officers in half so they could do a better job of monitoring? Yeah, of course it would. Of course, police forces are already stretched too thin and their budgets are shrinking. If you have a solution that would allow the police to meet their other obligations AND increase random searches for firearms, great, but I kind of doubt you really have a practical application as much as you like the theory.
        Now, compare to my proposal:
        Most of the system already exists (FFLs, NCIS, and even the database is already in place for states that allow it) and you are just expanding it to include all gun transfers across the country, making it a meaningful system rather than the current system that is the equivalent of trying to stop a flood with a fence instead of a dam.
        There is an easy source of funding, charge a small fee per check, a fee which people already pay when they buy from an FFL or use an FFL to make a transfer in states that require it. As the number of transfers increases, the funding/resources to maintain the database increase at the same time.

        There are no new resources to be created, just expansion of existing resources. The expansions is an easy/cheap one (more servers for a bigger database, not exactly tough with todays technology) and has a funding source built in to the system.

        If law abiding citizens (which, every time there is a gun crime I see over and over from the pro-gun crowd that 299,999,000 guns did NOT commit a crime today and are held by law abiding citizens) follow the law and transfer their guns legally, the number of “off the grid” guns will drop quickly.
        Also, as I have said, not EVERY gun needs to be on the registry. Off the top of my head muzzle loaders and single shot bolt action rifles would be pretty pointless to track, as they are used in such a tiny minority of criminal acts.
        “The only “preventative” nature appropriate to law is deterrence: the threat of being caught and punished making some people “think twice” about committing crimes.”

        When I said preventative, this is what I mean. We need to deter people from committing a crime. You are only focused on one situation:
        “When someone has a gun, my gun will deter them from using that gun on me.”

        I am focused on deterring a different crime, namely, selling a gun to a felon or someone who has a high likelihood of later committing a crime in an unregulated sale. Streaming gun transfers through FFLs and making it a crime to sell to someone without using an FFL provides deterrence to selling guns to people who should not have them. Currently, there is no deterrence for this crime (selling guns to criminals) in many places.
        There are other gun policies I would like to see enacted. I think a nationalized CCL would be good, so that CCL was available everywhere. I’d base that system off a careful study of existing CCL requirements (training, background checks, etc) to figure out what system strikes a good balance of protecting the public (Note: not EVERYONE needs to be carrying a firearm in public. I have some good, honest, friends who I would trust with a lot of things, but I would NOT trust to defend me with a gun because of their physical abilities [too clumsy to hit a target in a no-stress situation, much less an adrenaline filled self-defense situation] or personality [freak out when there is a bug…likely to turn their .45 on a spider]) and allowing competent, honest people to act as public defenders/deterrence.
        In general, I think all 20,000 existing gun laws should be wiped off the books and a nationalized system that allows any law abiding, mentally sound citizen to have a gun in their home for self-defense should be in place so that criminals don’t have “easy targets” to pick from (which is currently a problem in places like DC). I would even be in favor of a nationalized class of CCL-Plus, people (probably MOSTLY former law enforcement/military) who go through very rigorous training and background checks (renewed annually or more frequently than that) who could carry in traditional “gun-free” zones. Just like I have friends who I would NOT trust to defend me with a gun, I have other friends who I would trust to take a gun into a bar full of drunks and highly volatile situations and make good, rational, safe decisions with their weapon. I think having these people carrying is a very good thing.
        Unfortunately, the NRA and other pro-gun groups won’t let that happen. They would rather hold fast to their pockets of unregulated guns than let there be reasonable, national system that would establish a consistent environment for firearms across the country.
        If we had a system like that, I think you would see fewer locales trying to “control” guns (DC, Chicago, CA), instead, you would have a country that could have high gun ownership on a national scale without having guns flowing through unregulated markets with no consequences.
        So answer this – Would you accept legislation that does all of these things:
        1. Require all firearm transfers to go through FFLs
        2. Expands the existing firearm database to include all guns and tracks the current owner so that when a gun was used in a crime, it could be traced to a source and, if that source acted illegally, there would be corresponding punishment
        3. Establishes a national CCL and CCL-Plus program that requires licensing and training for any public carry, but is uniform across the country (no more checking each states laws when you travel across the country). Everyone who has a gun in public should be able to produce their license upon request.
        4. Removes all gun bans/hurdles in states/cities and replaces with a national system of gun ownership so that every locale has uniform gun laws that allow guns in the home or place of business with very few restrictions (by place of business I mean by the owner of the business as a tool of self-defense for the business, public carry of customers would fall under #3 above)
        What would you say to that?

        As for your registration leads to confiscation fears: We have a second amendment. It says we have the right to bear arms. I don’t really see that changing any time soon, or ever. The majority of gun control advocates do not want guns banned, they just don’t want guns being handed out like candy with no regulation. Yes, there are people on the far left who want to ban guns, just like there are people on the far right who think there should be NO regulations of any type. Those are the minority extremes. In the middle you find most people who just want the most deadly tool available to civilians regulated in a reasonable manner.

        1. If background checks and registrations actually do provide a public benefit, then they should be paid for by the public at large, rather than forcing the gun buyer to pay for a service that benefits everyone by him/her. Since the buyer already knows that they are eligible or ineligible to purchase a firearm, they are the only one who does not benefit from the background check.
          The idea of having the buyer pay for a check that (supposedly) benefits the public at large is akin to requiring that crime victims be singled out to pay a special tax to pay for the police force that didn’t protect them.

          As to registration; registration is supposed to serve multiple purposes. If these purposes are imbalanced towards the benefit of society, society should be the one that pays. If they are balanced equally, then society should still pay (or at least pay the lion;s share). If, however, they are imbalanced in favor of society, and against the gun owner, it is nonsensical, immoral, and unjust to expect that the gun owner, and not the whole of society, should pay for the registration.

          On the one hand, it allows the police and other public safety workers to be aware of the likely presence of firearms in a building if they have to respond in their official capacity: Firefighters know that the home of a registered gun-owner may contain ammunition that may present certain types of dangers (somewhat like the way a home with a heating oil tank might present a serious danger in a fire), or firearms that need to be safeguarded after the fire is put out, Police know that if the home is broken into, the intruder may be armed, or if they have to serve a warrant, or enforce a restraining order against an occupant, the occupant may be armed, etc.

          On the other hand, registration is supposed to assist the authorities in returning stolen firearms to their legal owners. Sadly, this fails to happen in many cases. The gun owner also risks quite a bit by registering their firearms – such a registration could be used to confiscate the guns in the future, or charge the owner with possession of an illegal weapon if the laws change in the future (this means that the registration, if coerced or even encouraged by the government, would arguably have been a self incriminating act, compelled in violation of the 5th Amendment). Recent events indicate another risk the gun owner incurs through registration – that of having their privacy violated.

          One way that registration information is most assuredly NOT supposed to be used is to invade the privacy of the gun owners by releasing it to the public. Any agency that does that releases such privileged information needs to be sued for violating the civil rights of the registered gun owners, and those responsible must be stripped of public office and criminally charged for their part in the release.

          So registration provides several benefits for society, and practically none for the gun owner. It places the gun owner in jeopardy in several ways, without any great offsetting benefit. This is why voluntary registration programs are usually free, while most compulsory registration programs require that the gun owner pays (military registration of privately owned weapons is one case where registration is mandatory, but also free).

          So once again, if it is being done to benefit society as a whole, it is unjust for the gun buyer/owner to be the one to pay the cost.

          1. Who has to pay for this?

            The impact of gun deaths and injuries go well beyond heartbreak to include billions of dollars of losses to the economy. The cost of U.S. gun violence in work lost, medical care, insurance, criminal-justice expenses and pain and suffering amounted to as much as $174 billion in 2010, according to data compiled by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Calverton, Maryland.

            The nonprofit organization provides cost estimates of illnesses and injuries for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Transportation Department and industry associations, said economist Ted Miller, the group’s principal research scientist.

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-21/shootings-costing-u-s-174-billion-show-burden-of-gun-violence.html

            The Human Cost of Each Gun is $644

            http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/human-cost-each-gun-644/60245/

          2. Your suggestion seems to be to make law abiding gun owners be the only ones to pay for criminal gun usage. How is that fair or just?

            That’s like placing a special tax on women to cover the costs of rape investigations, medical care for rape victims, and rape counseling services.

            Criminals from certain ethnic groups commit far more crimes per capita than those of other ethnic groups. Should we then place a special tax on all members of those ethnic groups to pay society back for the damages? Do we, as a society, want to make the law abiding members of some sub-group have to pay for the actions of lawbreakers who happen to be in that same sub group?

            Law abiding gun owners actually save the taxpayers millions of dollars each year by preventing crimes, assisting law enforcement, and deterring foreign invasion. The value of these services far outweighs the costs of criminal misuse of firearms (even if you still want to make the law abiding members of the sub-group pay for the actions of the lawbreakers). By your argument, we should actually be giving law abiding gun owners a tax break for providing those services to society as a whole.

          3. Joseph, Your reply was based entirely on an assumption. I merely asked a question, which you did not answer.

          4. Since your “answer” to my pointing out that it is ridiculous, immoral, unethical, unjust, and unfair for gun buyers to have to pay for background checks that benefit everyone else in society except themselves, and that registration also benefits society far more than the gun owner, so making the gun owner pay for that is also ridiculous, unethical, immoral, unjust, and unfair was to try to claim that gun owners create costs for society, I responded to your assertion bu showing that gun owners also save a great deal of money for society – thus nullifying your cost argument. I also pointed out that lawful gun owners/users are not the ones who create the costs of unlawful gun use. You don’t seem to have any response to that.

            Why don’t you give a straight answer to my original post first? Why should a gun buyer be the one who covers the cost of a background check, since a background check is supposed to benefit society as a whole, and provides absolutely no benefit for the gun buyer? And please don;t come up with some BS line about the background check allowing the buyer to exercise their rights – because then you have justified poll taxes and other forms of government extortion to gain rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

            Background check fees and mandatory registration fees are clearly a way that government forces citizens to pay in order to exercise their rights. This is no different from the unconstitutional “poll taxes” that were once used to restrict access to voting rights.

          5. You mean that you actually wanted an answer, and weren’t just asking a rhetorical question when you wrote “Who has to pay for this?”

            The obvious answer is that crime victims and society at large both have to pay the costs of crime. A better question would have been “Who should have to pay for this?” And that answer is also simple – the criminals themselves should be made to pay as much as possible.

            Of course, in your many demands for others to answer YOUR questions, you have still refused (or simple been unable) to answer just about every question put before you.

            I’ll ask again – if YOU think that making me pass a background check before buying a firearm will make YOU safer – then shouldn’t YOU be the one paying for that safety, rather than trying to force me to pay for something that makes YOU feel good, but does absolutely nothing to benefit me?

            The same goes for registration – why should I be forced to pay for something that YOU demand, and that benefits YOU far more than it does me?

            How is making me pay a background check fee or registration fee in order to exercise my gun rights any different than requiring a poll tax be paid before allowing someone to exercise their voting rights?

          6. Thanks, Joseph. I posted my question as a reply to your post because of the subject of monetary fairness. I feel this might be an issue with other gun owners too in reading other posts. As you stated in answer to my question, “crime victims and society at large both have to pay…” so in other words, we ALL have to pay for the negative side of guns being a part of society. In consideration of fairness, it is not only unfair but unjust that the victims have to pay and it is unfair for those who would like to see guns banned or don’t own guns to have to pay. It is also unfair for a lawful, responsible gun owner to have to pay for the cost of gun violence, so that leads to your follow up question: Who should have to pay? And I agree with you that certainly the criminal should have to pay, even if they are killed/kill themselves in the process, but how?

            And what about negligent gun owners, for example, those that leave their guns lying around or don’t secure them when they are not home and they get stolen and then those firearms are used to commit a crime, or gun owners who cause harm or damage accidentally, etc. – shouldn’t they have to pay?

            Also on the subject of who should pay what, you asked me: “If YOU think that making me pass a background check before buying a firearm will make YOU safer – then shouldn’t YOU be the one paying for that safety, rather than trying to force me to pay for something that makes YOU feel good, but does absolutely nothing to benefit me?”

            And my answer is, background checks are a benefit to society as a whole, so there is certainly also a benefit to the gun buyer (you), being a part of society. And not all of our society even wants “you” to have a gun in the first place, let alone pay to assist you in getting one in any way. I want to own a car so I pay the required fees to own one. Liability and registration for my car ensures accountability to society if I misuse or cause damage with my car, but I don’t expect you to pay my fees because of that.

            And that brings me to a comparison of gun to car ownership. A car is a useful tool with potential to do costly damage to life and property by accident or purposeful misuse. So is a gun. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to have the same requirements for gun ownership as cars and for the same reasons, or at the very least, liability insurance that also covers intentional harmful use of a gun or a stolen firearm? If Adam Lanza’s mother had been required to buy liability insurance on her firearms, maybe the victims’ families would not have had to pay to bury their loved ones at least. Possibly costs to the community for cleaning up the school would have been covered. The same for the firearms used in the Co. theatre massacre which were legally purchased.

            I would appreciate it if you would read this article before you reply. It also covers information on how liability insurance could have increased public safety potential which would also reduce injury or loss of life and cost for damages. Once you read the article, if you do not agree with this possible solution, I have another question for you as well as anyone reading this post (especially gun owners who understand their side of the issues the best).

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2012/12/29/gun-liability-insurance-still-a-viable-proposal/2/

            What possible solution(s) do you think would work that both sides of the gun debate would agree on to help solve the problems of gun violence in America? (Please do not include “more guns” as a solution as that is a known point of disagreement.) Thanks.

          7. “And my answer is, background checks are a benefit to society as a whole, so there is certainly also a benefit to the gun buyer (you), being a part of society. And not all of our society even wants “you” to have a gun in the first place, let alone pay to assist you in getting one in any way. I want to own a car so I pay the required fees to own one. ”

            You’ve missed the point in several ways.
            I will say this again: I gain absolutely zero benefit from my own background check – because I already know that I am not a criminal or insane. It is disingenuous to claim that allowing me to buy a gun after I pass a background check is a benefit for me, because without the background check requirement, I would still be able to buy a gun, and I would be just as safe (regarding my gun purchase).
            Therefore, forcing gun buyers to pay for their own background checks is ridiculous, and since you are charging a fee/tax on a citizen before allowing them to exercise their rights, it is exactly the same as charging a poll tax before allowing a citizen to vote.

            While I do supposedly gain a benefit from background checks performed on others who seek to purchase firearms, I am not being asked to bear the full cost of those checks (nor would that be appropriate). If there is a public safety benefit as a whole, then such checks should be paid for from the portion of taxpayer funds dedicated to public safety.

            You then want to compare owning guns to owning cars. That dog won’t hunt, because there is a RIGHT to keep and bear arms, while operating (or even parking/storing) a car on the public roads is a PRIVILEGE.

            Rights and privileges are two very different things, and shouldn’t be confused.

            In terms of liability – there are already several types of laws that hold a gun owner financially liable for deaths, injuries, or damages caused by negligent use or storage of firearms. People with knowledge about gun ownership should already be aware of this.

          8. Again, you have refused to answer many reasonable questions, yet demand answers to your “questions” that are often non-sequiters.

            For example, give a real and honest answer to my question about why you think that those who benefit from background checks shouldn’t pay collectively for them, and why you believe that the cost should be borne solely by the citizen who wishes to exercise his/her rights and gains absolutely no benefit from their own background check. Then explain how this is different than a “poll tax” (where potential voters would be asked to pay something like $20-$200 for a background check to ensure that they are a legitimate voter).
            Do not make any ridiculous and dishonest claims that allowing the citizen to purchase the firearm once they pass the background check is a benefit – since it clearly isn’t, and the background check is actually an obstacle/limitation to exercising their rights (although in the case of an “instant check”, it is generally accepted as a reasonable one).
            Do not use analogies to privileges, as we are talking about rights.

          9. Although I am not against law abiding, responsible citizens having guns, a significant portion of the population would rather ban your guns than pay for your background check.

          10. “a significant portion of the population would rather ban your guns than pay for your background check.”

            Luckily for us, we have a constitution that protects our rights, so it doesn’t really matter if a “significant portion” of our people are ignorant and reacting out of fear. The background check itself is a compromise to the anti-gun crowd – in return, they should be willing to pay for it (in fact, it could be argued that in a “perfect world” of fairness and justice, the full cost of background checks would be paid by anti-gun people only, and not by gun owners, gun buyers, or even the taxpayers at large, since the anti-gunners are the ones demanding that a background check take place).

            Please refrain from taking what is already a compromise position, and trying to cast it as an extreme “gun rights” position.

          11. Out of all the gun rights issues I have read about on this blog, yours is the most selfish and petty. I won’t be replying to your posts again.

          12. Insisting that we pay for a benefit to you to exercise our rights is selfishness on your part. Pay for your own benefits rather than demanding that other people do it for you.

            In fact that, in combination with the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare (in which it was valid for the government to pass a “tax”, in the form of a “fine” for people who did not buy a particular something from private companies) to get the benefit they say they want that they want to charge to law abiding gun owners.

            Resolved: every individual over the age of 18 who does not possess at least one firearm or who does not have insurance meeting standards afterward to be determined but covering firearm related injuries and damages shall be required to pay a fine (tax) of $1000 per year,

            There you go. Application of the precedent set by Obamacare to hae the people who want the benefit to pay for the benefit.

          13. “Resolved: every individual over the age of 18 who does not possess at least one firearm or who does not have insurance meeting standards afterward to be determined but covering firearm related injuries and damages shall be required to pay a fine (tax) of $1000 per year,”

            Sounds about right, David.

            Thanks for agreeing that it is not “petty” or “selfish” to want to exercise your rights without having to pay a “poll tax” or special fee.

          14. Sorry to have been away for a few day (RL issues), but I wanted to thank you for your recent posts Joseph. I too disagree with T.C.’s assessment that they are “petty and selfish”. It sounds like he’d rather not address your points because he lacks the moral and factual ammunition to do so (to use a charged metaphor), ammunition I haven’t found to exist, and would rather resort to ad hominem (I am really liking that term, too). He still hasn’t answered my guess that he is a liability lawyer…if so, I don’t think he’s a very skilled one.

            In any case, thank you for another well thought out argument.

            FWIW, to T.C., I do carry liability insurance (one of the perks of NRA membership is a good deal on firearms liability insurance), though laws to make that mandatory would have limited effect, and for the most part I would guess that the primary beneficiaries would be trial and liability lawyers. Here in New Mexico, just over 50% of drivers have liability insurance for their cars, despite this being mandated by law. Many Americans are big on liberties but short on the responsibilities that accompany them. Segue into my rant on the cost of “justice” in America, or the fiscal cliff, or…

          15. “Out of all the gun rights issues I have read about on this blog, yours is the most selfish and petty. I won’t be replying to your posts again.”

            Well T.C., since you have yet to make an actual constructive reply to any posts, I won;t be crying over your declaration that you won’t be responding to my posts. I understand that you are one of those people who revels in your ignorance and has closed your mind to other ideas.

            It is hardly “petty” or “selfish” for the party that has compromised their rights to ask not to have to be the one to also financially pay for the compromise. It’s not much of a compromise if one side has to give up everything, while the other side simply makes more and more onerous demands. This is why gun rights advocates may seem unwilling to “compromise” – because whenever we have given up our rights and freedoms in the past, it has not only failed to satisfy the anti-gun, anti-freedom side, but has simply caused them to demand more from us.

            If we agree that a limited infringement on our 2nd Amendment rights (background checks) is a reasonable compromise for public safety, then the background check should be as quick as possible (waiting periods are a further infringement), and should not place a special fee, or tax on the citizen who is merely seeking to exercise their rights.

            Making the gun buyer pay for the background check is the equivalent of charging you a fee to check that you are not going to say anything controversial before allowing you to speak in public, or pay a background check fee to ensure that you are who you say you are, and that you are actually a legitimate voter before being allowed to cast a ballot. I’m certain that in either of the other two cases, you would be screaming at the top of your lungs about the injustice and unfairness of the system. – but since you don;t personally care about guns, you have no empathy for how others feel, just as you have no respect for the rights of others.

          16. “What possible solution(s) do you think would work that both sides of the gun debate would agree on to help solve the problems of gun violence in America? (Please do not include “more guns” as a solution as that is a known point of disagreement.) Thanks.”

            Since “Less Guns” has pretty much proven a failure, then “more guns in more places” seems like a logical place to start. But you don;t want to allow me to make any suggestions that you don’t like – no matter what the facts are. Sorry. SO i won;t talk about adding more firearms to the mix, just about where those firearms can be.

            1) Based on the historical results of “shall issue” programs, we have seen that more people with carry permits would reduce violent crime.

            2) Based on the repeated failures of “gun free zones” as a safety measure, allowing carry permit holders to carry in more places would also reduce violent crime.

            3) There have been several high profile failures of the background check system to deny firearms sales to people whose mental health issues should have prevented them from being able to purchase firearms (VA Tech shooter, Ft Hood shooter, and the Aurora CO shooter come to mind). There is an obvious problem when mental health privacy laws prevent people from being entered into the ATF/FBI database as they are supposed to be. This needs to be addressed.

            4) All states should be required to recognize carry permits issued in other states, just as they are required to recognize things like marriage licenses from other states.

            5) Since many anti-gun laws are passed in moments of hysteria, when people caught up in irrational fear are being flim-flammed by media and politicians who lie and misrepresent facts about firearms, to capitalize on the ignorance of the American people, firearms safety training (such as programs developed by the world’s leading firearms safety training organization, the NRA) should be required in all public and publicly funded K-12 schools, colleges, and universities, just as drug and sex education are already required.

            6) Cleaning up and consolidating the over 20,000 different, often conflicting firearms laws in this country would make it possible for citizens and law enforcement to focus on “male in se” types of firearms crimes, rather than worrying about “male prohibita” infractions. There should be no more than 10 federal laws regulating firearms and/or ammunition, and each state or territory should not be allowed more than an additional 10;

          17. Okay T.C., what’s your plan to hold criminals financially responsible for gun crime? You’re not a liability lawyer by any chance, are you?

        2. “I am not going to discuss things that are clearly beyond reason ”

          IOW, anything you don’t want to deal with.

          “Ignorant untrained criminals.” You are aware, are you not that there are instructions online for making explosives? That Al Quaeda has a website full of “training tips”? That an “ignorant, untrained criminal” used nothing more than some flammables and a match or lighter to kill 90 people in the Happy Land fire. (I listed a number of arson murders.)

          You call it “beyond reason” that folk who intend mass murder will do it, yet folk have already done it. What has been done, can be done. Quod Erat Demonstradum.

          You call it “beyond reason” to take the position that the problem is not guns but other factors (i.e. that we do not have a “gun problem.”). That’s called circular reasoning, assuming your conclusion, begging the question. And it’s a logical fallacy.

          “Parolees.”

          I didn’t say just “parolees.” I said if someone can have their 2nd Amendment rights suspended, they can also have their 4th Amendment rights. That goes far beyond just “parolees” because loss of 2nd is for life.

          You consider it “beyond reason” to point out that gun control is of limited, at best, usefulness in preventing crime, and then turn around and use that other approaches are also not perfect as reasons to dismiss them as alternate approaches. Double standard much? That’s called “special pleading” and it’s a logical fallacy.

          You claim most of the system “already exists”. The system exists, and is sized, for current levels of use. It is not sized for getting the 300 million existing guns into a national registry. The existing national registry–that of fully automatic weapons, which was closed to new entries in 1986–has been shown to be full of errors. Already we have the problem of people being accused of felonies because of data entry errors. How many more such “felons” are you willing to create? How much more of the courts’ time are you going to take up with people having to “prove” that they are not felons but that somebody simply transposed some digits or dropped a letter in a name or address? Don’t believe it will happen? It has happened with a much smaller registry than you are proposing.

          Being accused even of a misdemeanor is not just some inconvenience. The simple accusation involves arrest, incarceration with the threat of violence perpetrated by other inmates (or the guards for that matter–while most are, perhaps, reasonable people just doing a job, not all of them are), the cost of bail (which can mean several thousand dollars that you do not get back), the cost of a lawyer (couple thousand more), and having all your guns taken until you “prove” that you can get them back.

          How many of the 90 million plus gun owners are you willing to subject to that?

          And that leaves aside the very real concern that registration is a step to confiscation. We still have the Reno quote. We still have the Feinstein quote. We have governor Cuomo talking confiscation. Again and again and again and again we have gun control advocates talking about complete bans as the eventual goal. In their very own words they claim that registration, waiting periods, or whatever “reasonable gun control” they are advocating is “just a step” toward that goal.

          Illinois, despite being told by the Supreme Court that the Chicago ban on handguns was unconstitutional decided to introduce legislation to ban all modern firearms. All of them. Has the Brady Campaign come out against that law as exceeding their “reasonable gun control”?

          If they really only wanted “reasonable gun control”, then there would have to come a time when they would say “enough!” If a complete ban on all modern firearms does not reach that point, then what does?

          Despite the “official” claims of groups like the Brady Campaign, prohibition is the goal.

          If you don’t see that, it is you who is “beyond reason.” Otherwise, it’s up to you as the one advocating one of the very steps they are claiming as a “first step” (although it’s about the 20,000th by now) toward confiscation to demonstrate why we shouldn’t take them at their word.

        3. Most of this has been answered by others, so I’ll limit this reply to the consistent gun-control chestnut of the “gun show loophole”. According to the DOJ, “0.7% obtained the firearm at a gun show, 1% at a flea market, 3.8% from a pawn shop, 8.3% from a retail store, 39.2% through an illegal/street source, and 39.6% through family or friends.” (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940)

          So if the goal really is to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, why focus on the smallest source of those guns? Self-preservation amongst gun-controllers? Law-abiding gun owners are a lot less likely to shoot nosy investigators than a street dealer.

          As to your claim; “Currently, there is no deterrence for this crime (selling guns to criminals) in many places.” Where might these places be? U.S. Code seems to say otherwise: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922 In a contradiction between an anonymous internet poster and U.S. Code, I’ll lean towards U.S. Code.

          These facts and links are from http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp They have an admitted conservative bias, but unlike the “believers” over on the gun-control side of the debate, Just Facts footnotes their sources, and doesn’t state, let alone rely on, their “beliefs”.

      9. Very quick, since you are stuck on it…

        Homicide deaths from fire in 2009: 184

        Sorry, not going to propose massive legislative changes over 184 homicides in a year and ignore the method with 11,000+

        More later.

        1. Happy Land Fire. 90 at one shot. More than any shooting incident.

          I produced a short list (really only spent a few minutes searching–nowhere close to an exhaustive list) of similar mass-murder by arson.

          That it’s not a commonly used method doesn’t mean it’s not available to those who mean to kill. One of the “substitution” methods available in the event that one could come up with “gun control” that actually works.

          Likewise with that “11,000” is mostly “ones and twos” where all sorts of methods for murder are available. You discount “substitution” and apparently assume that most, if not all, of those would not happen if there were better “gun control.”

          Assuming your conclusion doesn’t make it so. It remains a logical fallacy.

          The usual cases cited for gun control “working” are cases which had low homicide rates before gun control has passed. For some reason gun control proponents never cite a case where a polity had high homicide and other violent crime rates, passed gun control, and subsequently had low homicide rates.

          Have you ever considered that there might be a reason for that?

        2. And the simple fact remains that you can get the by-state listing of violent felony stats from the DOJ. You can use the Brady Campaign’s own “scorecard” as a representation of “gun control”. You can run an Analysis of Variance on those sets of figures and find that there is no significant variation in three of the four tracked violent felonies: homicide, robbery, and aggravated assault. That means that the effect of gun control cannot be detected compared to whatever other factors cause State to State variation in these rates.

          There is a slight correlation in the fourth (rape) at about the 97% level. However, the DOJ also reports that firearms are not used in the vast majority of rapes. This merely serves to underscore how very little such a low correlation actually means.

          Total crime statistics are about as complete data as you can get. Subsets such as “robberies with gun” “robbery with knife” etc. are not tracked the same way. The only way to estimate them is to use some form of “sampling” and then extrapolating the sample to the entire population.

          The “studies” which show low “gun violence” correlated with “gun control” then mean one of two things: either the “sampling” is flawed (deliberately or otherwise) to produce a bias or the violent crimes are simply being committed with alternate weapons. People are still being robbed, murdered, assaulted, and raped, just not with guns.

          Do you really think a murder victim feels better about being killed (presuming some kind of afterlife in which to feel anything) with a knife rather than a gun? Do you really think the family of that murder victim says “at least his throat was cut rather than him being shot”?

          The simple truth is: gun control does not work. The “usual suspects” of other countries that are cited had low violent crime before passing gun control. In the US there is no connection between “gun control” and violent crime.

          If one is actually interested in reducing crime, particularly violent crime, one has to look elsewhere.

      10. I’m not going to argue whether gun control works or substitution or any of that. I believe you can have meaningful gun control that makes guns less likely to be used for criminal activity without causing undue burden to legitimate gun owners. Nothing you say is going to change that opinion.

        Likewise, you believe that all gun control is useless. You only respond to those portions to spin your own mental wheels because you know I am not going to be convinced.

        Thing is, over time, this country WILL move toward increased gun control. History suggests it at least, and I just think it will happen.

        The question is, do you want that gun control to be reasonable steps or knee jerk ridiculousness that only hurts gun owners?

        I’ll talk about policy changes and what gun control steps would be most effective or least restrictive or things like that (for example, I will reply to Joseph above), but arguing about arson fire compared to firearm homicides is a waste of time.

        So, if you want to give feedback on the policy suggestion I made, I would welcome it and I will reply to your policy suggestion. If you are going to try and convince me that gun control does not have an impact, you are wasting your time.

        1. “I’m not going to argue whether gun control works or substitution or any of that.”

          Wise choice, because you can’t.

          “I believe you can have meaningful gun control that makes guns less likely to be used for criminal activity without causing undue burden to legitimate gun owners.”

          You can believe in the tooth fairy as well. Doesn’t change the facts on the ground.

          “Nothing you say is going to change that opinion.”

          Translation: “My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with facts.”

          “You only respond to those portions to spin your own mental wheels because you know I am not going to be convinced.”

          I know you’re not going to be convinced. You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reach through reason in the first place. But you’re not the only one reading this thread. Others can see your appeal to emotion, your consistent use of logical fallacy, your complete unwillingness to consider factual data and draw their own conclusions.

          I’m not debating for you. I’m debating for the peanut gallery.

          “Thing is, over time, this country WILL move toward increased gun control. History suggests it at least, and I just think it will happen.”

          Ah, the “history is on my side” argument. Yes, that’s worked out so well in other places where it’s been made.
          You’re assuming your conclusion again. The thing is, 1993 was the “high water” mark for gun control. The Democrats got the “Brady Bill” and the first AWB and it cost them control of the House.

          Since then, “shall issue” has spread through 40 States, The AWB was not renewed. The two States that did not allow any kind of self defense carry at all has been reduced to one (Illinois). The Heller Decision affirmed that the 2nd Amendment is a right to individuals and not just some “collective right” (who is the idiot who first proposed that the 2nd allows the government to arm its own military forces and was the bigger idiot who let that argument fly?), The Heller Decision also affirmed that the 2nd is no more limited to muskets and muzzleloading rifles than the 1st applies to quill pens and lead type on hand-cranked printing presses but to arms “in common use”. McDonald incorporated the 2nd to the States.

          The anti-gun folk are getting more and more shrill (calls to murder NRA members? Perhaps that explains why they are anti-gun. They have so little control over their own violent impulses that they assume gun owners are the same way. They know that they can’t be trusted so they assume nobody can). Such shrillness is not a sign of confidence of ones position or victory.

          Somehow I don’t think the future is so certain as you think it will be.

          “The question is, do you want that gun control to be reasonable steps or knee jerk ridiculousness that only hurts gun owners?”

          You repeat yourself. But good use of the word “steps”: “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. Elimination of private firearms is the goal.” Janet Reno, Good Morning America, 1993.

          Nice of you to admit that your proposals are “steps.”

          “I’ll talk about policy changes and what gun control steps would be most effective or least restrictive or things like that”

          You just contradicted yourself. See above “I’m not going to argue whether gun control works or about substitution or any of that.”

          You can’t discuss “most effective” without dealing with substitution or whether it works at all.

          What you mean to say is that you are going to claim effectiveness and ignore anything that disputes that.

          “So, if you want to give feedback on the policy suggestion I made, I would welcome it”

          I gave you feedback. You didn’t like it. It’s a stupid proposal that will cost a lot of people a lot of money, time, and resources, put many people at legal risk for things not their fault, will have no more effect on crime than any other gun control that has been tried, and will be used by folk like Janet Reno (not Janet Reno, herself, of course, because she’s no longer in that position of power, but people like her), Diane Feinstein, et al, as a step toward complete prohibition.

          You are not prepared to deal with actual feedback. You, in fact, reject any of the basis on which feedback would be made. You declare, ex officio, that it would have some magical effect on “reducing criminal availability of guns” and then dismiss any arguments to the contrary without basis other than that they disagree with what you claim to want.

          You don’t want feedback. You want blind agreement.

      11. I could make the exact some post about your replies.

        The difference is, you cling to one extreme (that gun control has no effect and is completely meaningless) that has no basis in fact. We HAVE effective gun control (in very limited, specific cases) in the US, there is effective gun control in other countries, and there are clearly ways to improve the gun control system.

        You deny all of this, despite facts.

        I, on the other hand, take a middle ground. Some gun control is misguided and ineffective. Heck, I proposed a policy that would EXPAND gun rights. Obviously I am not a blind anti-gun zealot. I understand all your points, but you take them to an unreasonable extreme. You blindly deny everything I say. You blatantly ignore anything that does not support you and don’t refute anything or even attempt to because you have no argument. Your only method is to raise more and more irrelevant arguments to distract from the weakness of your position.

        So yes, the people who already agree with you in the peanut gallery will agree with you. The people who actually read to learn and use reason will see that you are denying reality and ignoring facts presented in a reasonable, middle ground response of someone actually trying to figure out how to improve the situation.

        I, as opposed to you, am not trying to convince anyone of anything. That isn’t my goal, although occasionally I stray that way. I am trying to find good ideas that could work. You aren’t presenting any and are not contributing to improving the ideas I suggest except to repeat claims (huge cost, huge resources, etc) with no real analysis or suggestions for better systems. Btw, now that you clarified your 5th amendment proposal, it is downright terrifying that you are so willing to suspend the rights of your non-criminal fellow citizens for no reason. If anyone is pushing for draconian, tyrannical government regulations, that is it.

        At this point, all you will prove is that yes, you are more willing to take the time to have the last word. Bye.

        1. “I could make the exact some post about your replies. ”

          You could make the claim. The difference is I looked.

          I looked at actual DOJ numbers on violent crime. I compared them to actual gun control laws as tabulated by an anti-gun group (the Brady Campaign). I did the Analysis of Variance. I confirmed for myself that there is no detectable effect of gun control on violent crime.

          I looked.

          I looked at the claim of “low homicide rate” in Britain. I looked at what the homicide rate was before they passed their gun control act. I looked at the “change” that came with passing “gun control.” I confirmed for myself that gun control did not improve the situation.

          I looked.

          I looked at the claim that “ready gun availability contributes to suicide.” I looked at Japan. I saw the World Health Organization’s (A UN organization, hardly biased in favor of gun owners) statistics on suicide rates. I saw that “gun free” Japan’s suicide rate was higher than our suicide and homicide rates combined.

          I looked.

          I looked at every “mass shooting” I could find. I assembled every one from 1949 through 2009 (when I did the looking). I found that out of ninety incidents in only nine could I not prove with information available to me that the events took place where the killer had good reason to believe no one was armed in self defense. The other 81 happened conclusively in some form of “gun restricted” zone. Note, this doesn’t mean that the other nine weren’t “gun free zones”, just that I couldn’t prove it. So at least ninety percent of all the mass shootings that happened over a sixty year period happened in “gun free zones.”

          I looked.

          I looked for examples of “high violent crime, pass gun control, get low violent crime.” I looked, but didn’t find any. There weren’t any to find.

          I looked.

          You, on the other hand, come in here and make pronouncements on what you “feel” should be done, ignore any counter arguments to it, present no actual facts to back up your position, and object if anybody questions your bald assertions.

          Then you claim that history is on your side. Well, the dustbin of history is full of folk who made that claim, and rightfully so. “History is on my side” is an emotional claim that people only make when they don’t have logic and reason on their side.

          You claim we have “effective gun control” in some places in the US? By what standard? Certainly not based on actual violent crime rates. The violent crime rates are just as high in places with strict gun control as in places without. Claiming it as a “fact” doesn’t make it so. Again, by what standard? Criminal violence remains.

          You claim that other nations have “effective gun control”. Yet when it is pointed out to you that their violent crime rates were as low, if not lower before they passed the “gun control” that appears to be irrelevant to you. They had the low violent crime without the gun control. How then can you claim “effective gun control” as a cause? You can’t, not legitimately.

          You call concern that “registration” will be used as a step toward confiscation a paranoid fantasy. When actual quotes from freedom-denier activists and actual freedom-denier politicians (particularly one that California keeps sending back to the Senate), your only response is to . . . well ignore it. Simple repeat the claim of paranoia.

          You have had your complete ignorance on the subject of guns pointed out to you. You didn’t even challenge that one, just claimed that your proposal should still be accepted anyway.

          You repeat the same tired old arguments that have been refuted repeatedly without addressing the refutation at all.

          So, no, you could not make “exactly the same post” about my replie except by lying through your teeth.

        2. Declaring victory and marching smartly off the field isn’t exactly a logically rigorous way of demonstrating your position to be the best. Though it does make sense for a believer confronted with information that he’d rather not acknowledge or accept.

          thewriterinblack, unlike you, presented a cogent argument backed with facts (from unbiased, often government sources) to support it, while you by your own admission don’t “know”, you “believe”.
          “A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses, but an idea that possesses the mind.” – Robert Oxton Bolt
          To admit that you’re a Kool-Aid swilling believer, and then go on to try to “prove” your belief with logical fallacies and data filtered through conformation bias doesn’t speak well for your belief, nor for your faith in it.

          But like him, I’m not trying to convince you. By your own admission, you are beyond reason, and well into belief.
          “Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it.” – Ayn Rand
          When data shows no effect of gun control other than to substitute one means of violence (guns) for another (knives, bludgeons, or simple disparity of force): http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html
          you simply parse the data in such a way as to seem relevant without actually showing the whole picture, such as limiting your data to “gun violence”. Australian violent crime data shows an uptick in assault rate since their draconian gun restrictions. While I won’t go so far as to insist that the increase is due to restrictions on law-abiding citizens, it is a very convoluted argument indeed that violent crime would be increasing even faster were it not for those restrictions. The situation is similar in Great Britain, where homicide rates were lower before the 1997 gun confiscation than in the U.S., which gun-control advocates conveniently forget to mention when pointing out the lower murder rate (or with increased conformation bias, “gun murders”, as if being stabbed to death doesn’t count) after the gun confiscation. Violent crime rates are actually higher in Great Britain than in the U.S., again a fact that gets left out of the gun-controller’s “special pleading” (good term, that). You don’t want to address substitution because it contradicts your belief, despite rational evidence that it takes place. In a similar vein, suicide rates don’t change with gun restrictions (unless you parse the data down to “gun suicides”), so you don’t address that point.

          Registration of long guns had no effect on crime in Canada, but cost enough money to no effect that they finally abandoned the registry. More recently, gun registration has been used to violate the privacy of law-abiding NY citizens by a liberal newspaper exploiting an aspect of the registration law that should never have been allowed in the first place, as it violates privacy and the right to prevent self-incrimination. It does speak to the underlying gun-control belief that all guns are bad, and “outing” legal gun owners just contributes to public safety, despite no evidence toward that end, just belief. It is also ironically telling that the same newspaper who views guns as bad, has hired gun-carrying security to protect them. I guess guns are okay as long as the only the gun-controllers can have them. If you understand resistance to these proposals (as well as their selfish, elitist nature) as you claim, you wouldn’t be proposing them. If these facts are the cornerstone of your argument that registration is beneficial with little/no cost to law-abiding citizens, you must really not understand your position, nor the concept of debate in general.

          I don’t hang out with the gun-control crowd, so I’ve actually enjoyed reading your views. They’ve enlightened me towards the views and beliefs of that segment of society, but I can’t say they’ve been convincing. Having been raised on the liberal East Coast, I grew up being indoctrinated into similar beliefs. I left that environment, saw that the rest of the world couldn’t be explained by simply expanding my observations of life in suburban Fairfield county, and had to incorporate new experiences and knowledge into my world view. I also took instruction in firearms to learn from the experience and knowledge of those who had used firearms to defend themselves and others. If you want to transition from belief to knowledge, I suggest you do the same.

      12. Ooops, hit the wrong reply button:

        Blotto,

        I’ll reply to you, but it probably will be a brief exchange.

        I can find 100 anti-gun people with just as many studies and stats as WriterInBlack “proving” gun control works and that the best approach is a total ban on all weapons.

        If Writer and those people want to take turns presenting their version of the “facts” and ignoring each other while pretending they are having a debate, they are free to do so. I’m not really interested and NEITHER side in those types of broadside exchanges is remotely convincing to me.

        I’m not declaring victory. I am declaring that the exchange is of no benefit, thus, I am not going to continue. If this WAS a “logically rigorous” exchange, maybe that would be different, but there is very little that has been logical in Writers approach.

        You, of course, think that I am the one not using logic. I’m not going to get back into a full-fledged discussion, but I will give one very concrete example that Writer has been going to over and over that is a clear demonstration.

        ~~~

        Fire vs. Guns

        Writer repeatedly claims that fire is just as effective/dangerous as guns, arguing that there is no reason to have gun control because fire can do the same thing.

        He cites as evidence mass killings using fire, focusing on the Happy Land fire from 1990.

        Points he has correct:

        -In very specific circumstances, a fire can be as or more deadly than firearms and can be easier to execute. Happy Land is an example…an old building that had been repeatedly cited for fire code violations, an illegal social club, too many people in too small a space, no fire alarms, no fire suppression system, no fire exits. In very unique circumstances, fire can be an effective tool for mass murder.

        Logical failings of his position:

        – While you can find specific instances of deadly mass killings through fire, these are extremely limited and the annual rate of fire homicide is very low. The exceptional cases (Happy Land) do not indicate a widespread trend. Simply put, while arson supplies are easily and readily available, more so than guns, they are NOT used with the same frequency as guns.

        – Fire is not effective in other criminal activity (robbery, etc) where guns are frequently used, so the effectiveness of fire in mass killings has no relevance to a discussion about gun use in criminal activity outside of mass killings, which is where the vast majority of firearm violence takes place.

        – The use of fire in mass killings does not change the fact that guns are used in homicides and violent more than any other method. If fire is used in a significant number of crimes, propose legislative changes to protect from fire. Currently, guns are used in a significant number of crimes, more than any other method, so there is good cause to consider legislative changes to protect from gun violence. Both can be a problem, the fact that fire is a possible problem does not negate the problem already posed by guns.

        ~~~

        The logic of his position on fire arson vs. guns simply does not stand up. Most of his positions suffer from similar logical fallacies, but when those are pointed out to him, he simply moves on to his next poorly supported position.

        Want proof? Go back and read the section on explosives. I ask how many deaths the explosives used at Columbine caused. Writer’s response: “Irrelevant.”

        Really?? That is irrelevant?? The fact that explosives, which you claim will take over for guns if gun control is improved, have not been largely ineffective when used in an identical situation [One incident, columbine: The same people use two methods (guns and bombs) to try and kill people. One succeeds (guns) one does not (bombs)] is not relevant?

        His response: “One of the common means of killing people in job lots is arson. Why do you continue to ignore that, focusing only on “bombs”?”

        You will notice, he never even replies to a significant position (bombs have not been effective in many situations when guns have been effective), instead, diverting the discussion because he has no reply. He jumps back to arson, which, as demonstrated above, is just as weak a position.

        Blotto, if you can reply to those points with clear logic, not diverting to new subjects or ignoring, I might reply if I see some benefit.

        I would suggest you reply to those points clearly (the logic of arson fires and explosives), and then present one counter point if you like. Don’t spew out 15 paragraphs of rehtorical questions and speculation, present clear points with facts.

        The discussion probably won’t go in a direction that is useful to me or worth the time, but I’ll give you a chance. Writer has demonstrated that his primary methods are evasion and distraction, which serves to waste time and reinforce previously held positions, but serves no real purpose.

        The area that I am really interested in is not “Does gun control work?”

        I am interested in “What changes could reduce gun violence.”

        Blotto, you could try replying to this question I posed earlier that Writer ignored:

        Would you accept legislation that does all of these things:

        1. Require all firearm transfers to go through FFLs

        2. Expands the existing firearm database to include all guns and tracks the current owner so that when a gun was used in a crime, it could be traced to a source and, if that source acted illegally, there would be corresponding punishment

        3. Establishes a national CCL and CCL-Plus program that requires licensing and training for any public carry, but is uniform across the country (no more checking each states laws when you travel across the country). Everyone who has a gun in public should be able to produce their license upon request.

        4. Removes all gun bans/hurdles in states/cities and replaces with a national system of gun ownership so that every locale has uniform gun laws that allow guns in the home or place of business with very few restrictions (by place of business I mean by the owner of the business as a tool of self-defense for the business, public carry of customers would fall under #3 above)

        What would you say to that?

        1. Likewise you keep switching tracks.

          You “deconstruct” the Happy Land Fire, but ignore that I listed a number of others with similar high death tolls.

          Fire isn’t used much in mass murder? Well, neither are guns. 60 years. 90 incidents. 602 killed. Average about 10 a year.

          BTW, you might note that there was a big surge in these mass shootings during the Clinton years under the so-called “assault weapons ban” and after the passing of the “Brady Bill” with it’s (then) mandatory waiting period on handguns and the background check that went with it.

          As for “irrelevant” how often something is used has no bearing on how effective it is for killing. The question on the table was the effectiveness of something for killing people in job lots. That criminals or nut jobs bought into the same propaganda you did about “guns are the most efficient tool for killing” doesn’t make them right. The fact remains that the largest mass murders, by far, did not use firearms.

          After all, with a firearm you’re still killing people one at a time. It’s essentially a “serial” process. With fire or explosives or poison, you can go parallel and kill lots simultaneously.

          My only “logical failing” was in not letting you get away with moving the goalposts. Except, of course, moving the goal posts is what is the logical failing.

          And calling anyone for “logical failings” when you have admitted that your mind is made up and you are unwilling to be persuaded no matter what arguments are presented. That pretty much destroys any credibility you might have on the subject.

        2. You see, the whole fire and explosives issue was addressed to a single claim: that guns are the “most effective” means of mass murder. It wasn’t addressed to how many people are killed in “ones and twos”. It wasn’t addressed to total death counts. It was addressed to the “effectiveness” at “mass murder”. i.e. if someone wants to kill a lot of people at once, what means has been demonstrated to kill the most at once.

          Eliminating use by states (while states have used poison gas to great murderous effect, the primary “civilian” use, the Tokyo Subway Attack, which injured more than 5000 only killed eight, but we’re talking “killed” so…) firearms come in a distant third when it comes to killing the most people at once.

          The claim was made. The claim was refuted. You then attempted to move the goal posts. The logical failing was yours.

      13. Of note to anyone reading:

        I NEVER made this claim-

        “that guns are the “most effective” means of mass murder”

        Carrry on.

        1. “I NEVER made this claim-

          ‘that guns are the “most effective” means of mass murder'”

          Your specific words: “because they are the most efficient tool for killing people available to civilians.”

          This was in the context of CT, which was a mass murder.

          The claim was “most efficient.” When I demonstrated that others are able to kill more, and more quickly, thus most thoroughly refuting “most efficient.” (Back in high school we had a “minority history” class–first half pretty much covered Jews, second half pretty much covered blacks, with a tiny sop given to other minorities. Anyway, one of the things that was brought up was the Nazi high command insisted on finding some way other than shooting to execute “undesireables” because shooting, being a serial, one at a time, process was too inefficient.)

          Once “most efficient” was refuted, you fell back on an argument from “most common” which was moving the goalposts.

      14. Blotto,

        I just reread a few posts and found this bit that got missed in Writers attempts to state my position for me.

        “If the Brady Campaign, VPC, etc. are truly committed to reducing criminal gun violence, why are they focusing the majority of their efforts on 0.7% of the criminal gun supply? If they want to reduce the numbers of guns in the hands of criminals, the most bang for the buck would seem to be to focus efforts on illegal street dealers and family/friends. That might require getting up-close and personal to armed criminals though, which might put a crimp in their beliefs, not to mention threaten their lives. Far better to bait the bear that they know is muzzled by responsibility and accountability.”

        It is a good point and worth discussing.

        I agree, that focusing on the source of guns (dealers/family/friends) is an excellent approach. My proposal of tracking gun sales/transfers to find and punish the true sources of guns (Example, if a family member buys a gun for someone and gives it to them illegaly, then they go and commit a crime with it, LEAs would know that the gun came from a family member and the family member could be prosecuted) is targeted at that very goal.

        Obviously illegal dealers are (and probably always will be) a problem. The goal of my proposal is to reduce the available streams of weapons to those illegal dealers. Some methods (illegal manufacture, theft*, and import/smuggling from Mexico, most significantly) require further attention and will always be a problem, but those are more costly and risky propositions than simply buying a gun from a private seller without a background check. Economics are, if you cut one supply line (private sales), the supply drops and demand/“cost” goes up. “Cost” in quotes because obviously this is not a normal market, drugs and killing the previous owner are considered business transactions in the illegal gun market, so “cost” is a general word.

        * Regarding theft: I think mandatory reporting of stolen guns would also help this, so that law enforcement would have a better set of information when approaching guns. Complicated issue, that is the super short version of a thought.

        What other methods do you propose that would provide law enforcement with tools to go after the sources of guns such as friends and family?

        Obviously police already target illegal gun dealers, are there changes we could make that would make that task easier?

        1. “Some methods (illegal manufacture, theft*, and import/smuggling from Mexico, most significantly) require further attention and will always be a problem, but those are more costly and risky propositions than simply buying a gun from a private seller without a background check.

          * Regarding theft: I think mandatory reporting of stolen guns would also help this, so that law enforcement would have a better set of information when approaching guns. Complicated issue, that is the super short version of a thought.”

          How is getting a gun from your criminal relative more costly and risky than “simply buying a gun from a private seller at a gun show”, which are routinely patrolled by BAFTE? http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0707/exec.htm Crooks have this figured out too, that’s why the percentages are 0.7 to 40 in favor of family & friends.

          As far as your faith that the Federal Government could accurately track a firearm’s provenance through an indeterminate number of intermediaries, your credulity seems to be disposed completely on the side of gun-control. California actually requires all firearm transactions to include a background check. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm The CDC found that there was insufficient evidence of any affect on gun sales to criminals (of note, insufficient evidence is not evidence of insufficiency). Given that BAFTE couldn’t keep track of guns in Fast & Furious, despite being parked outside the gun stores while the guns were purchased by straw buyers, I think your faith is misplaced.

          If you’ve got an example of gun registries having a positive effect in reducing crime, I’d like to see it. Canada has had a firearms registry for decades http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry but dropped it last year after spending a peak of over $66M/year (not sure if that’s Canadian or U.S.), to little effect. LE polls are horribly skewed both left and right, so there’s some politics going on there too. It turns out that criminals smuggle in most of their guns, go figure.

          The gun registry did come in handy in Great Britain though. In 1997 when the Liberal government decided to confiscate most privately owned guns, they had a list.

          As far as reducing crime in America, I’d like to focus more on responsibility, accountability and self-reliance, instead of fostering the attitude that the government is parent and will provide all our needs. That individual convenience is not more important than community safety. I’m not holding my breath for that though. When was the last time a politician won elected office on a platform of holding his constituents accountable for their actions?

          I don’t have an answer for more effective techniques to catch illegal gun buyers. I don’t have a solution for tornadoes, hurricanes, floods or HIV either. That doesn’t mean I’m in favor of legislation making tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and HIV illegal. There will always be criminals, and they will always seek out firearms, because they make their jobs a lot easier. To quote a firearms instructor, they are “the coin of the realm”. As to practical measures to mitigate armed crooks, I carry a gun. This doesn’t seem to be an option you’re considering though.

          1. Piggybacking.

            “mandatory reporting of stolen guns”

            On further thought, what, exactly, is this supposed to accomplish? Once the gun is stolen, reported or not, it’s in the illegal arms pipeline and available for criminal use.

            The criminals, therefore, already have the gun. It does nothing, absolutely nothing, about keeping the gun out of criminal hands.

            Gun owners already have a strong incentive to report stolen firearms. Only by reporting it stolen will they have any chance of having it returned to them if it ever does turn up. Or if not having the firearm returned being able to recover the value of it from insurance.

            The only thing “mandatory reporting” does is attack a criminal penalty to failing to properly dot i’s and cross t’s when one is the victim of a crime (the theft in the first place).

            It does nothing, it can do nothing, to “keep guns out of criminal hands.”

            So when the stated reason is one impossible of fulfillment one again has to wonder what the real reason might be.

          2. I have heard of a solution being batted around, for using technology already available, to put tracking chips in guns in a way that would disable them if tampered with in trying to remove it. Thus, when the gun is stolen, it can be tracked down. It would also make it less attractive to steal.

          3. “Tracking chip”

            Pure vaporware. The idea of it “disabling a gun if removed” is ridiculous. The mechanicals inside a gun are fairly straightforward and anything an electronic “chip” could do can be replaced with a piece or two of metal. I have made internal components for firearms from scrap metal. (Note, this is entirely legal.)

            The police pretty much universally do not want these things in their guns. There are reasons for that. Those reasons also apply to any firearm to be used for personal or home defense.

            Does nothing for the 300+ million guns that are already out there. Note that guns more than a century old remain useful if given even a modicum of care (I’ve got an 1893 Argentine that was made sometime between 1893 and 1898 that is perfectly useable. That’s a minimum 114 year old rifle that’s fully functional today. A friend of mine has guns even older–rifles and handguns both–still fully functional. Thus, even if this vaporware actually materialized, worked as designed, and wasn’t simple to work around, it still would do nothing to reduce the availability of guns for criminal use.

      15. This

        “This was in the context of CT, which was a mass murder.”

        is not true. It was in the context of describing why we have background checks on weapons.

        1. “It was in the context of describing why we have background checks on weapons.”

          Really? We have background checks on knives? On swords? On bows and arrows? On flamethrowers? (Hint: you can buy a flamethrower, or build one–instructions are available online. No background check required.)

          You said “weapons”.

          And the context for the discussion on background checks was because of events like CT. You cannot ignore _why_ the discussion was taking place.

          And even if we allow that, “most efficient” was still refuted. You attempted to move the goalposts to “most common” which is a different argument.

          And your own admission that you are unpersuadable, that no argument will get you to change your mind, pretty much invalidates you from having any credibility in discussion the evidence or logic derived thereof. You’ve rejected both by admitting that nothing will change your mind.

          Your belief is a religious one, not a rational one.

      16. Blotto,

        “As to practical measures to mitigate armed crooks, I carry a gun. This doesn’t seem to be an option you’re considering though.”

        Did you read this part of my proposal??

        3. Establishes a national CCL and CCL-Plus program that requires licensing and training for any public carry, but is uniform across the country (no more checking each states laws when you travel across the country). Everyone who has a gun in public should be able to produce their license upon request.

        4. Removes all gun bans/hurdles in states/cities and replaces with a national system of gun ownership so that every locale has uniform gun laws that allow guns in the home or place of business with very few restrictions (by place of business I mean by the owner of the business as a tool of self-defense for the business, public carry of customers would fall under #3 above)

        I’ll reply to the rest at some point, not time at the moment…

        1. Sorry, missed that point. I’m for reciprocity, but a proposal for just that got shot down in the last Congress. At least I can draw some comfort from that when I start reading the “Ban all guns/Repeal the 2nd Amendment” over at Daily Kos. If reciprocity can’t survive, good luck with that whole “repeal an Amendment” thing. There’s also the issue of States’ Rights, but given that they were able to overcome this with driver’s licenses, perhaps that wouldn’t be insurmountable. I’d expect strong opposition from Illinois, D.C., New York, California, and most major metropolitan areas.

          1. He didn’t say “reciprocity” he said federal standards preempting state law.

            Reciprocity would actually be Constitutional. The Constitution requires individual States to give “full faith and credit” to other States’ acts and so forth, and Congress has authority to determine what and how that applies to.

            I do wonder what set of national carry laws he would favor, however, would it be something like Indiana’s “shall issue”–fill out the form, have no felony convictions, have no current “psychiatric health care” that leads to you being a threat to self or others and they are required to issue the license, or something like California’s “have to convince the local sheriff that you have a ‘good reason’ and said sheriff can deny for any reason, including personal whim or that you didn’t donate enough to his election fund”.

            One of the line-items on the Brady Scorecard is “police discretion” in allowing carry, which comes down to that: the issuing authority doesn’t need a reason to reject. They can reject for any reason, or no reason at all.

          2. Good catch, I was reading “reciprocity” into the statement. A federal law overriding state law would be the whole “states’ rights” problem I mentioned though. As much as I’d like to streamline the patchwork of state laws now on the books, a federal law is unlikely for the reasons you mentioned, and were it to come to be it would almost have to be on the stricter side of the spectrum of various state laws to have a chance of acceptance. Following Emily Miller’s quest to just own a gun legally in D.C., I keep asking myself “who are these laws intended to protect, and from what?” My wife is living in Colorado for the moment, and that state’s program is run by the county sheriffs like California, though luckily she’s in a county with a sheriff who has a clue. That system has too many opportunities for petty despots to be counted among my favorites, though at least they’re “shall issue” instead of “may issue”.

      17. Another quick one…

        Blotto: “How is getting a gun from your criminal relative more costly and risky than “simply buying a gun from a private seller at a gun show”, which are routinely patrolled by BAFTE? http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0707/exec.htm Crooks have this figured out too, that’s why the percentages are 0.7 to 40 in favor of family & friends.”

        I never said anything about a gun show. The transfer from friends and family is a private transfer. That is the point. Right now, there is basically nothing to stop someone from supplying their criminal friends/family with guns. Forcing all transfers to go through FFLs and having appropriate punishment for individuals who make illegal transfers address that issue.

        1. It’s already illegal to knowingly transfer a firearm to a felon. “Friends and family”? You don’t know if your friends and family are convicted felons?

          Again accomplishes nothing but to add an extra burden to law abiding gun owners. The 90 million plus who don’t break the law.

        2. Gunshow sales are also considered private transfers, which is the source of the whole “gunshow loop”. My mistake. Not sure how you plan to coerce criminal families and friends to submit 4473 paperwork. As thewriterinblack pointed out, once they’re in the criminal pipeline, you’ve lost all provenance. tracing it back to the last legal owner doesn’t help get the gun off the street, and punishing him for being a burglary victim seems to fall along the lines of “the beatings will continue until moral improves.” Believe it or not, legal gun owners don’t want their weapons in the hands of criminals any more than you do.

          As an example, my wife had an old five-shot Charter Arms revolver that her dad bought her way back when. When she changed stations, she had to check the weapon in with Security Police at her new base while she looked for an apartment. They apparently fired it, and jacked it up enough that the cylinder wouldn’t rotate any more. Her brother fixed it, but long story short, we didn’t feel safe firing it, and tried to turn it in to be destroyed. It took me months of phone tag with state, county and city offices before the local police agreed that they could take it and have it destroyed. When the officer responding asked “why don’t you just sell it?” I answered 1) I’m not confident it’s safe to shoot, and 2) I don’t want to be mugged with it next week.

      18. I’m a bit behind, but will try to catch up Blotto:

        On California: those findings don’t surprise me at all. Same issue as everywhere else, CA shares a a huge eastern border with Arizona and NV, which have no such requirement. That is the patchwork nature of the current system that renders most gun control efforts ineffective.

        I think there is some evidence of the positive effects of gun control in the US, but not much (in response to your request for evidence that registration reduces crime). This does not mean that gun control does not work, it means that we really don’t have gun control in the US. States that have no regulation of private sales and other permissive laws undermine any attempt in other locations to control guns.

        Canada: The system i propose is much simpler than the canadian model and would have a much lower cost structure. Canada tried to have real time information being distributed to emergency personell in emergency situations. Useful, for sure, but costly and complicated. I guess i did not lay out the plan in this thread, so….

        ~~~
        Every transfer of firearms must go through an FFL.

        Every transfer is recorded in a database that is accessed ONLY when a crime is committed with a firearm (would prefer this database be secure/confidential to avoid situations like the NY “Gun owner map”)

        When a crime is committed with a firearm, that firearm is traced through its sales history to the last legitimate owner. If someone else committed the crime, the owner made an improper transfer.

        That owner/seller is subject to criminal charges for an improper transfer unless the gun was reported stolen.
        ~~~

        So, the database is a simple record of transactions. Gun 12345 is sold to Person XYZ. When Gun 12345 is used in a crime, the police know how it got there. If the gun was not reported stolen, the last owner on record made an illegal transfer and they get charged with a crime.

        With that system in place, any legal gun owner will be unwilling to risk letting a gun attached to their name “off the grid” with the threat that it very easily could lead to a criminal conviction for them if the gun is used in a crime.

        Currently, this is not the case. A legal buyer can buy a gun, make one private sale, and the gun is basically off the grid. Anyone can buy it or sell it to anyone else with no fear of repercussions.

      19. Question for consideration:

        What are the best practices for CCL?

        Obviously you are in favor of “shall issue” vs “may issue.” I am ok with that (I always prefer standards to arbitrary judgement), but deciding on good standards is the key.

        What is a reasonable set of requirements to meet for the “shall issue” CCL?

        1. If I may humbly suggest my home state of Tennessee.

          Beyond the federal requirements, there are no additional state permits or requirements in Tennessee to PURCHASE a firearm provided you only wish to use it for recreational or competitive shooting, collecting, or for defensive purposes on your property.

          If you want to actually carry concealed, there are other requirements:

          http://www.usacarry.com/tennessee_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

          The required class is carried out by contracting schools (not LEOs or state employees) and normally takes two days (though it can be done in one long day).

          For me. the first day was devoted to the firearms laws of Tennessee, firearms safety and was concluded by a test. It was not the most difficult written exam I ever took but it was not trivial and about 10% of the class received a suggestion that they come back in a week or two for another try.

          The second day was devoted to practical shooting. You had to demonstrate competency in operating your handgun and make a minimum score shooting targets at nine, twenty one, and forty-five feet. At the time I took the test you were required to fire, reload, fire again unload, and holster your handgun in a safe manner as well as describe the general function of the firearm you were using to the instructor.

          The Tennessee CCL is not restricted to a specific weapon, it is a license to carry a concealed weapon. The license does not have a specific weapon listed on it as some states do.

          Certainly it was not anything like the defensive shooting classes I have taken but it was not intended to be. It was a basic test of gun safety and competency of use. The Tennessee CCL is now recognized/honoured by 38 additional states.

      20. “My mistake. Not sure how you plan to coerce criminal families and friends to submit 4473 paperwork.”

        Definitely you won’t and I agree that guns already in criminal hands are unaffected. Like I’ve said before, once the criminal has a gun, gun control pretty much has not worked.

        It would be illegal to perform private transfers without an FFL, but you could NOT apply the trace portion (for prosecution) to guns sold before that was a requirement. Obviously if you bought a gun last year and sold it to someone already, you could not be held to the same standard for a law enacted today.

        So, obviously investigation/prosecution would be pretty tough until a gun was actually in the database, but police could devote some resources to sting-style operations, posing as buyers and such, to catch the shady people willing to sell to anyone.

        However, I really do think the most gun owners are, like you, law abiding citizens who care about not keeping guns out of criminal hands and would comply with the law and begin performing transfers through FFLs, slowly moving the national inventory onto the database. Guns used in crimes would be confiscated and over time, the availability of new guns to the criminal pipeline would drop.

        It would not be an overnight process, obviously, but there are no easy, overnight solutions to complex issues.

  52. First off, very well written article. It’s actually extremely refreshing to see some sanity from the pro-gun side of the debate, and your points are extremely well researched.

    I had a couple of points regarding arming teachers / placing weapons in classrooms:

    First. What do you know and understand about police officers being fired upon by their own weapons? How can we ensure that these weapons won’t be turned against their owners?

    Second. I understand your points regarding active shooters and the response time of civillians vs. uniformed police. What about ethical / moral issues, similar to those faced by the medical community? Might this be seen as a militarization of the pre-college academic community? I understand the practical imperative to protect life before notions of ethics and codes of morality, but these things are quite important. Arming a hospital ship, for example, is and should be a war-crime. You are militarizing a humanitarian mission. But, you might consider that hospital ships have medication and food that a desperate person would want to steal. How would you weigh the ethics of protecting life versus protecting the noncombatant status of someone like a teacher?

    Third. I understand you have personally trained many teachers and administrators, but this is not necessarily indicative of the entire academic community. Most teachers will not be prepared to draw and fire on, for example, a rampaging student of theirs in the chaos of an active shooter situation. How do you feel about that? Please don’t suggest that “someone will be okay with it,” because that’s an assumption. Lets operate off of the majority.

    1. Placing armed guards on a hospital ship is not a war crime. Why not let teachers decide if they are capable, just like we do with police and military?

      1. Placing weapons on a hospital ship *is* a war crime per the laws of war. That’s not up for gun-control debate. Arms are not allowed on, for example, the USNS Mercy. Period.

      2. From the IRC document:

        If, despite the warnings given, it became apparent that the enemy was making a deliberate attack on the hospital ship or medical unit, in flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions, then the medical personnel would have no option but to surrender and hoist the white flag. If the adversary were to announce his criminal intent of destroying the establishment and killing its occupants, the medical personnel could obviously use their weapons. One cannot expect men to allow themselves to be slaughtered like sheep. But one fails to see how such desperate action could change the situation. In no case, however, may the fact that a member of the medical personnel defends himself or the wounded in his charge against an illicit attack be considered as an “act harmful to the enemy” depriving him of his right to protection. Similarly, if a neutral State has resort to arms in order to defend itself against a violation of neutrality, that may not be considered as a hostile act (Fifth Convention of The Hague of 1907).

    2. Interesting you should bring up hospital ships because our Medivac helicopters have become targets. Not everybody plays by the same rules. And teachers, until just a few decades ago, were able to carry guns if they wanted and nothing happened. Utah, as Larry says, has CCW in the schools for staff and so far no one has taken their guns.

      I always use the inner city schools as an example. They don’t have mass shootings (although if they do, I doubt the news media would cover it, but it seems to be the case). They probably have other kinds of violence because it’s a violent community, and the kids are SOL after they leave school grounds, but they don’t appear to have mass shootings in the schools. They do have armed security in their schools. And the armed security, even though everyone knows exactly which one of them has the gun, doesn’t seem to get mugged for the gun.

      On your third point you say: “Most teachers will not be prepared to draw and fire on, for example, a rampaging student of theirs in the chaos of an active shooter situation.” And then you tell Larry not to respond with assumptions and say we should operate off of the majority as if you’ve just stated a fact. You are the one assuming things.

      One would think a parent wouldn’t turn their kid into the police on suspicion of murder knowing that their kid will be taken from them and put into a horrible system, but we’ve seen several stories just like that recently. Killers found because someone who loved them turned them in. It’s not actually all that difficult for someone with a moral compass to protect the innocent. It’s pretty much instinct.

      Besides, the students who are doing these crimes tend to be the not-well-liked, loner, jerkos that teachers have no affinity for anyway. That has a lot more evidence behind it than your *assumption* that an armed, trained teacher won’t turn a gun on a student in order to protect other students.

      1. I’m aware that medevac helos are targeted. I’ve been to Iraq. Different situation, though — i specifically used hospital ships as an example because they aren’t presently sent to combat theaters where the US is actively engaged in operations, they’re sent on strictly humanitarian missions. (This is not to say they *can’t* be, but when they are, they are not armed).

        On the point about inner city schools: the question I would ask here is if the security would have been overcome or not by a shooter like Lanza, armed with the types of weapons he was armed with and, apperantly, an accurate shooter. But anyway, that’s trained security. I’m fine with trained security.

        The next paragraph you point out a logical flaw I made, and I appreciate that. What I suppose I *meant* to say was to please be objective. He is certainly going to have encountered an extremely specific teacher; I would not expect most teachers would be so capable. I’m married to a California teacher, and I haven’t met a one of her co-workers I’m certain would be capable of drawing a weapon and firing on an armed student or what have you.

        On the next point: parents turning kids in. Teachers are not parents, but the relationship is still a close one. We aren’t discussing “turning them in,” though. We are discussing shooting them, no matter the necessity we are describing. That’s a difficult thing to do and to live with.

        And lastly, please read the book “Columbine” and look up some of these shootings. The kids who do these things are just loners or not well liked or whatever. Eric and Mark from Columbine were perfectly normal kids with friends, and every gang shooter in history cannot by definition be described as a loner. Most of these shootings, after all, are not mass-shooter scenarios — it’s gang or other “every day” violence.

      2. also, thinking that a teacher would shoot one of these “not well liked loners” because he’s a troublemaker and the teacher should care less is a rather insulting statement as directed at our teachers.

      3. Your idea that teachers will be so closely attached to any kid at all that they will allow that kid to kill others is even more insulting than what I said. Sorry, but the person who has gone through the CCW training with the purpose of becoming an armed responder in the schools who would allow mass murder while they could stop it? Seriously?

        I think you misunderstand what I’m saying about the loners. It’s not just because they might be nerds that I say the teacher will not be so attached to them they couldn’t turn a gun on them (I still can’t imagine the level of attachment they’d have to have in order to allow that kid to murder a swath of other kids, but maybe if it’s their own kid?), it’s also because the profile of the shooter often fits a pattern. The armed responder in the school will likely be aware of the pattern and will see that rather than that kid they just want to take home and cuddle while he’s turning the classroom into a blood bath.

      4. I still don’t see how a rational person can come to the conclusion that the solution to gun violence is to just arm everyone until the violence stops.

        Can’t you all just admit the reason you want these guns is because they’re cool, not because they serve a particular purpose?

        1. Bradley Evans,

          (If your post was clever sarcasm, I apologize for this response.)

          Who said we should arm everyone? Wasn’t that explicitly denied?

          I also don’t see what it has to do with guns being cool or some such thing. I don’t own a gun and I probably never will–by all accounts, I’m a complete and bumbling fool when it comes to anything physical and so I don’t trust myself with a loaded weapon, nor do I think they are neat or awesome.

          I am, however, pro-gun inasmuch as I see a need for such weapons to exist in the hands of qualified citizens to ensure a safe Republic.

        2. Reductio ad absurdium.

          I stated very clearly to make it voluntary, and I stated why.

          Let’s see. You are a teacher. Bad guy comes into a school and starts shooting people. Would you prefer to A. Shoot them in the face. B. Hide and wait five minutes for the cops to come while he slaughters people with impunity. C. Get all blithery and emotional and not pick A or B because you are going to insist that there was some hypothetical law in place that kept all of this nightmare from happening to begin with.

          Cool? Most people who aren’t complete nattering crybabies hoplophobes quickly discover that shooting is fun once they try it. News flash, those cops you are hoping to come and save you? The only ones that actually shoot well are the ones who enjoy it enough to practice more.

      5. Inner city schools have what has been described as “slow motion mass killings” – where students are murdered in schools or at school events every year, but no single incident has a large enough body count to attract national media attention.
        The CDC reports that 7.4% of students are threatened or injured by a weapon on school property. Some of those students probably experience this many times each year.
        Since the DOJ reports that only 1% of murders of school age children take place “at school” (leaving out things like traveling to and from school, or around school events like ball games or dances), the steady trickle of deaths outside of mass classroom shootings just isn’t sensational enough for the media to mention it. The fact that most of these crime victims are socially disadvantaged and minorities somehow makes the crimes less newsworthy than when they take place in a privileged enclave community. Occasionally, things like the Richmond High gang rape in 2009, where spectators watched and recorded the event on their phone cameras, will make the news, but there is no rush to legislate a “solution” to the problem, just a sigh of relief that things like that don’t happen in “good neighborhoods”.

    3. “What do you know and understand about police officers being fired upon by their own weapons? ”

      That it typically happens during a hand-to-hand struggle. That’s why most police departments have the policy of NOT engaging in hand-to-hand combat with anyone.

        1. I believe the smart way to look at it is like this, cop’s jobs often require them to go hands on with a violent person. They have to restrain them, search them, sometimes wrestle them, all because they are required to obey the Use of Force Pyramid, and try to respond with the least amount of force neccesary. So obviously, cops need to know how to wrestle a bad guy.

          However, because cops have to often willingly wrestle bad guys, that is also why cops are sometimes shot with their own guns.

          I see a concern pop up all the time that “the bad guy is just going to take your gun and use it on you!” Why, actually, no. That doesn’t really happen with civillians that often. See, I’m not required to go handcuff the guy or pat him down. In real life when a bad guy tries to take my gun, I can simply pull the Felon Repulsion Lever. 🙂

          1. Technology is also a help here. Bianchi makes a full line of retention holsters, and while the one I had in the Navy for the Beretta M-9 in 1996 was a pain in the ass to draw from (I was only Auxiliary Security Force, and didn’t have as much of an opportunity to break mine in as the regular Security Patrol did), I am willing to research them to see if they are better now.

      1. Well, certainly the rules would be extremely different on school grounds. An armed teacher would almost definitely be required to abide by the exact same continuum of force you see police officers use. Can you see a schoolteacher on CNN for shooting an eighth grader because he or she perceived that the student was going for his/her weapon?

      2. further, teachers are in a low-threat environment, so you cannot assume that teachers will keep the firearm on their person at all times. Can we agree that inadequate storage on school property becomes an extremely serious problem at this point?

      3. My neighbor, a SAPD Officer, showed me the holster for his service piece. It takes 3 or 4 simultaneous movements to pull the weapon. He also told me about his Academy classroom, after the holsters were issued. All you could hear was the cadets practicing with them.

        Point is, it is extremely difficult to remove the weapon unless you know exactly how to do it, and have no resistance from the officer.

      4. “An armed teacher would almost definitely be required to abide by the exact same continuum of force you see police officers use.”

        No, they wouldn’t, because they wouldn’t be and aren’t police officers. Their continuum of force will be the same as any other non-law enforcement officer.

    4. As to ethical/moral issues-what??? A militarization of pre-college academic community, who would be considered a noncombatant?? In this scenario as in any mass shooting scenario, the teachers are not and should not be considered noncombantants. In the minds of the mass murder, the status of the teacher is “target” and the probable outcome of their meeting without the teacher being armed is “victim.” I’m sorry, but the argument is ludicrous.

      You also seem to believe that universal arming of teacher is being recommended. I don’t believe I’ve seen that, nor would I be in favor of it-I deal with teachers quite a bit and there are many that would not be comfortable in any way with being involved other than to stay with their kids. However, self-selection works. In any population there will be a number of individuals who are willing and dedicated enough to go through the process to gain their CCW/CHL and train with it regularly.

      1. “I’m just going to sit and wait for Correia to rebut me in a less emotional and more educated way.”

        Oh, I’m sorry! Let me go scurry back and review how I responded to your question-I didn’t realize I was overly emotional…let’s see…I had disbelief regarding the absurdity of one part of your post…I really don’t see any other emotion? Must’ve been in the subtext. Oh, well!

      2. I don’t forgive you for being a condescending ass, Bradley.

        Your assertion that allowing some teachers to decide if they want to train themselves and arm is somehow promoting social harm is completely fatuous, and deserves nothing but contempt from intelligent people.

      3. Bradly, you say you’ve been in Iraq and you get your feelings hurt that easily, Cmon! Cowboy up and try to respond to the other people. The other people that incidentally keep shooting down your arguments as soon as they appear.

    5. The problem with your analogy of hospital ships is that the hospital ships are the kids, and the “enemy” is targeting them despite (or because of) their weaponless state. The question is whether we have and entire fleet of disarmed hospital ships, or whether we allow them armed escorts.

      Personally I’m in favor of allowing them escorts, especially because they are targeted regardless of their protected status.

    6. Bradley Evans I don’t own a gun because it’s “cool” it’s a self defense tool. Just like the cane that I need to walk with. I didn’t buy a 2.5 pound cane(made of high impact Polypropylene) in a dragon shape because it’s “cool”. I bought it because since my injury I can’t reliably kick a 6 foot person in the head anymore if I’m attacked. I can dame sure break their face with the head of the cane. I would love to be able to carry a gun on my person in a concealed fashion for my safety. I can’t do that in California. So I must resort to other methods to protect myself.

      But I suppose you would want to bane my cane now because I’ve admitted it’s a weapon I know how to use and use well. Force me to use an inferior cane(the polypropylene actually acts like a shock absorber making it useful in another way) that can’t harm anyone if I should attempt to use it in self defense?

      Why should I feel safe to walk the streets, it’s not like a 27 year old with a cane and a limp is an easy mark for criminals to assault and rob…

      Form follows function. That is an item must serve it’s primary “function” before any thought is given to it’s “form”. Form being aesthetics, or “cool” factor. I don’t care if it the most ugly least cool gun under the sun. If it functions and serves my needs it fits the bill.

      Take your cool back to the playground where it belongs.

    7. You are 100% wrong about weapons on the USNS Mercy being a war crime. Period. The ship cannot have offensive weapons but it can and does of defensive capability.

    8. You said, “Most teachers will not be prepared to draw and fire on, for example, a rampaging student of theirs in the chaos of an active shooter situation.”

      If my kid is in a class where the teacher is unarmed or possesses a CCW permit but is NOT allowed to “carry” on school grounds, the chances of my kid dying at the hands of an aggressor are a whole lot worse, by an unimaginable order of magnitude (say 99.99999999999%).

      But if only one person in that school is armed and permitted to CCW, the odds in favor of my kid dying, are severely diminished.

      If no one can defend my kid adequately, he/she stands no chance.

    9. “Most teachers will not be prepared to draw and fire on, for example, a rampaging student of theirs in the chaos of an active shooter situation. How do you feel about that?”

      As a teacher, I feel that it is insulting of you to even make such a statement. The statement itself is pure BS.

      You really think that I won’t put down someone who is threatening to kill me and a bunch of my students, simply because they are also a student?

      I guess you also believe that I would never send on of my students to the office for disrupting class, or bench one of my students for misbehaving during recess. I care for my students, and I try to have a friendly classroom, but I do not make the mistake of trying to be their friend INSTEAD of being their teacher. As the responsible adult int he room, I have to make the decisions that will make it safest for the greatest number of my students.

    1. Or my blog software is set up so that I have to approve comments from first time posters before they appear, in order to stop spambots. You posted after I went to bed, and if you’ll look around you will see that a hundred other comments also just appeared…

      But hey, don’t let that get in the way of your righteous indignation! 🙂

  53. Wow, Great stuff I feel well Armed to preach the good word! Thank You Larry for a great article! I shared it on my FB as well, everyone needs to read this!

  54. Larry.
    Excellent article, well written, factual.
    The problem is it won’t work. I know several genius level women intellectually, who turn in to absolute morons on issues like this, because they think and react on an emotional level, because children are involved. I’ve heard one say she will be an Islamic slave if it keeps her kids alive.
    That is what we are fighting – emotion. We know how serious Obama really is, because he put the most useless member of his administration, Biden, in charge of it. Obama doesn’t care as long as it appears to move the power agenda of his party forward. Note that his drone strikes have killed this many kids a month, give or take, in Afghanistan, since he took office. He continued so many of the GWB policies I could get a rise out of progressives by calling him Bush 44. The minute these shootings happens, the progressives are out playing the emotion card, and there are enough gullible, emotion driven people, they will buy it.
    I know the answers, but they are not palatable to people who took an oath to the Constitution. I did decades ago, but this is not the country I swore loyalty anymore – they have forsworn me, leaving me to wonder what the best course of action might be. The Chinese are racist, so that’s a no go. The Russians – my Russian is rusty, but they are basically a mafia/intelligence agency writ large. There is literally no place left to go and have a decent life of hard work, luxury, freedom. medical care and the right of self defense with the weapon of my choice, any where I choose to carry it. Justice long since left our shores,. replaced by the Goddess of Law.
    Some may see this as defeatist – but the other choices are ugly. Very ugly. I am an old Cold Warrior, and I don’t have any Laws of War. That was the dumbest part of Squadron Officer School we had – we were part of nuclear strike, and discussing not hitting civilians? Did they think we were morons? Or that we would just shut up and listen,, ignore it, and move on. I am hard corps enough that my response to 9-11 would have been Kabul a smoking crater, and the folks in Riyadh who financed it being told they are my new bitch, or Medina gets it in 60 minutes. This is not a negotiation, this is their unconditional surrender. Some would argue that this would have made the problem worse, but after the 2nd or 3rd example, it might have gotten through.
    You are one of the Good Guys. I am one of the people who make the Bad Guys want you and your friends to take their surrender, and pledge their safety, which I would likely honor, except for intell targets. Maybe, which makes them want your acceptance of their surrender very much.
    On the other hand, we are currently ruled by One World Progressives, who would make America 1 among many, instead of recognizing American Exceptionalism. We should have done our empire building a long time ago, we wouldn’t have these problems now. Our current Islamic debacle started in my lifetime with Reagan running from Lebanon after the Marine Barracks bombing. We should have made Hezbollah a footnote in history – that decision is coming back to haunt us.
    You can bet every wanna be Al Queda group on the planet noted the emotional response, and now know America has been gelded by emotion, and like Spain, we will fold under enough pressure. Home schooling is rapidly coming u[p on my radar.
    All of your suggestions, ideas, thoughts are worthwhile and *should* be done – but we will NOT be allowed to protect our children. God forbid they see a real gun when they’ve been playing video games for 20 years. No, the progressives will disarm us, ban video games, and generally geld America, so we can join the “world community as equals”, instead of the hyperpower we are in fact. The only things that may stem the tide are a rapid change of government,. or The Singularity, rendering most government irrelevant. We are at the point we can print in plastic many weapons parts – and metal printers are not far behind. The best professional cyberwarriors do not work for the governments of the world – you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. There is more, but it all may be moot if the current administration allows us to be disarmed, or worse, get hit by multiple HEMP attacks. Too easy with 3 tramp freighters launching nuclear tipped SCUDs from the East, West and Gulf coasts, and we are decomming our Aegis Cruisers and destroyers with SAM-3.
    I don’t know what is going to happen, but the Biden Commission is a given failure. Just as the budget seems to be.
    Your thoughts are welcome. I live in Colorado – we are governed by the major metro area of Denver/Boulder. If it goes to a pandemic, the state demographics change drastically in favor of freedom. In fact, if five or six areas face this kind of terror attack from AQ, it will have unintended consequences. Though that is likely when the progressives will declare martial law for the duration, no elections.
    I don’t want to bet on this at all. Winning would suck, as I strongly prefer a modern world with conveniences. A giant dose of freedom with it would be quite preferable, instead of our de facto police state.
    Thanks,
    Ralphj

    1. If I seem beaten,. I’ve just fought off cancer, am in the two week after recovery period starting after last chemo session Friday. This seems a no-win when genius level women won’t join us, and we keep losing elections because farmer Bob or Holy Roller X destroys some candidate for not supporting agriculture welfare, or doesn’t care what people do in their homes.
      I may be better by next election season, and ask embarrassing questions of the anointed candidates.Maybe with video. I am tired of playing with our GOP losers. They don’t understand the word “freedom”. For all I know Larry [theoretically] may have 3 wives. The Goddess and Cthulhu bless him if he does, and keeps everyone happy.
      The important thing is,. it’s NOT OUR BUSINESS. If he was committing welfare fraud, yes, but he’s not.
      The GOP needs to get back to NOT OUR BUSINESS principles,. least government, and freedom. And maximum damage to our enemies.
      Ralph

      1. Ya know, it is all in how things are reported. You would think that most Americans would be against the ‘torture’ of captured terrorists or holding countries or leaders accountable for acts against the USA. You would be right with the current press framing the topic.
        Why I think they would go more in your direction if presented with the whole story? “24” Yes, the TV show. Everyone watching was with Jack and cheered him when he ‘got’ the bad guys and inflicted damage on the evil. We don’t get the whole story anymore. The press preaches some need to report the other side even when it is obvious lies. They are so liberal, they are anti-war if a GOP President strikes but become strangely silent when a Democrat President does the exact same thing.
        It is the same for guns. Obama issues an Executive Order banning guns? The press will cheer. A Republican issues an EO banning gay marriage and they will report that EOs are unconstitutional. The PRESS is the problem!

      2. We lost because we didn’t make the sale. So the Dems got to go home and fuck the prom queen.

        Not because the electorate consists of idiots. Hal;f of them are below average, and half of them are above average IQ. Funny that.

        Until we act like adults and do what it takes to sell the public another Reagan, we will continue to lose.

    2. “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)

      I think I’ll ignore your call to surrender.

  55. As an Australian who owned several firearms before we had our mass shooting (1996) and mandatory “buy-back”, purchasing a rifle was not very hard. Some states required that you obtain a licence, others just required proof of identity.
    After Port Arthur, where the incident occurred, the Federal government had all the states sit down and agree to strict guidelines for firearm ownership. A case of “we had to do something” to appease the vocal minority. From this, there are several “shooter” related political parties and lobbyists.
    As a result semi auto firearms are only allowed by registered personnel such as professional shooters (feral game management), farmers, law enforcement and the military. If you were a sporting shooter with a semi auto rifle, you had to jump through multiple hoops to keep possession of your rifle whilst getting your licence.
    A friend of mine handed his in and received twice what he payed for it, and laughed all the way to the bank.
    We are also limited to the capacity of magazines, and the amount of firearms you can own (7) before you need to jump through more hoops.
    Some states like Victoria required all pistol owners to provide fingerprints before they are allowed to receive their licence. All require that you shoot at least 6 times per year in competitions to allow you to maintain your pistol licence.
    Now, 1996 was the year Micheal Diamond won the Olympic trap shooting Gold medal. And to annoy us all, he was lauded as a person to look up to by the same set of politicians who had previously worked to get the firearms ban into place.
    I could go on and on, but this is not where a rant should occur.

    One item i did find on M W Simmons website which i like is this:
    http://www.sff.net/people/wm.mark.simmons/Gunfighting.htm

    in something unrelated, he also has this about undead: http://www.sff.net/people/wm.mark.simmons/Undead%20Survival.htm

  56. Mr. Correia,

    Thank you for the well written and informative article. I am a longtime pro-gun control guy and I admit that your close examination of the issue gives me pause and reason to re-evaluate my stance.

    I would suggest/request that in the future you refrain from many of the pejoratives you use in talking about anti-gun peeps. I found more than once that I had a harder time following your logic when I felt that I had just been insulted.

    I’m sure that your language choices are based on years of frustrating conversations, I COMPLETELY get that; but as you’re obviously aware this is a turbo-charged issue and it’s already difficult enough to have a rational discussion without personal insults being thrown in (and I’ll be the first to admit that the Left is just as guilty of this).

    Thanks again for taking the time.

    Peace,
    Dave

    1. If the anti-gun movement weren’t packed with cranks and totalitarian wannabes, no one would call them that.

      And the left isn’t “as guilty” — in this case the left is the primary cause of the anger. Hearing that thousands of people — including elected officials — are calling for you to be murdered because you belong to a civil rights organization tends to anger.

      1. Mr. Crawford,

        I doubt you would argue that when debating this issue people come in with defenses up and emotions running high (certainly on the gun-control side, but arguably on both sides). My point is that if your goal is to have an intelligent discussion and actually move towards a solution, calling people cranks and totalitarian wannabes will work directly against your goals. It doesn’t matter if your insults are based on fact or not.

        That’s just Politics 101, brother.

        Peace,
        Dave

      2. No, we got to this position by arguing nicely with you little leftists.

        If we are going to repair our right to keep and bear arms, we need to start fighting dirty, and start doing our level best to ridicule and marginalize victim-disarmament bigots.

  57. Now that I know how good your non-fiction writing is, I’ll have to sample your fiction as well. I tend to buy non fiction in print and fiction in audiobooks, so I will be spending my next two on yours.

    What would you recommend? Should I buy one Monster Hunter and one Grimnoir or should I buy two from one series?

    1. It depends on what you are in to. MH is action/adventure urban fantasy. Grimnoir is action/adventure alternative history/fantasy set in the 30s. MH is the bestselling one which pays the bills and Grimnoir is the one that wins the awards. 🙂

      1. My vote is for Monster Hunter, Grimnoir got me introduced to Larry’s writing but MHI locked me up as a fan for life.
        I love how the MHI guys thumb their noses at the feds left and right. Plus Pitt starts off the book by saving his life bringing a .38 into a “gun free zone” 🙂

    2. Brian, frankly, what’s going to happen is you’re going to read one book out of curiosity, and then buy the next, and the next….

      It doesn’t matter. Larry is a fantastic storyteller who writes extremely well. Once you get one, you’re going to buy the rest.

      That said, if you like old black and white detective movies and superhero stuff, you’ll love the Grimnior chronicles.

      If you like stuff blowing up, shooting monsters and accurate descriptions of guns you’ll love MHI.

      If you like 007/ Jason Bourne movies Dead Six is for you.

      Notice that the books above are by no means mutually exclusive. I do recommend, however, you just spring for the omnibus books, since you’re going to read them all anyway. Face it, you’re already hooked. Just admit it and things will go far more easily.

    3. I’d go with Monster Hunter International and Hard Magic, the first in each series. If one doesn’t grab you maybe the other will, or you’ll be like most folks here, and like both series. A lot!

  58. Larry, Excellent article. You changed my view on guns. I was brought up with my mother saying ” if someone is going to kill me they have to bring their own weapon.” This was mainly because our family had experienced several tragedies with guns. I was married to a man who had a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum and I was always uneasy about it being in the house. Once our daughter was born I refused to allow him to have it in the house….so it went to his brothers. After we divorced, my daughter returned to live with him. He had , of course, got that gun back and bought a few more. One night the “new” husband of my daughter’s best friend got control of the 22 hand gun and shot and killed my ex and then shot my daughter (16 yrs old at the time) as she slept in her bed, in her own home. His reason? Because she would know who killed her dad and would identify him.

    I agree with your concealed carry opinion and am now considering buying a firearm and getting professional instruction. I will also be checking out Alabama’s concealed carry laws.If possible I will do whatever the requirements are to obtain a permit.

    I am a nurse and have gone on to work at San Quentin, Corcoran and Wasco prisons in California. I believe one thing that would reduce violence is if we had a harder justice system……all we do now is warehouse criminals and provide them with free room and board. San Quentin completed a new multimillion dollar execution “suite” while I was working there…..due to a “shortage” of the drug used in executions I believe it may have only been used once or twice since…2008?

  59. Larry, let me first offer the respect I feel you very richly have earned and deserve as an expert in this field. Expertise is hard to come by and it is one of the virtues I value above most in this life. I have, as you insisted, little hope of offering a point of view that you have not heard, but let me try anyway.

    By your own admission…”Meanwhile, we had bad guys turning up all the time committing crimes, and guess what was marked on the mags found in their guns? MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY.”

    If the illegal weapons we so desperately need protection from (and I agree, we do) started out as legal weapons, why don’t conscientious gun owners share the responsibility for their dispersion into criminal hands. The “criminals will be criminals” argument which, if I may presume to assume, is the underlying premise of your entire argument, is just as strong an argument for why there should be less gun ownership. Shouldn’t you acknowledge that more legal gun ownership means more guns for them to acquire? Your description of the longevity of weapons makes this danger even more acute.

    I don’t support forced disarmament because as you so eloquently point out, it wouldn’t work.But also, its not American and doesn’t honor the potential for a peaceful society of which this great nation is capable. I support voluntary disarmament on all sides.

    1. As a person who drives a car and occasionally has an alcoholic drink (never mixing the two), should I share the responsibility of the person who drives while under the influence of alcohol? I have broken no law in doing either. Under what premise should I be held responsible for another person’s actions?

    2. How in the bleep bleep bleep is giving my guns up, which have only ever made holes in paper, going to stop Sumdood from being a lowlife jerk?

    3. Those LE/MIL magazines were not issued to Joe Citizen – they did not go to conscientious gun owners – they were issued to LEO & MIL personnel, and they STILL found their way into the hands of criminals.

      Story time:

      The ATF spent the years of 2009 and 2010 sending thousands of so-called “assault weapons” to Mexico in order to fuel cartel violence. ATF whistleblower John Dodson reported that his supervisors were “almost giddy” when guns were found at Mexican murder scenes. When asked about what would happen if a Border Patrol Agent or deputy were killed by the cartels, ATF Supervisor David Voth said “if you want to make an omelette, you’ve got to scramble some eggs”.

      Read up on the history of Fast and Furious.

      Government cannot be trusted with a monopoly on arms – just because it says “law enforcement and military use only” does not mean it won’t find it’s way out there. Those LE/MIL magazines were not issued to Joe Citizen, they were issued to LEO & MIL personnel, and they STILL found their way into the hands of criminals.

      Unless you’re arguing the police and military should be disarmed to the same level as the citizen, which is a whole other point. As is, the citizen armed to a similar level (though slightly inferior with no select fire weapons) leaves a pretty good Constitutional balance – wherein the Founders wanted us to protect ourselves from the infringement of rights by standing armies.

      Read the 3rd Amendment for context to get some idea the kind of oppression they were used to and wanted to make sure never happened again.

    4. Be sure to put up a “gun free household” sign in your front window, so that you don’t have to have moral qualms about getting a free ride from gun owners.

  60. Larry,

    Thanks for posting this. It has been a rough couple days for those of us still trying to hold the line for rights and freedom. I was surprised to learn that Utah has had concealed carry in the classroom for years now–interesting…contrary to what many seem to fear, I haven’t seen any reports of negligent discharges or students getting a hold of guns from teachers in school. I know the Federal Flight Deck Officer program took a lot of heat when it started and even more when a pilot negligently discharged his pistol 10 minutes before landing his aircraft a few years ago. What folks failed to comprehend is that there are approx. 9000 volunteer pilots in the FFDO program. Considering that pilots average 1000 hours of flying per year and and have only managed one negligent discharge on duty in ten years of the program, they are safer than any law enforcement agency in the country. NYPD averages 25-30 NDs for 35,000 officers every year. DC Metro about 12 for 3800 officers per year. Sounds like the FFDOs may be safer than TSA, who was so strongly opposed to the program.

    You might want to mention that in response to Muslim insurgents targeting schools in southern Thailand in 2004, the Thai government streamlined the process for gun permits for teachers in the southern provinces and even provided firearms and training for those who couldn’t afford it but wanted to volunteer. It hasn’t been madness, mayhem, negligent discharges and blue-on-blue violence. Sadly, no program is perfect against a determined foe and as recently as December 11th, five insurgents entered Ban Ba Ngo School in Pattani and separated two Buddhist teachers from five Muslim teachers and executed the two Buddhists.

    Australians do like to point out that after the ban went into effect after the Port Arthur Massacre that there haven’t been any mass shootings. In 2002, two were killed and five were injured in the Monash University shooting. The shooter used several handguns. In 2000, Australia had a mass homicide where, outside of the Aboriginal massacres in the first half of the 20th Century, it was second to the Part Arthur Massacre for loss of life. Robert Long set fire to the Childers Palace Hostel and killed 15. Regardless of what tool is available, a determined psychotic will find a way to cause devastation.

    Regardless of how Americans may perceive a law to be beneficial, Pandora’s box has been open for so long that it would require great expense and a totalitarian lock-down of the nation to close it back up–rounding up all arms and shutting down private ownership of lathes and milling machines. Even the, it would only work if we figured out how to effectively seal our borders (while some semi-automatic firearms find their way south of the border with Mexico, narco-terrorists have been buying significant quantities of African surplus (select-fire AK variants, PKMs, RPKs, RPDs,, RPGs, etc) and have the networks available to move arms north, just as they move drugs north. After the border is ensured to be sealed, then law enforcement would have to give up their arms (approx. 8% of officers killed in the line of duty are killed with their own weapon). At that point, one could surmise with 99.9% certainty that there would be no more firearms in the US. Definitely cost-prohibitive and not very practical. If the US took a buy-back route like Australia did to buy back “assault weapons” and magazines with capacities greater than ten rounds, the cost would be approximately $15-20 billion–significant improvements to the nation’s mental health care could be made with that kind of money!

    I hear arguments all the time that the Founders couldn’t have imagined modern firearms. Interestingly enough, the Founders were supportive that the population owned rifles (which had nearly three times the effective range of military muskets) and even volley guns, cannon and mortars.

    Again, it’s been a very frustrating last few days. For those still on the notion that firearms are inherently dangerous and should be heavily restricted, I leave you with a comparison of drunk driving and the fact that it kills as many Americans every year as homicides by firearms. BTW–America is also has a significantly higher per capita death rate by automobiles in general compared to the rest of the industrialized nations, and about 35% higher than our Canadian neighbors. If we were serious about the death toll, where is the lobbying for installing mandatory breathalyzer ignition interlocks on all vehicles?

    1. Dave: The pilots had a few NDs ( Negligent Discharges ) because the regulations required them to unholster and lock the gun up when leaving the flight deck.

      A simple policy of “Stop touching it!” prevents NDs. Jut keep it in the damned holster.

  61. Good article … though you preach to the converted.

    Here, in the UK, they are going after air rifles, now. The first step is the implementation of a licensing regime … apparently 12 ft/lbs is now considered to be too much energy to be in the hands of the serfs.

    The aim is complete disarmament. … knives and guns are merely the tangible product of this.

    Disarmament will not be completed until there remains no WILL to resist.

    1. Libya had gun laws that completely restricted all gun ownership (no guns). They managed to pull off an armed coup d’etat.

      Martin Luther King and Ghandi managed to effect sweeping social change without the use of arms. Having a compelling idea and using that to effect change is much more difficult than force of arms, it’s true, but as it turns out it’s far more humane.

      Also, what problems in the UK are you anticipating? Is the tyranny of the Queen such that you must rise up and kill your masters?

      1. “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
        – Mahatma Gandhi, “Gandhi, An Autobiography”, M. K. Gandhi, page 372

        The common comment is that Ghandi got away with what he did because England considered itself a ‘civilized’ nation. If India had been a Belgian or Russian (Imperial or Soviet, your pick) possession, he wouldn’t have lasted long unarmed.

        1. “The reason they’re willing to talk to Martin is because otherwise they’ll have to talk to me.” Malcolm X

          Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t do it alone. Nor did Gandhi. There was plenty of violent response to British rule right along with Gandhi’s non-violent protest.

          What the “non-violent” protestors provided was a “face saving” avenue for people to deal with. “We weren’t backing down to violence; we were dealing with these reasonable people’s reasonable concerns.”

      2. Also, when the English DID pull out of India for good the “nonviolent” people that took over the nation kicked off one incredibly bloody episode of ethnic cleansing . Seems being unarmed didn’t save ca. one million Indian muslims form being slaughtered by Ghandi’s nonviolent Hindus.

      3. Fun fact. MLK applied for and was denied a CCW license after his house was fire bombed. After that incident he had a voluntary guard and his house was like an arsenal.

        1. Zach here is a historian, so knows more about this stuff than I do, but wasn’t Germany the world’s most culturally, economically, and scientifically advanced country in the world during the early 1900s?

      4. Germany before Hitler took office was one of the most liberal democracies in the world. Homosexuals were allowed to practice openly and socialism was quite popular. It had a lot going for it. Fun place that wasn’t a heaven of poverty and desperation. They were on the rise, actually. And none of that stopped them from getting a tyrannical government in a very short period of time.

      5. Martin Luther King Jr. was a life long Republican, and he was surrounded by volunteer armed guards after the first assassination attempt, by Democrat voting Klansmen.

        Ghandi condemned British gun control laws as evil.

        Did you research this as well as you did your info on hospital ships?

  62. Great post, but two minor suggestions and my reasoning behind them (I apologize in advance for the large block of text):

    1. Cut back a bit on the “liberals” and “elite urban dwellers” thing.

    Don’t get me wrong, the majority of individuals and groups that are trying to restrict gun ownership do come from the left side of the American political spectrum, but making various jabs at them isn’t really going to win hearts and minds. There’s a lot of liberals who are gun owners and support gun rights, so putting things in a “liberal vs. conservative, us vs. them” position makes them feel excluded.

    There’s a lot of ordinary, working-and-middle-class people who live in and around cities who don’t consider themselves “elite”. While some are gun owners, a lot aren’t: they simply don’t have the connection to the gun culture that others do so they haven’t given the matter a lot of serious thought. They haven’t been raised around guns, don’t have friends who own guns, and tend to be uninformed (though perhaps not intentionally) on the topics surrounding gun-related issues.

    They might not know the difference between semi-auto and full-auto, or that “assault weapons” are not rare and exceedingly dangerous firearms but are pretty much the “standard” gun in American gun culture these days. They’ve never been to gun shows and may think of them as “gun law-free zones” where anything goes, even though that’s not the case. They may think that hunting is ok and “traditional” guns used for hunting are reasonable, but otherwise have no real positive impression of the American gun culture and gun owners.

    Sure, there are some people who are exceptionally opposed to guns in the country and it’s unlikely that one will ever win them over, but there’s a huge amount of perfectly reasonable, ordinary people who simply aren’t tuned in to gun-related issues: a lot of non-gunny people I know seem to think that machine guns are widely available and that’s what’s being talked about when the news discusses “assault weapons”. Many seem to think that no background checks are required when buying from dealers, etc. To them, such things are “reasonable gun control” but don’t know that these things are already current policy.

    These are the people who gun owners need to work with, discuss things with, and win the support of, not drive away. Insulting them only serves to alienate them.

    As the saying goes, you catch more bees with honey than vinegar.

    2. Yes, the Second Amendment was intended as a last resort to tyranny, but talking about armed revolution or violent resistant to gun bans, even in the hypothetical, is a topic that’s sure to inspire a deep uncomfortableness with most people. I’m not saying it’s invalid, but it creeps a lot of people out and tends to alienate them.

    Phrasing things in a way that emphasizes lawful self-defense from criminals and the various fun and positive aspects of gun ownership and its uses is usually be more effective in my experience.

    You see it a lot in the news where people say “You don’t need an assault weapon to go hunting!” — they may think that hunting is the only legitimate use (sporting or otherwise) of firearms simply because they don’t know any differently.

    They may think that “assault weapons” are uncommon and particularly dangerous and suited only for mowing down classrooms full of children, but they don’t know that they’re the most commonly owned guns in the country, are used for all sorts of positive purposes (including recreation, sport, competition, and yes, hunting), and are functionally identical to “traditional hunting rifles” (I find it effective to compare the semi-auto Browning BAR rifle marketed to hunters with the Remington R-25 AR-pattern rifle, as well as pointing out the various guises of the Ruger Mini-14 — seeing for themselves that a gun with a traditional-looking wood stock and appearance is functionally identical to a more modern, potentially-scary-looking gun tends to work well.)

    Talking about situations where some people will take up arms in revolution tends to make people think “crazy nutjob” and this isn’t terribly beneficial when you’re trying to win over their support.

    Naturally, you’re free to speak your mind as you see fit, and I’m merely a guest here, but I felt it might be something useful for people to consider.

    1. I concur. I’m pro-gun control (but not before my brother in FL buys me a couple of lower receivers, hah) and am not an elite urban dweller, just a veteran and a student who thinks that most people in the United States are far too stupid to be trusted with an AR15.

      1. Elitist is too light a term for this man.

        Fascist fits better..

        Supports strict government controls on stuff he dislikes. Wants to tell others what to do. Does not want laws for us wrong thinking peasants to be applied to himself.

      2. So what makes YOU able to own evil “assualt rifles” and nobody else? Because you are a veteran? Sorry, that is being elitist. I’m a veteran also, and I think the trainining one can recieve civilian side is better than the drivel the Military teaches. As Correia said, one of the most accomplished shooters he’s ever met was a hairdresser. Civilians can be just as, if not more responsible than military.

      3. Without naming names, many socialists have said the same thing about government–the people are too stupid to be trusted with it.

  63. I am going to open my response by flat out stating I am a liberal. I am also on the fence in terms of things like gun control, I also don’t know enough about the industry to make factual statements either way. I wanted to say thank you for the article for two reasons:

    1) You present a well reasoned and well stated argument for your side. I think that if more liberals saw arguments like yours instead of: “It’s my constitutional right to own all the guns I want and you’ll thank me when President Obama’s government comes to put us all in concentration camps and I protect you.” we seem to hear a lot.

    2) Thank you also for being someone who actually knows and understands laws and has a history with firearms. A great many people on your side don’t know or understand the law and can’t make the factual statements you can. They talk out their ass as much as the left does.

    You have done much more to sway me in your favor than any other gun rights person has done in the past 10 years of my adult life.

    1. When calls go out from around the country for NRA members to be slaughtered, and when some of those saying it are elected officials, fear for our safety is reasonable.

      1. @ Rob

        Indeed.

        “1) You present a well reasoned and well stated argument for your side. I think that if more liberals saw arguments like yours instead of: “It’s my constitutional right to own all the guns I want and you’ll thank me when President Obama’s government comes to put us all in concentration camps and I protect you.” we seem to hear a lot.”

        I don’t see why a gun owner has to convince liberals of the need for their right to own a gun any more than women should have to convince me they should be able to vote. It goes without saying if you want to take away something from someone that they are entitled to, not just as an intuitive natural right, but actually LEGALLY entitled to, the burden is on you to prove YOUR side of the argument.

        The arguments against private gun ownership are as sensible as arguments against black people or women having the vote.That’s what YOU look like to US.

    2. We have had more than one Democrat in the federal legislature call for the execution of NRA members.

      Get back to us once Harry Reid has impeached them.

  64. Excellent article! Does anyone have the clout to make the gun control nuts read it? Esp. Obama and company?

    I guess I would have liked to see one more comment, and didn’t, so I’ll make it.

    For years the gun control nuts have been pooh-poohing people who say, “Guns don’t kill, people do.” The nuts have had a field day with it — at least among themselves.

    The truth is that a gun is as dumb as a screwdriver. It doesn’t force its way into a crowd and just start killing.

    By necessity, a gun, like a screwdriver, has to have a sentient being to operate it. So . . . guns don’t kill, people do.

  65. Larry,

    please can you state the source of your stats which indicate England is aa dangerous place to be, the only stats I’ve been able to find which are for number of illegal gun deaths per 100,000 population don’t support your statement.

      1. So then, you would rather we pushed people out of windows instead of killing them with guns?

        Dead is dead. Failing to use a firearm does not make the victim any less dead.

        Your premise is flawed here, Mark.

  66. Israel, a country full of murdering terrorist who want to kill all of the Jewish people, including their children, hasn’t had a school shooting in 40 years. It’s not because their schools are gun free zones or because they took certain weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens. In fact, quite the opposite is true. This video is a MUST watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MXykP30_aE

  67. Larry,

    Thanks very much for the long and well-written post, which is one of the most detailed and helpful contributions to the gun debate that I’ve read. It’s generous to the reader in terms of information and structure, and, for the most part, dispassionate (although I thought your repeated use of the term “vultures” was out of step with the respectful tone of the rest of the piece, and you probably didn’t need to parrot the silly use of the noun “Democrat” as an adjective). You establish your impressive bona fides to good effect, and you are mostly persuasive about why your opinion on the issue should have more weight than someone not familiar and experienced with guns. (I’d make a similar argument for privileging the opinions of, say, climatologists on global warming, gay people on same-sex marriage, working and middle-class people on unions, women on abortion, etc., but that’s a different debate).

    I’m a well-informed and convinced liberal on most issues, but I’m closer to your side on gun control than many of my fellow lefties. One reason for this is that it’s obvious to me that the pro-gun side won this debate long ago, evidenced by the sheer number of guns and gun owners in the country, and also by the implicit and explicit celebration of guns in popular culture. I also have great respect for people’s right to defend themselves and their families. I don’t like guns and would never own one, but I can say the same thing about many things (bagpipes, motorcycles, garden gnomes, penny loafers…) without wanting to prevent other people from owning them.

    I do have quibbles with some points of your argument (for example, you tend to gloss over the vast and relevant demographic differences among states, urban vs. rural locations, and countries). But the weakest part of your argument is your dismissal of the extraordinarily high number of annual gun deaths in the US based on the counterargument that guns are reportedly used “defensively” at a much greater rate (between 108,000 and 2.5 million Defensive Gun Uses [DGUs] every year, as you cite). This comparison doesn’t hold water.

    Are you suggesting that between 108,000 and 2.5 million deaths are prevented by DGUs every year? Because that’s the only way it would make sense to compare those numbers to the number of illegal gun deaths (which, incidentally, is about three times more than 10,000 if you include suicides). How many of those DGUs prevent not a murder but a burglary, robbery, rape or non-lethal assault? (I followed the link you provided, but it didn’t break down DGUs by the type of crime reportedly prevented)? I’m not saying that people shouldn’t be able to defend themselves against non-lethal or even non-violent crimes, but such uses of guns are not equivalent to illegal gun deaths, and do not “balance them out.” We’re not even talking apples vs. oranges; it’s more like apples vs. pencil sharpeners. Only DGUs that clearly prevent deaths would be an honest comparison. Again, I understand that if you see someone crawling through your window in the middle of the night, you don’t know whether they’re a homicidal psycho or a stupid kid who wants to steal your iPad. But it is extremely likely that the vast majority of DGUs prevent crimes other than murder, regardless of the gun-owner’s perception of the situation. If you want to include all DGUs in the comparison, fine, but it’s only an intellectually honest comparison if you measure them against all illegal uses of guns, fatal or not, and whether the gun is fired or not. This would include non-fatal gun injuries and armed robberies, which would clearly change the numbers radically.

    And some DGUs don’t even prevent a crime. They are self-reported, and based on the gun owner’s opinion that his or her use of the gun was justifiable because a crime was imminent. The guy in Florida who shot and killed an unarmed teenager for playing loud music in a parking lot is citing self-defense, as is the guy who shot an unarmed man at a pizza place for complaining too loudly about the service. George Zimmerman is convinced that he also is one of the 108,000 to 2.5 million people whose justifiable use of guns outweighs the unfortunate thousands killed by them every year.

    So the astronomically disproportionate number of US gun deaths is back on the table for discussion. Michael Moore (I know, I know) asked a valid question in Bowling for Columbine: what are the causes of that astronomically disproportionate number?

    I’m not a psychologist, either, but part of the answer must be in the highly mythologized cultural image of guns in America, and in the psyche of a significant percentage of the people who embrace that image. I’ve lived in some very rainy places, and like many other people, I carry an umbrella pretty much every time I leave the house in the morning. It’s there in my bag or my coat pocket, and I forget about it until it starts to rain. If umbrellas were glorified, mythologized, and fetishized as much as guns are in our culture, some people would start to attach disproportionate value, even affection, to their umbrellas. And some would walk around actively hoping for rain, and looking for ways to put themselves in a situation where it is more likely to rain. George Zimmerman walked around his neighborhood all the time hoping it would “rain,” and one day, it did, unfortunately for Trayvon Martin.

    So, once again, thanks for taking the time to put your opinions down in such a thoughtful, readable, and helpful way. It may have been exhausting, but your arguments are not exhaustive. I hope the country does have a “conversation” about this issue, because it’s an important one. And you’ve inspired me to continue educating myself about it. I might even pick up one of your books (I came to your post via my friend D.J. Butler, by the way, who writes some pretty good genre fiction of his own).
    –Seth

    1. “George Zimmerman is convinced that he also is one of the 108,000 to 2.5 million people whose justifiable use of guns outweighs the unfortunate thousands killed by them every year.”

      He should have just let his brains be spread across the concrete, eh?

      “They are self-reported, and based on the gun owner’s opinion that his or her use of the gun was justifiable because a crime was imminent.”

      Actually, you’re wrong. The police still investigate what happened, and if they can develop evidence that shows the shooter was lying about it being justified self-defense, then the shooter will face charges.

      It’s part of the idea of presumption of innocence, coupled with protecting people who have justifiably defended themselves from overzealous prosecutors. “Better that one guilty man go free than a hundred innocent be punished” — ever heard that?

      1. And you’ll notice that once the facts came out in the Zimmerman shooting the press kind of let it drop off the radar? Once it no longer fit the gun control agenda, and it looked like it may have actually been justified it was no longer newsworthy.

      2. ““Better that one guilty man go free than a hundred innocent be punished” — ever heard that?”

        You are referring to Blackstone’s Formulation. However, I believe the saying goes, “Better that ten guilty men should go free than one innocent be punished.” A sentiment I agree with.

    2. “How many of those DGUs prevent not a murder but a burglary, robbery, rape or non-lethal assault?”

      I hope and suspect you didn’t intend to trivialize these crimes, but it kind of reads that way. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but a defensive gun use does not necessarily mean that you kill or even injure another, correct? It’s drawing your weapon with the intent of use if and only if necessary. Even if we stipulate that a DGU results in harming the would-be perpetrator, with regard to the first two items on the list, you can argue that one’s property is not as valuable as someone else’s life (even if they are a scumbag who evidently has no respect for you or your rights), but rape and assault?

      Non-lethal assault covers a tremendously broad spectrum. You can be crippled or paralyzed as a result of a vicious beating, or if particularly unlucky, even a not particularly vicious beating. Lasting harms aside, it’s just wrong. Why should you have to take a beating for no reason? As for rape, opinions may differ, but by my moral compass that’s worse than killing someone. I can see situations in which someone might think they have to kill another person, but rape?

      “I had to do it. Self defense plain and simple. If I didn’t rape her first she mighta raped me!”

      No excuse or justification. Ever.

      1. Indeed. You know it is sad when the other side is trying to justify the 10 to 1 positive (worst case!) ratio of defensive vs criminal gun use, by saying “well, it’s only rape!”

        Yeah… No.

        A less lethal assault? Well, the only way you are going to know that is if you are still alive at the end or not.

      2. Mike:
        That’s exactly how my local newspaper editorialized against CCW when the law was passed: “even if handguns could prevent rapes and murders, we still shouldn’t allow people to own them because that’s not what civilized people do!”
        …only mildly paraphrased. Civilized people are okay with rape and murder, as long as handguns aren’t involved.

        Seth: And victims are always sure that they will always be able to judge how far an attacker is going to go? Is there a bonding system for when Willy the Meth-head forgets the rules about “only” brutally assaulting and violating his victim? Will there be a time-out so the victim can go retrieve his firearm, when Willie goes too far?

      3. Yeah… no.
        I didn’t say “It’s only rape,” Larry did, sarcastically putting words in my mouth to make my argument easier to (not) respond to in any detail, and to fit me into a stereotype of the callous liberal. Nor did I say that people shouldn’t be allowed to defend themselves with guns against heinous, but non-lethal crimes (I said the opposite, in fact). Nor did I even imply that someone should stop and consider whether the imminent crime will be lethal (or close to lethal) before defending themselves with a gun. What I said (pretty clearly, actually) was that comparing illegal gun deaths to ALL DGUs, whether they prevent a death or not, is an uneven comparison. Include ALL illegal gun use, lethal or not, with a fired gun or not, and you’ll have a fair comparison to DGUs.
        Can I put out a general request here that people read posts at least twice before responding with fiction?

        1. Please save your righteous indignation. I’ve been called baby killer all week. Forgive me if I found your insinuations that rape and assault weren’t serious enough for your arbitrary criteria.

          Speaking of fiction, as you are pontificating about a subject which you don’t know anything about, what you are talking about as far as the legalities of defensive gun use is actually the law anyway. There isn’t some sliding scale of lethality. It is either lethal force or it is not. It is fairly obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about, and are simply grasping at straws to make it sound like nobody ever uses guns to defend themselves, and if they do, they probably weren’t really needed anyway.

          Your mind is made up, so I don’t expect to convince you. However there are a lot of other people reading this, so this is how Lethal Force laws work, and I’m going to condense an hour of instruction into a few sentences. This is how it works in most US states now. You are legally justified in using lethal force (i.e. shooting somebody) or threatening lethal force (i.e. pointing a gun at somebody) if a Reasonable Person (i.e. a jury of your peers) would make the following assumption about the situation.
          1. Does the individual have the Ability to cause you Serious Bodily Harm?
          2. Does the individual have the Opportunity to cause you Serious Bodily Harm?
          3. Is the individual acting in a manner which suggests to a Reasonable Person that he is a Immediate threat of Serious Bodily Harm?
          Serious Bodily Harm (also called Grevious Bodily Harm in other states) is anything which could be a life threatening or life altering injury. Rape is Serious Bodily Harm. Anything sufficient to knock you unconscious is also sufficient to kill you (plus, as a Reasonable Person, you could assume that they won’t be done with you just because you are out). You do not need a weapon to cause SBH, however it is more easily decided by the jury should they have one.
          The other factor in this is what is called in legal terms, Higher Standard of Care, which means that the person defending themselves needs to have exercised a higher standard of care in order to avoid conflict. If a person enters into Mutual Combat, they can not then later say that they were justified in use of Lethal Force.

          That is how it works. So you are pontificating uselessly about subjects you know nothing about. Everything you’ve said about the Zimmerman case just shows you are woefully ignorant of how self defense law currently works in our country, but hey, don’t let that hold you back from making pronouncements about a case where you haven’t actually seen any real evidence or heard any testimony deepr than an editorial in Mother Jones. The Zimmerman case will be decided guilty/innocent based upon the criteria above.

      4. Well, my objection was warranted, I think, since you put some pretty awful words that I did not write, think, or even “insinuate,” in quotation marks, and the very next comment responded as if you were quoting me. (Also, I don’t read Mother Jones).
        Absolutely true, I’m not an expert on this issue, as you say in about five different ways. I’m one of those people you say you “don’t mind at all”, who “mean well but are uninformed about gun laws and how guns actually work.” I’ve learned a lot already just from your post and the comments, and, if anything, have moved to the right on the gun issue. But the main point of my post was about statistics, not gun laws or how guns work (more on that below).
        Thanks for the lethal force primer, which (like your original post) was helpful and informative. But if you read my posts, you’ll see I’m not against using lethal force to defend oneself, and I said that in about five different ways. I know Zimmerman’s character and his reasons for spending so much of his time and energy patrolling his neighborhood won’t determine his legal guilt or innocence (and I said that, too). But that doesn’t mean we can’t talk about those things in a larger discussion of the psychology of guns and crime. His defenders have certainly talked about Trayvon Martin’s personality in detail.
        My main point, which hasn’t been addressed directly by you or any of the commentators so far, is to question the validity of comparing all DGUs to only illegal gun deaths, in order to just take those deaths off the table of any discussion as statistically “neutralized” by the DGUs. You probably have a solid defense of that comparison, but you haven’t made it explicitly, nor has anyone else here. I’ll just ask outright: why shouldn’t we compare ALL gun crime to ALL DGUs when discussing the issue of guns and their relative benefits and costs to society? A simple question, without any pontification.
        Seth
        [posted in wrong thread earlier. Apologies from a comments-section newbie.]

      5. I suggest you read David Kleck’s book, Point Blank, based on a study he did that won the American Criminological Institute’s top prize in 1993.

        He covers DGU use and the real numbers concerning unreported successful no-shoot DGU ( perp runs like a rabbit when he sees pistol ).

        ( note: Kellermann tried a similar “study” at the same period of time using government money … but he still refuses to turn over his data for peer review. )

        Most leftist anti-gun bigots don’t like mentioning Kleck … his work makes them look kinda stupid.

      6. Thanks, Kristophr, I’ve read a bit about Kleck’s 1993 study, but I’ll take a look at the book you recommend.

        I’m not questioning anyone’s DGU statistics, or the value of studying DGUs. I think they should be studied in detail. And by all means, choose what you think the most accurate study is, and cite the total number of DGUs as much as you like as evidence that guns are used positively all the time. But if you’re going to use that number to quantify positive vs. negative gun use, choose an equally representative number on the “negative” side of the colon. Include ALL negative gun uses, not just those involving a death, which is the statistic Larry used to make his “10:1 (worst case) positive to negative ratio” claim. Compare 100% of DGUs to 100% of crimes using a gun. Accidental gun deaths and injuries should figure in, too, if you really want a full, fair picture, What is the argument against using the data like this?

        In your other comment, below, you say that “Kleck does this.” Do you mean that he explicitly makes a quantitative comparison between DGUs and negative gun uses (maybe we should call them Offensive Gun Uses, OGUs)? If so, what is his ratio? And what number does he use on the “negative” side?

        Merry Christmas,

        Seth

  68. I don’t know if anyone corrected you or not Larry, I didn’t read all the replies but Texas law already allows school districts to decide about firearms on campus. Harrold ISD has armed teachers in their classroom. I was a teacher in one of El Paso’s three largest districts and was not allowed to go armed and got angry every time I thought of it. I always had a large folding knife on me and made sure I had some type of heavy pole, rod, or similar material in my classroom and had a plan on what to do IF we ever had an active shooter. Most people don’t realize how many conservative teachers there are in the system either; our social studies department had 8 teachers, 7 were conservative, one was moderate, and three had concealed carry licenses.

    1. The problem you will run into with leaving it up to the school districts is the same thing we ran into with the University of Utah when we had that legislative battle here. You get a handful of emotional, unreasonable, willfully ignorant people in charge of a school district, and all of the teachers like you who could make great speed bumps are hosed.

      Finally our attorney general stepped in and told the university president and some of the heads of our various state agencies to suck it up and deal with it. You are a state entity, you have to obey state law, and permits are legal.

  69. I appreciated this article but wanted to say a few things. I am a liberal from Massachusetts. I don’t own a gun but my brother and sister-in-law both do as do my best friends in NH. I am not very well versed in the language/terminology but I’m trying to learn. I think we have a problem with violence in general in this country and mass-shootings, in particular, just really freak me out. I agree with many of your points which I have heard before from my brother, friends and others and, if there is to be a debate on violence or gun violence and what is to be done about it, I want voices like theirs and yours to be a part of the debate. But when you make an article that talks about people like me who do not carry as ignorant jerks, it really turns people off. Maybe that’s not a concern of yours and, well, that’s fine — we don’t need to be chums. It’s just sort of a “you catch more flies with honey” kind of thing. You make valid points that people need to hear but if you are an asshole about it nobody will want to listen.
    Also, something I have found, is that people who are really INTO guns are surrounded with a high-caliber of gun-owners. My brother, sister-in-law, and friends take this very seriously. They have trained with some of the best instructors on the east coast, they practice, they take safety really seriously, they know and obey the appropriate laws, etc. They’ve told me stories about encountering some run-of-the-mill hicks with guns that, they have said, remind them of just how stupid and rash people can be and they are surprised that these “average gun owners” don’t take it as seriously as they do. I think there’s a little concern about over-estimating the gun-owning population if you look just at the people you know and hang out with who are all really awesome at this. This is part of the reason I am personally for some mandatory level of training for all owners. We can’t make a stupid person smart or control their actions outside of a training class but at least we can provide some MINIMAL safety knowledge as some kind of foundation.
    Cheers and thanks for the article.

    1. I may catch more flies with honey, but it is sometimes hard to bring out the honey when I’ve been called a baby killing, mass murderering, evil, psychopath by a whole bunch of totally uninformed highly emotional people, the entire entertainment industry, and the news media for the last few days, and off and on over the last fifteen years.

      Now I would ask you to look at the second part of what you wrote and think about it critically, and then go read my link in the article at the end about my opinions on legally mandated training.

      1. Also, long time readers of Larry’s blog here will hopefully recognize how very hard he obviously worked on keeping his snark to a minimum… Trust me- for Larry “Mr Snark” Correia, this post was the epitome of restraint… ;D

      2. For the last week I’ve seen dozens of calls for my murder because I’m an NRA member. In the couple of days before that I got to hear them explain why mobbing a tent full of defenseless demonstrators, tearing it apart and attacking some of those present was justified.

        I’m not feeling particularly charitable or tolerant towards the political left at the moment.

  70. Just wanted to say, thank you for writing all of this, all in one place.

    I’ve bookmarked it, and saved a copy to my hard drive, and I fully expect to be hauling this post out time for reference and cross link many, many times.

  71. This is a well-reasoned essay, and it’s certainly stimulating discussion. I haven’t seen anybody even attempt to dispute the logic of your points.

    One question: the figure you quote of deaths when shooters are stopped by civilians vs. police is the only one you don’t provide a source for. Do you have any suggestions as to where I might track that one down?

    (Also: Really enjoying “Legion”!)

  72. There’s a lot of good food for thought here, but I must ask that you please reevaluate your blanket use of the term “liberal.”

    I am a liberal who believes in voluntary concealed carry, and have an upcoming class with my wife and two very good friends to obtain a CCW permit, and I believe that the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are not only not opposites, but are misused as often as the term “assault rifle.”

    1. That is probably a fair complaint, but I’d like you to keep one thing in mind. Not all liberals want to ban guns, but every politician who wants to ban guns is a liberal. It is pretty darn rare to find a piece of gun control legislation which was drafted by a republican. 🙂 So if I paint with a broad brush, it is only because of who I have been debating this topic against for all these years, and it usually isn’t conservatives or libertarians.

      1. I’m sorry, but you seem to have an incorrect definition of “liberal.” Again, it’s not a black and white thing. A liberal is not just someone whose political ideas you disagree with, any more than a conservative is someone who disagrees with my political ideas.

        A conservative is simply a person who wishes to maintain the status quo–which makes most Republicans reactionary (in the sense that they actually want to roll back some regulations) neo-liberals (in the sense that they want to establish some government controls over individual liberties–see also the PATRIOT Act).

        Neither political party is particularly liberal, in the sense of employing government to accomplish public good that cannot be accomplished any other way–and yes, that means that there are liberal conservatives out there, just not many in government.

        The labels do your entire essay here ill credit.

        1. I am always intrigued why it only seems to be liberals who get hung up on the whole “no labels” thing. Conservatives and libertarians, the Tea Party, even socialists for that matter seem to have no problem with it. Go figure. Which really isn’t fair since if you want to get into picky terminology, the term liberal when used by the founding fathers has zero relation to how the term is used today.

          But hey, whatever. How about this, everytime instead of saying “liberal” I say “the people who push gun control, 99% of whom are registered as Democrats, and who if asked to self identify their political leanings would choose the word liberal or progressive, except for the handful who claim to be moderates” Because that will make everything so much easier and less offensive.

          Look, we can all pretend that gun control is some across the aisle thing so as to not hurt anyone’s feelings, but when the vast vast vast majority of all gun control laws are pushed by democrats (who would most likely be described as liberal democrats in any regular politcal context), and gun control is part of the party platform of the democrat party (i.e. the one most liberals belong to), gun control is going to be considered a liberal issue.

      2. Actually, the term Liberal was first applied to free market liberty proponents in the 19th Century.

        The socialist movement stole the term “Liberal” because it sounded better than Fascist, which Hitler and Mussolini had dirtied, or Socialist, which Stalin had dirtied.

        Now that they have given “Liberal” a bad name, they want to be called “Progressives”, because you can’t be against progress, eh?

  73. Duuuuude.

    Let’s say that these hypothetical 10% of 10% are willing to actually fight to keep their guns.

    You totally missed your chance to refer to us as “the 1%” here. I’m disappointed. 😉

  74. One helpful (not cure-all) step would be the Canadian model.
    No, not their gun laws, not their more homogenous population, but their reporting policy. Publicity seeking wackos get none. From a post on Chaos Manor: “…no mention would be made of the perp. No pictures, no interviews with family, nothing! There is a law against it.”

    1. During the Eighties and the Nineties, any acts of Terrorism performed by the IRA in the UK were reported, but that was it. Gerry Adams voice was not even allowed to be heard – there was a voice over of any statement he made.
      This ban was imposed by the then prime minister Margaret Thatcher on 19 October 1988, the reason given being to “starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend”

    2. I agree whole-heartedly with this! They also have a law against lying on broadcast news that would come in handy down here. 😉

      (And sorry to the mod for my multiple posts! I am engrossed in this discussion. It’s hard to find any thread on this topic which is mostly free of insults.)

    3. I’d like to see it happen voluntarily.

      I am unwilling to delete the first amendment to allow the government to force it on us.

  75. Excellent, if long.

    I do want to disagree with your South Africa statement, though. Yes, we got a New! Improved! firearm control act which is a pain in the arse. But even before that, when only white people could have guns, there was a fingerprint, criminal background check, one licence per gun thing going. Under the new act it’s more difficult for white people to get guns but much easier for black people (OK, this is not related to the act but to the political changes — lots of black guys got guns under the previous act, after 1994). Anyway, on the one side government melted a whole lot of guns, on the other side we’ve been buying guns like crazy.

    Semi-auto long guns are “restricted” and fully auto is “prohibited” which means you can only have them if you’re a collector — Yea, my dictionary also disagrees with that use of “prohibited”.

    Yes, our crime rates are… not so good. But with there having been effectively a civil war (the non-South Africans we were fighting are now running the country, so we have war veterans and all kinds of things) and a complete government change, the crazy was fairly well controlled. And crime levels are dropping.

    Yes, we have six times your per-capita murders, last time I looked. Since then your rates seem to have dropped more than ours, and your population went up — that is if the 350 mil figure I saw is correct, it was 300 mil just the other day. We have 50 mil and 20 000 murders a year.

    Of which half are firearm related. Same as yours, roughly. Except that all our legal guns are registered and all our legal gun owners are deemed competent by the police, after background checks and interviews with family and so forth and so on. And we have to lock up guns and ammo but fortunately not the brass like the poor ozzies have to. My wife is not allowed to have a key to my gunsafe. Crazy. If someone steals my gun, I will be charged, I might go to jail, I will lose all my guns — unless I can prove I did everything I could to prevent that theft.

    And you guys have all those guns and still half your criminals, like half of ours, don’t use guns. Or, half our criminals _do_ use guns, guns they’re theoretically unable to get.

    Idunno, I think that says something about the use of gun control.

  76. I think it may be useful to consider the fact that “prohibition” is actually aggression.

    The essence of any proposed ban is, “Hand over your property, or we will kill you.”

    This is the choice that will be given to millions of people who have committed no crime. It’s unspoken, at least in those terms … but we all know what underlies any such legislation.

    To compound matters, the people who seize the guns, label their victims as “violent men”.

    That was the British experience, anyway.

  77. Nice article. My take away is that a gun ban and confiscation should be enacted on households with persons undergoing any sort of prescribed depression treatment. However, that might be a hard to enforce law as well.

    One other comment for you is that I travel by air frequently and how do you correlate the lack of violence in airports and airplanes with the FAA weapons ban? Hijacking, bomb attempts, and other violence seem mostly thwarted by the FAA weapons ban.

    1. Depression doesn’t mean suicidal (let alone homicidal), and the shooters in these cases are not simply depressed.

    2. Phil, I can understand the idea and the sentiment behind your first paragraph, however, I would urge caution and learning more about psychiatric illness first. (which is why I stayed out of that in my essay, because I am not an expert). We should all be extremely wary of any sort of arbitrary criteria which will deprive someone of their guns. I’ve seen democrat proposals (and that isn’t a pejorative, it was floated by democrats in congress) that anybody with PTSD should be denied purchase of a firearm. That would instantly ban a giant swath of our country’s vets from owning a firearm, and it would be extra pointless, because those are the guys we want armed the most.

      So if people want to have a serious discussion about what mental issues should forbid gun ownership, that’s a great discussion to have.

      On the second, as far as crime and mass shootings go, an airport is going to have a lot of police in it. I believe every single major airport in the country has lots of armed personel. Ergo, bad choice for a mass shooter. So Gun Free Zones can theoretically work, if you are willing to park an entire police department on top of each one.

      That said, there have been mass shooting attempts in airports as well. I do not have the cite for this, but I believe there was one a few years ago at LAX and an El Al employee shot the bad guy. Don’t know the details on that one though.

      1. My husband likely has mild ptsd, hasn’t been diagnosed. Got burned badly in an accident at work. He changed careers and is now a cop, a decision influenced by the responders to his accident. That ban would also take a lot of police off the streets.

    3. Golly, do you think the airports being totally swarmed by armed guards has anything to do with it? I bet you pass 50 armed men between the parking lot and your plane seat, if not more. Not to mention the sniffer dogs, all the metal detectors, and a giant CCTV system covering nearly every foot of the whole place. Airports are armed camps these days, in case you haven’t noticed. All passengers are treated as criminals-in-waiting, liable to strip search without warrant at any moment.

      Not that airports or airplanes were ever statistically violent places in the first place, but these days they’re overrun with guns and badges.

    4. Yeah, sentiments like this were why I was so resistant to seeking treatment for my depression for so long. I didn’t want to give someone like you the excuse to sodomise my rights.

      Is it still paranoia when they really are out to get you?

    5. As a kid I had PTSD I’m sure that would disqualify me. Heck my old insurance wouldn’t give you sleeping pills without seeing a psychiatrist. I can just easily picture a regulation being passed where just seeing a shrink for sleeping pills gets your guns taken away.

      Then there is the ugly fact of “fad” diagnosis, I’ve seen people get diagnosed with different conditions based on when they see the doctor and what pills just hit the market. That is if a new pill for Manic Depression hits the market that’s what they got diagnosed with. Sure my views on this are anecdotal and won’t stand up in court. I am ill equipped to do a national health screen study and can only go on what I have observed. It’s enough that if a measure to regulate guns based on mental health screens alone goes to the popular vote I won’t vote for it.

      I think we need to fix the mental health system before we can even think of using it as a rubric for how it affects other legal aspects. Don’t get me wrong I don’t want those who are disturbed and need help to have guns. I just don’t want to deny others their right to defend themselves because the system isn’t perfect.

  78. Would be nice if you site some math in this argument. I find it laughable that you just make wild claims that England and Australia are horrible scary places because they have strict gun laws. Lets do some math. Totalitarian England had 30-50 gun death between 2010-2011. We had 9k. But wait they are so much more dangerous than us! Their total homicides were 648 in the same period. Thats 7% of our GUN deaths. The murder rate with guns in this country per 100k people is 3,0. In england its .02. But their violent crime is up! I guess muggings are worse than getting shot dead according to you. Oh wait their muggings rates are on par with ours. Super scary place to live. Here’s an article that takes on your claims about Australia: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/ except they site numbers you can go look up. Quaint. 22 kids did get hurt in China. And that sucks. But they all lived. Guess stab wounds are equal to death according to you. Why no mention of Japan? They have the strictest gun laws, are they not a horrible mad max style place to be mugged or stabbed to death like dirty ol England and Australia? But hey, as long as the good guys have guns, the gun culture is protecting us! You want an honest debate, be honest. I’mn a responsible gun owner, and I love shooting and collecting my weapons, but this entire argument is predicated on crap. I’m glad you know the inner workings of that deranged guy who shot up the movie theater. I would love to know HOW you know he chose that theater simply because it had a no guns sign, I mean other than wild conjecture on your part.

    1. “I would love to know HOW you know he chose that theater simply because it had a no guns sign, I mean other than wild conjecture on your part.”

      Draw a line from the shooter’s home to the theater. Measure that line and draw a circle with that radius, centered on his home. There are multiple theaters within that circle; only one of them has “Gun Free Zone” signs.

      If it’s conjecture, it seems rather tame.

    2. Japan?

      2001 in gun-less Japan: 8 school children stabbed to death in school by man with kitchen knife. Several more injured. Couldn’t happen here, right? – http://t.co/jOJJEr9o

      2008 in gun-less Japan: Man kills 7 with truck (3) and dagger (4). Several more injured. The Japanese “reviewed knife rules” afterward; don’t know how that went. – http://t.co/JiilRg8u

      1. Currently the Japanese have draconian knife laws in addition to an outright ban on handguns and ammunition, and long arms may be purchased for use only if you belong to a private club. Rifles and shotguns may be kept in your home but not ammunition. The guideline for servicemembers living here is, “There’s no such thing as self-defense with a weapon.”

        There are limits on how long a knife can be and in order to have one in your possession outside your home you must be on your way to or already engaged in an approved activity, such as fishing or diving. If you have so much as a one inch blade on your person you can be arrested and held for up to three weeks before being charged with anything.

    3. Let’s see. 10,000 word essay, one bit that you disagree on the stats (even though I said in that paragraph that it is up for debate) ergo the whole thing is crap and can safely be dismissed without any further consideration.

      Well, why do I think England’s crime has gone up? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html or http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html and keeping in mind that from speaking with my fans in the UK (some of whom are police) I think your violent crime rate is way under reported, not that I would see any reason why the government which is a huge fan of gun control would do that, or why your media which is a huge fan of gun control would support that.

      “Oh, but they didn’t use a GUN!” Yes. Because getting your skull smashed in with a cricket bat or a beer bottle is somehow morally superior.

      And as for the lethality of stabbing, I posted another link in the comments already about that. The difference in a stabbing and a lethal stabbing is a tiny bit of anatomy knowlege and some effort. When you look at the actual numbers of the total killed v injured in Chinese school stabbings (oh, and you didn’t know there had been a rash of them?) The fatality percentage isn’t that far off of the survival rate of handgun wounds in this country. 21 dead v. 90 injured.

    4. Well, Japan differs dramatically from the US, and the UK, and definitely Australia, both in terms of homogeneity and culture. Following rules and doing as you are expected to is much bigger there than here (US). Not a slam on either culture, just very very different.

      Incidentally, I was in Japan shortly after the “Akihabara massacre.” En route to Japan I put my crappy knife (3″ folding Buck with a semi-serrated blade, can opener/screwdriver and a corkscrew, the last mostly why I had this particular one) in my checked bag. On an internal flight I forgot about the knife and left it in my carry-aboard. Sure enough I got pulled out of line at the X-ray, and taken to a back room by a couple of armed security. My carelessness, my fault; just stupid. Unfortunately the security guys’ English was nearly as bad as my Japanese so we did a lot of gesticulation. The lead interrogator kept yelling “Why?” to which I could only respond, “Forgot. Stupid!” while pointing at myself and looking hangdog and contrite. The latter was easy, ’cause I really was. My wife, who they let follow me into the back room, a good sign the lead-filled rubber hoses were not coming out, helped with looking contrite, but also with “Stupid!” (Heh.) Then it was “Why BIG knife?” to which I couldn’t make a good answer, especially since it wasn’t. Anyway, after about 10 minutes of this one of the guards picked up my knife and motioned for my wife to stay and me to pick up my bag and follow him. Which I did. We went out of the secure area and I started worrying about whether I was going to be arrested or “merely” kicked out of the airport.

      To my surprise, the guard made a beeline for the luggage check, talked to a clerk and got a little cardboard box about 6x2x3 inches. He put the knife in and sealed the box. The clerk asked for my boarding pass, labeled the box and told me “We will check your knife. It will come out with other bags.” When this was done the guard took my elbow and whisked me back through security. With a last rather exasperated finger-shake at me he left me bemused in the waiting area in time to catch our flight.

      When we got to Hokkaido I told our local friend what happened and her eyes got really big. “Well, a crazy person just killed people with a “big knife” in Tokyo. That’s why the guard was asking “Why big?” Everyone is alarmed about knives right now and they are reviewing the laws.” The knife-box arrived on the conveyor belt intact with the rest of the checked luggage. Got a lot of funny looks retrieving this tiny box from amongst the big suitcases, but I got my knife back.

      I’d hate to imagine what would have happened had I done that at a major US airport. Some things are really different elsewhere.

      1. Heh. Decent odds the TurdsStandingAround would have missed it completely, esp. if there was a cancer patient in a wheelchair near you in line. 😀

    5. Alas, the US does not have a single coherent system of laws about firearms. Federal, State, City – all can have laws covering any aspect of gun ownership and use. Our inner cities that have restrictive gun laws are where people get shot and die, and are the reason why the US has that high murder rate with guns. Conversely, anywhere that the laws are less restrictive and more firearms are owned by private citizens has a much lower murder rate. See ‘More Guns, Less Crime’ by Lott for a rigorous proof and analysis of this statement. I’ve seen this in action first hand where I live. In Arizona, we’ve always had free open carry of firearms. Now anyone can carry concealed with no permits required. Strange, but few people actually bother. There’s been no bloodbath, just a drop in the crime rate. If it weren’t for the illegals from Mexico and the drug smugglers moving through here, we’d have practically nothing.

      Next, the violent crime rate in England has been rising. It is on a par with ours, but was once far below that level. The only reason that it is officially on a par is that your politicians are fudging the numbers, mate. Ask a bobbie about the official crime rate numbers, but do it where they can’t be nobbled by their superiors.

      Why mention Japan? Their culture is vastly different than either of ours. That’s the difference, not the laws. For that matter, the US should have a higher crime rate than England or just about anywhere else. We’re a nation of immigrants, and took in the wild and criminal from all over the world. Once the folks got here, they had to deal with a higher rate of violence than from where they came from, which means that my ancestors were picked as winners from a group of violent people. Our culture differences reflect this.

      Now, are you going to be honest?

  79. EXCELLENT column/article.

    I’m a liberal gun owner and on the fence on a lot of these issues so your column helped me a great deal. You seem like a reasonable, rational guy with very good points.

    I do have one concern, and that’s the sense that the country’s divisiveness is leading some Americans to conclude that they can achieve from the barrel of a gun what they couldn’t achieve through the peaceful processes of election/legislature/executive/judiciary.

    The “gub’mint” isn’t going to launch a house-to-house search for defensive weapons. There’s no legal basis for it, and you’re right: the military and the police wouldn’t stand for it.

    However, IF a group of individuals decided that for whatever reasons that “the government is illegitimate” and “Obama is shredding the Constitution” or “the Founding Fathers want us to nourish the Tree of Liberty with blood” or “we’re gonna secede”, this COULD lead to what one side would call “taking back America for liberty” and the other side would call “insurrection.”

    The “gub’mint” has not only a legal basis for putting down insurrection (if the State or States are unwilling or unable to do so), the President has a Constitutional Duty to do so.

    If the President issued a presumably legal order to put down a localized insurrection, would the military follow this order?

    Either way, what happens after these “IF’s” is pretty damned frightening, and should be to most Americans.

    Your thoughts?

    1. That is a very valid concern, and I’d like to point out a couple of things. The fact that gun owners haven’t risen up in any sort of inserection shows that they are level headed, normal, regular people, and the vast majority of them really like America, and want it to stay in one piece. Gun culture people tend to be fairly straight forward. There are only a few things which would cause a mass inserrection, and #1 on that list would be banning and confiscating guns. 🙂

      The question of whether the military would obey the president is far beyond the scope of my essay, but basically the answer comes down to what the order was for, and what the people were rebelling against.

      1. There was no mass insurrection when they grabbed the guns in England. There was no mass insurrection when they grabbed the guns in Australia.

        There will be no mass insurrection here.

        And who’s to say if Obama truly is against the breakup of the USA? I think he’d be rather happy about it, once he’s extracted all the paid vacations he can get first. It’s not like he has any great love of the place…

    2. The reason why your fears are unfounded is because the very people you propose might preemptively strike against the government value the rights enshrined in our founding documents (including “life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) that they would kill or die to protect them.

      In other words,the reason you think it could happen is the reason it won’t. If the government does not clearly and preemptively violate those rights,the patriots consider the government in good working order and any insurrection against it an act of treason.

    3. If the Dems wanted to seize guns, they would just pass the law, but not directly enforce it. Attrition and frog boiling, no Alamos.

      If someone comes into police custody, and they thought that person might be a forbidden firearm owner, they would just take his credit card history to a judge, get a search warrant, and crawl all over his property with metal detectors … all while he was still in custody for his traffic ticket or whatever.

      They would also set up a snitch line with large rewards for seized guns.

      One by one, the guns would disappear, or stay permanently buried, while the gun culture in the US dies off.

      No one would get the front porch alamo they were expecting.

  80. Larry, being that I am somewhat left of center politically, you and I may not agree on many things. But guns are one thing we do definitely agree on, and I will say this; this article is a work of art. It is well spoken, and I agree with you 100 percent. I urge anyone anti-gun to read it. Thank you for posting this, and keep up the awesome work.

  81. I would point out that while the Giffords shooting meets the criteria for a mass shooting, it also differs from the typical in a very crucial way. Loughner apparently did not go there to shoot anyone/everyone, he went there to assassinate Giffords. He had a single target focus.

    So while it meets the “number of victims” criteria for a mass shooting, it is better classified as a sloppy suicidal assassination attempt. Not that this makes much difference to the victims.

    Also, in Arizona it’s tough to find too many “gun free” zones. But since Loughner had only one real goal that was probably an irrelevant consideration to him.

  82. Very rational argument. I still disagree. Seems to me the point is totally missed. Nobody NEEDS a gun. If nobody HAS a gone. Nobody can be killed by a gun. Easy! Lost lives are not worth some people’s recreation.

    1. Oh. My. Gosh. All that and you didn’t understand a single word. I’m not trying to be cruel, but you literally do not understand the fundamental problem even when it has been painstakingly laid out for you. The problem is evil people. If there were no evil in the world, we wouldn’t need guns, but since evil is here, we can’t let everyone be its chew toy.

    2. How will you get rid of every firearm in the country? Including those in the hands of criminals? How will you keep criminals from obtaining firearms? If they can smuggle tons of drugs across the border every year, a few thousand firearms won’t be an issue.

      Don’t let emotion control your think, reread the blog and use logic.

    3. Why yes, I did make a very rational argument. Your response is a very irrational argument.

      I’d be willing to entertain your suggestion as soon as you invent a magic wand which can uninvent guns, then bad people won’t have them either. You should get right on that…

      And then we’ll merely go back to the good old days, where the big, strong, and violent could simply take whatever they wanted from people like you.

      But in the meantime, on planet Earth, I’m going to stick with my current plan of people being able to fight back with the most effective weapon possible against inevitable criminal aggresors.

    4. Joy,

      Madman walks into the classroom with a knife. Teacher unarmed.

      Now, YOUR policy has committed that teacher to a bout of hand-to-hand combat. How would you fare against naked steel in the hands of a psycho?

      From the second he walks into a classroom full of unarmed people, their fates are in his domain. The lives of everyone there are his to dispose of as HE sees fit.

      Go tell the teachers that you “prefer that they should go hand-to-hand against machetes”.

      No-one is claiming that a gun guarantees safety …. there is no “right not to die”.

      But, there is certainly a “right” to resist dying. You would do better if you helped your fellow men to exercise that “right”, to your mutual advantage.

    5. Wait…did you actually read it? I need a gun for several reasons. I’m a short wimpy guy that can’t defend himself against three armed thugs for one. Another is that I’m a free American that wants to remain that way. In the event that we are invaded or become a tyranny or a natural disaster disrupts society for a while, then yeah, I NEED a gun. Just because you don’t want one doesn’t mean you should try to take them away from others. you know what? I hate sweater vests. I think they should be outlawed because they’re tacky and tasteless.

      1. Piggybacking:

        If we “allow guns” then sometimes the criminals are going to be “better armed” and maybe more lethal than they might otherwise be. But the criminals are _always_ going to be more lethal than their victims if only simply because they pick those they perceive as weak and relatively helpless to be their victims. Completely eliminating guns, if one could somehow do that, would not change that.

        Guns are very nearly the ultimate equalizer (“God made man short and tall, Samuel Colt made them equal”). I’m 51, almost 52, years old, somewhat overweight, with bad knees. Can I hold my own against some punk half my age? Maybe (brown belt in Judo and in reasonably good shape for my age–weight and knees notwithstanding and note that “for my age”–so maybe). With my knees running away is out of the question. But add a weapon to the mix, even a knife or club, and, well, I’m not confident. Are you? And even if I’m armed with a knife (I can get my leatherman out and open in about a second and a half), well, the winner of a knife fight goes to the hospital.

        I have a wife and a daughter dependent on me not just financially but in whatever emotional and spiritual terms a wife and daughter get from a husband and father (I get quite a bit from the other side of that). I have a responsibility to make sure that I. come. home. safely. to. them. And I will use whatever it takes to make sure it happens. And that does _not_ mean playing “whose the baddest” matching muscle to muscle, or knife to knife, against some punk who thinks the cash in my wallet is worth killing over.

        Nope. I’m going to use the best means at my disposal to make sure in a “him or me” situation it’s him and not me. And I will resist anyone who tries to force me to be limited to muscle to muscle or knife to knife.

    6. I’ll repeat what I said earlier.. I can (But have not, nor do I intend to, as I hate prison food) build a submachinegun with a trip to a hardware store, and -hand tools-. mull that over. it’s only got to work long enough for me to shoot someone who has a -better- gun, and take it.

      You were saying something about nobody having any guns? Oh, and banning ammo won’t help. Car batteries for lead, and I’m not telling you the propellant formula.

    7. Guns are a 15th Century technology. You cannot un-invent them.

      Yakuza in Japan still smuggle Chinese made handguns in ( that the PRC sold them openly ) and sell them to criminals.

      Australia is a seperate continent surrounded by water … and yet criminals still smuggle in truckloads of pistols ( again bough openly in China ) inside mis-marked shipping containers.

      Get back to us when you discover some kind of device that will make people forget that you can make a gun by shoving simple chemicals into a closed pipe and tamping lead fishing weights on top of it.

    8. To understand many people that argue against guns, you’ve got to be aware of a simple manipulative technique called ‘projection.’

      Those that argue from emotional wells rather than from a factual basis are usually just so ‘certain’ that their own opinion of something is spot-on, that anybody that differs; no matter how many contrary facts are brought to light… is still just ‘wrong’…..somehow…

      Joy.. are you sure you just haven’t convinced yourself that because YOU don’t need a gun… naturally nobody else could possibly need one?

  83. Is there a thumbs up button for this? Thank you for an excellent article. It should be mandatory reading material. You have inspired me to exercise my 2nd amendment.

  84. I don’t want to get into a debate about gun control itself, all i would like to say is please research your work better. You base your arguments on ‘facts’ yet no evidence is provided to back these up. For example, those arguments relating to crime levels in England are completely wrong and a “cursory google search” will only serve to prove that. Basing your arguments on incorrect or inflated ‘facts’ only serves to weaken it in the long run.

    1. So, out of my 10,000 word essay which went over a wide variety of topics, because you disagree with one of my data points the whole thing is bad, and thus I can safely be ignored. Gotcha.

      Oh, except I’m not wrong.
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
      And I do believe I stated right in the article that the stats were open to interpretation, because obviously the control freak government which passed the gun laws and collects the stats is totally unbiased, and media which loves gun control is totally unbiased in their reporting, but anyways…

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html

      But of course, you disagree with what the stats mean, and thus every single thing I said can be dismissed. Because obviously, a gun ban which doesn’t work that good on a tiny island will of course be super awesome in a giant country with huge borders and hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation.

  85. “China. GUN FREE COUNTRY. A guy with a KNIFE stabs 22 children.”

    Each of those children lived. They will go home to their parents.

    As a longtime gunowner, that simple fact has shaken everything I’d previously believed about the effectiveness of gun control. 22 kids in China get stabbed, they all live. 20 kids in the US get shot, they died. There is a clear difference in lethality. The Chinese kids lived. Soak that in.

      1. Remember that wound ballistics class I mentioned? We did knives too. The difference between a stabbing injury and a fatal stabbing is a little bit of anatomy knowledge.

        My point in bringing up China is to show that in a country with the strictest gun control in human history, bad people are still going to find a way to hurt people. The main difference between the two weapons is one of distance, and the fact is, this guy closed that distance.

    1. Your argument seems to be that guns should go away because sometimes the kids that get stabbed by bad guys aren’t killed.

      Ever been stabbed? It’s really, really unpleasant. I imagine it would be even more unpleasant for a child.

      As long as there are bad people, there is only one effective method of stopping them from stabbing/burning/exploding/running aircraft into innocents: good men with guns.

      And if you don’t want good men with guns, don’t summon the police the next time you, personally, are stabbed: report back with results.

    2. A guy from my church got stabbed to death. Very sad, had two kids. A girl from my high school got shot five times and lived. Ergo, guns are safer than knives. Gotcha.

    3. You would have us emulate a country ruled by a government that by conservative estimates murdered 30 million of it’s citizens?

    4. You might also consider that not all gun shots are fatal either. Some have even lived with a bullet in their brain. But have you seen the effects of multiple knife wounds on a body, even if not lethal ? Damage is damage, it all has huge physical and psychological effects on the victims. I dont think we can or should judge just who suffers more.

    5. Whether it is a bullet or a blade, if a vital organ is hit the damage is similarly serious and often lethal with either method

      In the China stabbing, many of those children suffered not just ‘wounds’ but actual amputations of extremities.

      It was pure luck that none died.

  86. Whole bunch of people agreeing with this guys arguements which are full of holes. See above…Australia had a huge gun problem they dealt with it. homicides down. Canada’s gun problems? Some 90 percent of crimes commited in Canada with a gun ..gun smuggled illegally from the USA. That gun illegal in Canada. thanks for exporting your problems USA. Hear of drugs from Mexico? Look to yourselves. there are legal guns in canada but they are very specific gun types. Hand guns are severely restricted and take a course and a lot of checks to get one.

    There are 2 problems with the USA with guns currently, maybe 3. One the idea that handguns and basic weapons of war are nesessary to feel safe,(I live on a farm and have a shotgun, and a 22, If i lived in the city i wouldn’t have a gun) considering statistically a gun in the home is more likely to be used against you(look it up) than you using it this is a false feeling, The idea that any limit on guns is a total limit on guns is false. If i wished to buy a nucular weapon I would be unable to do so. this is called the BIG GUN. This is a limit. thirdly and the thing the writter totally ignores is the romantizing of gun culture and voilence in american. Death is ugly and painful and stupid. Stop making lovely video games you can walk away from, or stupid movies where the hero shoots his way free. More often than not the bad guys win. Just how it is in life.

    I guess when every week there is a new news story something might be done. Or when they arm a teacher and he/she is mad and shoots a student.(I have wanted to strangle many a teenager so don’t give me a gun then). Guns are tools. they are not tools you need for most living. On a farm, sick animals, wild dogs, racoons…sure. Some rappper with metal I don’t think so. some idiot who cannot reason, see the writter, i think not.

    People are violent give them a gun and their violence is more effective. give them a nucular weapon instead….Quicker.

    1. “If i wished to buy a nucular weapon I would be unable to do so.”

      Have you tried?

      Contact Samir Khan in Pakistan; I hear he can hook you up. You might want to use the word “nuclear”, though.

    2. The nuclear strawman. I think that is number 10 on the stupid guncontrol argument FAQ.

      The second amendment was about each American being able to own the same load out that a soldier has. Check out the militia act of 1792, sometime. If we actually enforced that today, each American would be required to have a working M-16 and ammo, or pay a fine of five ounces of coin-grade silver each month.

      When the US Army issues individual soldiers Nukes or Nerve gas, then get back to us, otherwise we will just laugh at you while you set fire to that strawman you built.

  87. I come to comment in the “better late than never” category.

    Thank you, is all I want to say.

    I have been interested in guns for 20 years and have followed gun law closely since Heller v. DC. I have yet to see a gun control argument that was not around during the run-up to Heller.

    Noting that every single gun control argument has been eviscerated by factual, peer reviewed data, experience, history, and technological advances, and that emotional appeals to “do something!” are water off a duck’s back to me, I have to ask: When will they stop?

    1. Like any other would be tyrants, when they are stopped by those who love freedom. Neither blog posts nor ballots will be involved.

    2. Never. Because as we’ve seen, even if all the guns are banned and your self defense laws are horrible, then they’ll ban knives and sticks. It is all about control, not actually solving any problems.

      1. And rocks! Don’t forget about rocks! The first recorded murder was with a rock, and rocks are even an executioner’s weapon now in Sharia areas.

        So for the sake of the childeren please don’t forget to ban the evil rocks!

        And fists. Keep them locked up. And feet. And teeth.

        Oh my god, I almost forgot PILLOWS! How many are suffocated with pillows each year?

  88. 1. “Nobody needs a gun”? If you believe so would you come with a club or whatever, when I go to cut firewood in my woodlot which happens to be frequented by a black bear which likes my beehives or advise on what to do with the 7 skunks that were after my chickens this summer?
    2. One way to improve the mass killing solution would be very counter intuitive – legalize non-crew-served automatic weapons. There is a reason that the army went to the A3 model on the M16. It eliminated the full auto feature and replaced it with a 3 round burst. This saved many innocent leaves from being shot out of trees. Also, google “LA Jewish community center shooting 1999” The perp had a fully automatic UZI and destroyed the ceiling with the majority of the rounds.
    3. As a question, what about “arming” the incurably gunphobic school personnel with Mace or pepper spray?

    1. My husband is a cop and had to get sprayed in training. Also worked in the jail before that. Has been hit multiple times with it, just makes him angry, you can still aim and shoot, can still fight after. You might try to find some training videos to watch. Its interesting. They have guys waiting in padded suits for the trainees to attack after they are sprayed.

  89. I need to let you know how some of my opinions changed after reading this. I am definately NOT a fan of guns and have had no problem with gun control, until my children, family and community were changed forever by the actions of a kid with a gun. My children attend Chardon schools. My son was friends with the 3 boys who were killed this year at his school. I felt the same way as so many people shouting for more gun control. The problem is that we are guided by our fears and grief not with rational thoughts. I began to question whether a ban of guns would really make a difference when I noticed the gun free zone sign on the front of our schools. Yeah, that worked real well. 3 boys dead, 2 injured and hundreds of children and families dealing with the after math. I came to the realization that only the law abiding citizens would respect the sign not a person intent on murder. What we are doing is not working. I read your words with an open mind and have changed mine. A year ago I would have been horrified at the thought of guns in school. Now, I think I would feel better if my childs teacher was armed. During the school shooting, my son and his classmates locked the door and cowered in the corner of a classroom for an hour helpless with fear and nothing to protect themselves against a killer with a gun. Yes, we need to make changes or these horrible acts will continue. I no longer believe a gun ban is the answer. We cannot make decisions and laws based on ignorance and fear. Thank you for the information, Laura

    1. Hi Laura,
      You’re right. Israel basically proved that the schools are safest with armed teachers as they were victims of regular terrorist attacks at their schools when they were ‘gun free zones’ & finally decided that wasn’t working in the 70’s, so they did away with them & armed the teachers. The result has been the safest schools in the world since.
      Criminals don’t like even taking the chance of going into places where the good guys are armed. I love the famous photo of the teacher in Israel with her little students & a real ‘military assault rifle’ hanging from her shoulder instead of a purse. It may not be the ideal the liberals envision but that utopia will never come until this age has passed & the world “beats their swords into plowshares”. 🙂
      God Bless!

      1. I really take issue with people drawing parallels with Israel on gun issues. Do we really want to model ourselves after a war-torn country? Having lived in Israel for when I was young, I can say that every teacher carrying a gun is a myth. Gun ownership is actually resrrictive for the average citizen, and every citizen (man or woman) has to serve in the military, where they learn to handle a gun. Also, most Israelis would like nothing more than to live in a society without guns since they

        1. Model ourselves? Or copy one tactic to combat one specific problem? Big difference.

          Serving in the military doesn’t make you an automatic expert on the handling of weapons, especially since most military personel in a modern force aren’t combat arms, they are support, and after basic training they may get military experience with weapons a couple times a year. Our ten year war with no front line has changed that ratio, but already the military is slashing its training budgets.

          Same with police. The only cops who are truly good with guns are the ones that actually like to shoot, and so they practice more. Do you know what one of the single most accomplished shooters I have ever known did for a living? He was a hair dresser.

          As an instructor, I could take the average person who had quite literally never touched a gun before in their life, and you give me 8-10 hours with them, and I could get that person to pass the average police department’s firearms qualification. Fundamental gun use isn’t exactly rocket science.

          And once again, Speed Bumps.

    2. Thank you for saying this. I’m another Laura who finally decided that generalization and fear-mongering were not for me, No one who has decided to murder 20 or so people is going to see a sticker on the door and say, Oops, a no-gun zone, guess I won’t then. Nor is anyone who has decided to commit murder going to hesitate at smaller crimes like theft or illegal possession.

      Better far to address the root problem than to punish millions of innocent people for the symptom.

    3. Laura – no criminal or even disturbed person ever wants to end up in a gunfight – that is not in their plan at all. This is why merely the knowledge or suspicion that armed persons may be present wherever they decide to go on the rampage is a deterrent which works.

  90. I’ve shared this both on my Facebook page and a web-board where an anti-gun discussion is on going (ironic since it’s a military spouse web board). Thank you! I’m finally finishing my CCW paperwork and will be getting it in soon to my local sheriff’s office.

  91. Well spoken! I agree with everything you say. Do you ever teach anymore? I need to learn to shoot — my husband is after me to do so…or can you recommend a place that teaches beginners?

  92. Very well written, lengthy but complete. Thank you. I will be re-posting and referring to this article. I normally never re-post, and keep a near silent social media presence. But we can’t afford to do that. I am with you in your original sentiment “tired, exhausted” with the same old arguments and rhetorical resistance. But we cannot stand by, sit this one out. If we do not stand up today for our rights, then our children may be shedding blood to get them back in the future. We don’t need change we just need to get back to basics.

  93. I loved your article. I am something of an amateur firearms historian, and I do have a few details.
    First, the earliest weapon that meets your definition of an assault rifle is the Italian Cei-Rigotti of 1890.
    Second there are only 3 actual Assault Rifles, the German Sturm Gewher 44 and the Swiss Strum Gewehr 57 and 90.
    All other weapons of similar type are officially designated as automatic rifles, battle rifles, individual weapons, or some such thing.

    1. I tried to put it into terminology that normal people would understand. 🙂

      Oh, and you forgot the Fedorov, and depending on your criteria, possibly the Mondragon.

  94. When you claim the “right” to seize property, you are really claiming the “right” to initiate force against peaceful people … people who have neither offered you violence, or done you harm.

    That makes YOU the aggressor.

    I can think of no moral precedent which justifies the initiation of force…. even self-defence requires that a clear and credible threat be offered to you.

    The only entity or group which ever claims this “right”, is the State … to which the normal rules of civilised behaviour do not apply. Apparently.

  95. Actually; Larry “automatic robot gun turrets” DO exist – SORTA.

    I remember seeing a demo of a prototype of one on a cable tv show. The topic of the show was a guy who produced customized doomsday bunkers for survivalists & this was one of the inventions that he was working on.

    It seemed to do a reasonable job of tracking & firing on his partner who was playing the part of target. (IIRC he had it rigged to a paintball gun; although I see no reason it couldn’t be used with a real gun – full auto of course.)

    Put a couple of these in each school & we can teach little Johnny why you don’t sneak out of class without a hall pass 🙂

    1. That’ll work super awesome for when the disilusioned loner scumbag killer happens to be good at computer hacking. 🙂

      1. Now that’s a very scary thought right there… *shudder*. We need people with training willing to protect themselves and others. Not some button pusher in a security office, or some lines of code and Infrared motion trackers.
        Give me a person over a computer any day.

      2. That too. I was only thinking of simple f-ups where somebody happened
        to be “testing” the system & left it “on” come a Monday morning …
        (how he managed to get OUT of the building under those conditions would
        be … interesting. Of course then again … maybe he DIDN’T…. )

        Maybe we need to go to the ADGNSEPF555 (rpg game) system … where hall passes are “3 foot tall … bright red … and BULLETPROOF” 🙂

    2. As I remember, the Navy’s Phalanx CIWS using the Vulcan 20MM gatling has an automatic mode. You can not reliably defend against anti-ship missiles with the Mark 1 Mod 0 eyeball. It did have a few problems initially. At the first public test, instead of hitting the drone missile it blew the crap out of a seagull that happened to fly past at the wrong moment. Target ID can be a problem

      1. They’ve gotten used in Iraq to pick off incoming mortars as well.

        They’re just a little creepy to be flying around.

  96. Well put and thought out, simple, something that any person with an open mind can read and understand. There is no arguing point for anyone!

  97. I know from experience a gun in the classroom keeps people on their Ps and Qs. How I know this is a bit of an odd story, but I would be fine with teachers who have passed psych evaluations and arms training to carry guns.

    So how do I know it keeps people in line?

    Freshman year I had a a crazy teacher, I think she suffered from cognitive dissonance as half the time she was speaking like a conservative the other half she was speaking as a liberal. Anyway she flipped her lid became paranoid and thought I was going to kill her and blow the school up. The cops interrogated me multiple times, bomb swept the building at least 3 times. Even stationed an armed cop outside the room and an armed detective inside the room for over 3 weeks every time the class met(I know I’m looking like the bad guy but I’ll get to that). So near the end of the semester I needed to sign a waver for some stupid paperwork and cut on the dotted line. I asked the teacher for scissors and the detectives hand instantly went to his gun, I backed away and just ripped the form on the dotted line(even lost points for neatness) and had a friend walk back up to turn in the form.

    Eventually the teacher had a break down in class and started sobbing about how her life was ruined because the semester was over and she would miss every one of us. At that point the detective left(I never got an apology). Semesters later I even randomly bumped into her on the far side of campus and she turned and ran away in tears.

    The point is the gun was a deterrent, even though I was innocent(and pissed about the whole incident) I made damn sure I was on my best behavior because I knew I could get shot if something went wrong. Now it sucks that I felt like this, but if I was innocent and knew I should be on my best behavior imagine how some nut ball hopped up on adrenalin about to shoot up a school would fell. They would most likely think twice about doing something violent. Guns are a deterrent and protect people.

    Oh and on a side note, maybe we should give teachers and professor psych evaluations on a regular basis any way because that professor has no business teaching students if she has mental break downs and paranoid delusions.

  98. I do believe it is incorrect about the assault rifle ban making it illegal to own > 10 bullet magazines. Blue MD doesn’t allow the purchase of them, but it is not illegal to own them.

  99. I feel like there a few things here that weren’t addressed…say teachers were allowed to carry guns. What if some careless teacher accidentally left it laying around, and a disgruntled student got a hold of it and started shooting up a storm? Thus, there is a risk to allowing teachers to carry guns. Whether the risk is greater than the reward, I don’t know, but this article completely ignores the fact there there is a risk involved.

    I also think the article didn’t discuss any real solutions to stopping violence directed to innocent civilians as a result of shootings using legal guns falling into the wrong hands. How do you stop the wrong people from getting guns? This article suggests ways to put out the fire out once the wrong people get guns, but how do you prevent the fire from starting in the first place?

    Also, I get that committed criminals will get their hands on guns even with tight gun control laws…but what about those who aren’t committed criminals, but who are emotionally charged individuals who act before thinking, or individuals who are violent, but aren’t committed enough to obtain a gun from the blank market, or the individuals who are mentally ill? I don’t want these people walking around the city ready to shoot someone who looks at them the wrong way. Tight gun control laws make it more difficult for those “grey area” types to get guns, do they not?

    The obvious solution is common sense gun control. Allow the law abiding citizens to carry guns, and keep guns OUT of the hands of violent criminals and the mentally unstable. Yes, committed criminals will still get guns. But at least those who are not committed criminals, yet still are violent, will not get guns. There is, of course, a hole in this solution as well…an individual might have a clean background when he/she obtains a gun, but nothing is stopping that person from turning crazy later on in life…now we have a crazy person with a gun.

    Unfortunately, I think whether we have tight gun control laws, lax laws, or moderate laws, our problems won’t go away. The root of the problem is responsibility, common sense, and moral strength. Our society is weak in all these areas, so as a result, the mentally ill are never treated and some with guns are not responsible owners and let their guns fall into the wrong hands.

    1. Oh, I’m sorry… I failed to address every single one of the over 20,000 gun laws on the books in one article. Oh well, you can safely ignore everything I wrote then. 🙂

      1. What? I didn’t say you failed to mention all the laws. I said you didn’t consider the risks of your solutions. Maybe I missed it.

      2. Would you like a fisking instead?

        All of your ideas are based around the nonsense premise of “prevent bad people from getting guns by forbidding good people from having them”.

        If a crazy wants a gun, and civilians are forbidden to own one, he will run down a policeman at a traffic stop, and take his gun. or he will just make one out of a piece of conduit, a nipple, a handful of matchheads, and fishing sinkers. If he needs to kill multiple targets, he’ll make a bomb.

        Guns are 15th Century technology. No amount of laws will prevent a loony from getting one, or making one.

    2. You are engaging in magical thinking. There is no ‘perfect solution’. There is no way to prevent stupidity or carelessness, or incompetence among CCW holders, or the general populace or some random guy named Moe. But what we *CAN* do is address known quantities. We know that some teachers and admins in schools either have or would be willing to get a permit to carry. We know that entering doubt into the equation (will the targets be disarmed or not) will disincentiveize certain actions (go go Game Theory).

      There is no perfection this side of heaven. Sadly the strongest argument in favor of gun control always seems to be ‘its not perfect!’.

      I neither want nor need perfect. However, I would feel better knowing that the people that educate my two kids for 6+ hours a day had the capacity and capability to defend them should the worst happen. Its bad enough that the school locks its doors when a bear meanders by. What would the do if something worst were to wander around the campus?

      Nothing. After all, its a gun free zone.

      And that answer should disturb everyone.

    3. Sounds like more of those straw man ‘what ifs’ we keep getting from the liberals. Since it’s not something we’re seeing enough to have any data that can be applied, why not go with what works best where there is actual data? I think the idea now is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Background checks are mandatory but as you said the problem won’t go away. It’s the flawed world we live in. The data has shown us that the more law abiding people are armed the more crime rates plummet. One good example is Kennesaw, GA who has the lowest crime in the country and mandates one gun per household.

  100. The only problem with this article is you need to make it shorter, somehow. Anti-gun supporters have extremely short attention spans, it’s why they think banning guns will cure the problem in the first place. It won’t reach the readers that need to hear it most, the bozos crying for gun free zones.

    1. LOL They do have short attention spans I agree. I couldn’t even get one to scan the statistics from the book at gunfacts.info … But they’re looong on arguments right? Biggest issue I have with libs is that they’re like children. Facts mean little to them & even when facts are pointed out they’ll reject them & continue to argue with straw men & liberal talking points.

      1. I’m alwasye amazed at how often Liberals use logical fallacies. When you call them on it they call you cold, and logical and unfeeling. Or they insult you saying “oooo Mr. College using big words”. It’s like they forget they claim to be the more educated. If they value education so much why use my education as a sticking post for your insults.

        Even better I’ve had Liberals use logical fallacies, to accuse me of using fallacies. When I counter all of their accusations they rage quit and tell me I don’t know how to debate. That’s funny because last I checked if you accuse your opponent of a fallacy(or lying) in debate and don’t offer proof of their fallacy other than your accusation you lose points or are disqualified…

        Don’t get me wrong I am no fan of all Conservatives either, I just happen to find it easier to find common ground with Conservatives and when I can’t find common ground I can still get along with them. Liberals though(the ones I know at least) once they find out you disagree with them on one point they label you evil and become snide even if discussing the color of the sky.

        I honestly don’t know how Liberals don’t have aneurisms from the level of cognitive dissonance they go through each day.

    2. I know Larry well- if you want to cut and paste individual sections to refute a point, he won’t mind a bit (with proper attribution, of course) 🙂

  101. Two of my favorite quotes seem to apply.

    “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule”. (H.L. Mencken)

    and,

    “In fact, the bottom line is that, historically, the problems that technology has addressed have gotten solved, and the ones that were dependent on politics and so forth have not.”
    J. Storrs Hall

    The problem is that it is nearly impossible to have an argument based on reason when the other side is operating on nothing but emotion and politicians are the intermediaries.

      1. Whats not to like? He held government and politicians in low regard, as should be the case. Here is another that I like, especially the last sentence:

        “The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.” — H. L. Mencken

  102. i’d like to see you address (a) the legislation and subsequent drop in gun violence experience by Australia, and (b) Fareed Zakarial WaPo column this week.

    1. 1. Australia isn’t America. And as I stated in the article, the stats are arguable either way.
      2. I’ll respond to Fareed Zakaria’s WaPo column as soon as Fareed Zakaria responds to this blog post here. Deal? But we both know that will never happen, and if it did, he’d cherry pick the fact that out of 20 different topics, he disagrees with one set of stats, and then he’d use an emotional argument to dismiss the other 19.
      3. I didn’t write this for the Fareed Zakaria’s of the world. His mind is made up.

    2. There may have been a drop in ‘gun violence’, but has there been a drop in all violence? In other words, maybe less people are getting shot, but are more people getting assaulted or killed?

  103. Armed guards in the schools is a terrible idea for so many reasons. There was an armed guard at Columbine; didn’t help there, won’t help if the NRA’s plan to put guns in every school is implemented. It’s easy to think, “Oh, a shooter will be deterred by schools packing heat and it will lead to fewer tragedies.” It’s just as easy to think, “Oh, a shooter will feel challenged by schools packing heat and it will lead to more tragedies.”

    1. Soooooooooo many reasons that legal guns are a terrible idea in school. Reasons which are so plainly obvious that you don’t even need to list them so they can be refuted with facts rather than emotions!

      😀 You read Slate, don’t you?

      As for Colombine, I see your one event which in which it didn’t make a difference, and raise you a bunch where it did. It did in San Antonio this week. It did at the Colorado church shooting. Not to mention that everything changed after Colombine, (including the police response, as I detailed in my blog post), and an armed person in a school now is going to react in a manner different from an armed guard in a school then. Sort of like how passengers on an airliner would react differently to a hijacking today than they reacted to a hijacking before September 11th.

    2. IIRC correctly, the ‘armed guard’ heard shots, punked, and fled… which is an unexpected selection failure, which is why you have -more than one guard-.

  104. There’s a widely quoted article from the daily mail in the comments above. It seems that nobody citing it has taken the time to actually read it, other than the statistics that support (spuriously) the claim that gun control is good only for criminals. There’s a host of other factors to explain it (in fact, the article doesn’t even mention gun control as far as I saw), and this point is oh so lost.

    I found this post an interesting read, because as a European I have a hard time understanding the approaches over there. Therefore I would limit my comment to this: when looking at other countries’ rates, you cannot make the assumption that gun control is the factor to blame for rising crime rates, because people in those countries didn’t carry weapons for self-protection to begin with in the way that it is understood across the pond. That is: the level of people carrying guns for protection likely changed little with the laws. Hence, there are other factors explaining the various developments (as the Daily Mail article also outlines).

    And I do love how the Norwegian example is cited. What is forgotten is that it’s the single most freak occurrence anyone from around there has ever heard of. It is such an anomaly, that explaining it through stats, crime rates, or gun laws simply isn’t possible, and citing it as an example how gun control doesn’t work therefore becomes dubious at best.

    As for the other arguments – some make sense, some seem possible to rebut. But not understanding the context very well, I will refrain from attempting, in the spirit of only contributing something that may forward the discussion.

    1. Ah, yes exactly. America very is different from every other country in the world. And just like I said in the article, the reason I brought it up is because I was told all week about how we need to ban guns and be all peaceful like these other more civilized countries. Only you’re not actually more peaceful, and you still have violent crime, just different kinds than we do, and though you can’t prove one way or another whether the reduction in your self defense laws has any bearing on your crime rates (which I also said was arguable either way), European violent crime rates have not dropped as a result of gun confiscation, and in England’s case they’ve gone up, even though their reporting methods have gone down.

      And with Norway. Nope. You’re incorrect, sir. It shows EXACTLY my point. In a place with gun control far stricter that anything which will ever be possible in America, the bad guy still massacred a bunch of people, becasue my point is that CRIMINALS DO NOT GIVE A CRAP.

      1. You missed my point. People never carried guns in those countries like they do in the States. Therefore using them as examples becomes dubious at best. That indicates that your claim of basing the argument of facts in fact only goes so far – when you use these examples, you are not using facts. The gun laws may have coincided with the surge in crime, but since nobody was actually carrying weapons before, actual carrying has no bearing on crime rates. It is therefore a spurious connection.

        Would Breivik have been stopped by someone carrying on the island? Probably. My point is however, that this incident is a complete anomaly, meaning that it explains or indicates nothing in terms of whether gun control works or does not work in the context of Norwegian society in general.

        1. “Would Breivik have been stopped by someone carrying on the island? Probably.”

          Why yes, we are in complete agreement then. Have a nice day. 🙂

          And I don’t think you are really making the point you want to make by invoking some sort of historical context, since self-defense with a firearm is not strictly limitied to just concealed carry, but also firearms in the home, place of business, or even in your car, basically anyplace where you can quickly use a gun to stop a violent crime. You may not have had concealed carry in the 1980s, but guess what? Neither did a majority of American states.

          I also think that as a European you are maybe misjudging American history, because not all Americans carried guns in ye olde tymes anymore than Englishmen carried guns, and being a history nut I can tell you there were a whole lot of Webleys bouncing around in British suit coats up to and including Churchill (only he manned up and carried a 1911).

      2. Couldn’t reply to your 21:59, so if this comes up not chronologically i beg your pardon.

        We are in total disagreement. Because the discussion as I see it is not about one single case – which in itself is an anomaly – but whether and how it is relevant to compare something so coplex as different societies. You are taking a big risk if you do, because an issue as complex as crime rates has many, many variables to it. A simultaneous change in crime rates that coincides with a law change may very well be just that – a coincidence. Like in the daily mail article: it mentions a host of factors to explain why Britain has seen a surge in crime, but not gun laws. Because the actual connection isn’t there (unless those working on the British stats are less knowing than you are of British stats).

        The argument is valid for any firearms you point to in the context of these countries, be they at home, in the office or carried. The bottom line is they were not owned/used for self-defence like overseas. Therefore the argument that gun laws passed in these countries has any bearing on crime rates is not based on facts. Only on false connections.

        Your point about the connection in the States may be correct, I am not knowledgeable enough of your society to gauge that. But the one regarding other countries clearly is not. That puts into question the claim you make on fact-based arguments.

        1. Sweet. Then I’ll stop citing other country’s high violent crime rates as soon as the people trying to ban America’s guns quit citing other country’s as examples of what we should do. 🙂

          And wrap your brain around this. Was Norway an anomoly? Yes. ALL SCHOOL SHOOTINGS ARE. Even America’s. Just like I said in the article, you are orders of magnitude more likely to end up in a run of the mill violent crime, which England has in spades.

          And you said it yourself, would the Norway shooter have been stopped faster if somebody on the island had been armed. YES.

      3. Mowgli: Eric Blair (AKA George Orwell) pointed out that in his youth the only limit to the number or type of firearms that an Englishman could own was essentially the depth of his pocketbook and that guns of all sorts were available and commonly owned. England’s gun laws came about not due to an upsurge in crime but due to a fear of underclass revolution during the Depression.

      4. With this I agree – also the pro-gun conrol makes the same mistake when citing those statistics.

        The thing about the Breivik example is though, that in order for him to have been stopped it would require a society with lax gun laws and that feeling that you need that kind of security.

        It’s approaching midnight here, and I’m running out of whisky, so I’ll throw this emotional observation in as a finale to a discussion that has mostly been based on emotions and not facts (which is slightly disappointing, given all the claims that the article made to the opposite): I am extremely happy to live in a society where I don’t have to feel so afraid that I feel the need to arm myself (or that my nieces’ and nephews’ teachers need to be armed) for protection. That makes me feel free.

        1. You are correct, sir. That is an entirely emotional observation. You want to abdicate your ability to defend yourself, good for you. Just don’t expect us to do the same. You feel safe and you feel free. Of course, you are totally defenseless when an evil person does decide to go on a rampage, and all you’ll be able to do is watch helplessly, praying to god to not be the next one to die, or you can run away leaving other innocents to die, or you can try to fight back with your bare hands, or you can call for representatives of the government, i.e. men with guns, to come and save you, but hey, in the meantime you feel safe, and that’s what really matters. However, as we both know rampages are an anomoly in both our countries, even though they still happen even in places like Norway or Germany, so you are far more likely to just be victimized by regular criminals, where you will be just as ineffective.

          As for not being factual, your entire issue seems to be that you disagree with my interpretation of Europe’s violent crime stats. And becasue you base your argument upon feelings, you discount everything else I say based upon what actually happens in shootings and real violent encounters as emotional… Gotcha. The thing is, I didn’t write this essay for people like you. Enjoy your whiskey and have a nice night.

      5. Mowgli, despite the media, mass shootings like Newtown are anomalies in the United States as well. These are rare and isolated incidents. It is the media who has presented them otherwise and whips the population into feelings of paranoid hysteria and that a real threat exists to one’s safety and well-being. I do not feel unsafe or threatened in any way going about my normal life.

        However, we appear to define freedom differently, and they are mutually exclusive. Your sense of freedom is derived from a complete sense of trusting dependence that your government will provide you with the safety you need so you don’t have to worry about it. One sees this sense of freedom as dependence on many of the other government interventions and involvements in other matters.

        Freedom in my sense, which is a very traditional American sense, is based on individual empowerment and responsibility. One cannot be cared for by government and be free under this point of view. The right to keep and bear arms is based on not infringing on the right and the power of individuals to protect themselves when needed, even though the need is rare and one hopes to never have to use that gun for that purpose. Same applies to teachers in our schools. It is empowering them by not infringing on an individual choice – the choice to have the ability to protect themselves and their students in the extremely rare case it might be needed.

      6. That’s a real pity. The thing is, that in your interpretation of other countries’ stats, you misinterpret them. Initially that may be a mistake, but now that it’s been pointed out, it is willingly distorting facts to make your point. I don’t have any information to prove or disprove that you do that with the other points you make as well, but obviously you do in this case. That’s a pity, because that shows an inclination on your part to use facts rather carelessly. What’s to say that you don’t in other points as well?

        The reason that’s a pity is that someone with your knowledge and credentials could make a real contribution to any efforts to overcome the actual problem. So that you would avoid getting laws or measures that are retarded, as those cited in your article. But that requires looking at the facts dispassionately and without prejudice. Now it would seem you prefer to make these points to get applause from your like-minded, rather than aiming at solving something.

        The Norwegian point is moot. The guy planned his attack for the better part of a decade. If there would have been armed security on the island, he would have planned accordingly.

        I feel free, because I am free. Free from fear.

      7. “I feel free, because I am free. Free from fear.”

        And your freedom from fear is largely a mental trick,because you are NOT free from things which cause fear, like possible bodily harm. You just feel like you are.

        It’s been said that age is a state of mind,one can feel young but be 80 years old. Fair enough. However, it doesn’t matter how young you FEEL,you are probably still going to die before your grandchildren. You feel young, but your body knows better.

        You FEEL safe, but your body knows better.

        “Now it would seem you prefer to make these points to get applause from your like-minded, rather than aiming at solving something.”

        Solve….WHAT precisely? Can arguments sway frothing lunatics? Because that’s who we’re dealing with. The people we’re up against want to use violence against peaceable people in order to confiscate their legally obtained property in order to solve a problem that is going away on its own. They earnestly believe they can become safer by giving up any means of defending themselves,both against other lunatics like themselves, and a government that has shown it has no problem with jailing people for exercising their freedom of speech. If you can’t defend yourself with force, and you can’t defend yourself with words, YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOURSELF AT ALL. You are then, the OPPOSITE of safe,you are OWNED, body and soul and your continued existence is subject to the whims of those who CAN defend themselves.

        What are we going to solve? We can’t solve anything, we can only wait, watch, and pray, and when we are called,we can then give up our lives like our forefathers before us,for true freedom, the freedom to say 2+2=4 and the freedom to defend ourselves against those who say it is 5.

        This I will happily do. My grandchildren will not spit on my name. Even if they are enslaved they will whisper my name among themselves with reverence and my bravery will inspire them to do the same as I did. You cannot kill an idea. One day, freedom will reign again over our blessed shores. But before that happens, we will endure hell on earth simply because we choose peace and liberty over servitude and our enemies choose violence and tyranny.

        We cannot solve the problem of idiot bootlickers trying to get themselves killed. They will solve that problem themselves. They will all die,or change their minds after witnessing firsthand the horrors they have stupidly unleashed upon us all. It saddens me that so many good people will be lost among them, for the idiots who started this whole mess don’t deserve to end up in the same mass grave as the rest of us.Their remains don’t deserve to be eaten by the same worms and dogs as ours. They should be buried in diseased animal feces or nuclear waste. The ground they will occupy should be reviled as cursed filth.

        It’s ironic. For all their pontification, it’s the anti-gun people who are trying to take things away from people,up to and including their lives,pro-gun people prefer the rule of law and common sense to the rule of violence. The gun is there to invigorate and empower the law,to protect a common-ground solution,not to force others to submit to servitude or unreasonable demands.

      8. I find it extremely disgusting that you call a terrorist attack a “school shooting”. Perhaps you should get to know the facts of the case before parading it around as justification for your own opinions.
        What was attacked with guns in Norway was a summer camp for politically active youth.
        It´s like calling 9/11 a minor accidental crash of no importance. Highly offensive and extremely ignorant.

        Aside from that, violent crime rates in UK, your claims are complete faerytales. Violent crime in UK has been declining since 1995.
        Any gunrelated crimininality in the UK has been in a slow but steady decline since 2006. Source for that? statistics dot gov dot uk , among others, it´s not like i can find any numbers that shows something actually different.

        Oh, btw, did you know that the first arab nation to overthrow the dictators recently, it has one of the lowest gun ownership ratios in the world.
        And if you actually READ the 2nd amendment, as written, you know damn well that it refers to militias, not private ownership.

        FYI, i´m Swedish and a longtime member of the local pistol club and live in the most gun dense region here. I may someday get my own weapon, nothing here preventing me from that.
        And you can find me on multiple military and gunrelated forums.
        I LIKE playing around with guns. But i do it responsibly.

        Automatics btw does not equate “machineguns”. That´s just being silly.

        Assault rifles are weapons capable of automatic or burst fire and uses a cartridge with clearly less power than a full caliber rifle cartridge.
        Locally here that means that the AK-5 is an assault rifle(5.56×45) while the AK-4 is a battlerifle(7.62×51).

        Armed teachers? Well that´s certainly one way to make sure criminals have easy access to guns. Do you realise how easy it is to disarm someone? Beyond stupid.

        More guns=less crime? Complete rubbish. I´m yet to find anyone prove that in an unbiased way. As opposed to “fair and balanced” a´la Fox News style proof.

        And about “there´s a reason Romney won the military votes”, oh certainly there is, because if you dare to vote non-republican you´re not a good little soldier any longer and get the cold shoulder treatment from a variety of officers and NCOs. This has been commented on quite a bit lately by people who are so hideous as to dare show themselves as one of those disloyal non-republican US military servicemen.

        Gun culture protects our country? That´s a claim worthy of being called “less than realistic” if i am very kind in my phrasing. First of all, USA has 2 land borders, with Mexico and with Canada, which one do you expect to invade anytime soon? Noone today is capable of a maritime invasion large enough to handle a major nation.
        Secondly, people with guns are not a serious threat against a modern army. They can be freaky annoying against occupation, and might be able to become a useful guerilla, but that is still true even if you have far stricter gun laws.

        1. “And if you actually READ the 2nd amendment, as written, you know damn well that it refers to militias, not private ownership.”

          That statement has been disprove a great many times. Even Laurence Tribe of Harvard, a noted liberal constitutional scholar, states that it is an individual right.

          http://www.saf.org/TribeUSA.html

          If that is not enough, consider that “of the people”, a critical phrase in the second amendment, occurs in two other parts of the Bill of Rights. This phrase occurs in the first, and the forth amendments as well. If we assume that “of the people” indicates some collective right that is restricted to and limited by the state, it logically follows that religious practices, public speech, and public assembly are to be collective rights controlled by the state. Additionally, whether or not the population is secure in their own houses (search and seizure laws, requirement of warrants, etcetera.) ALL would be at the whim of state government which is totally contrary to actual practice.

          Third, look to the analysis of the text of the second amendment by the elementary school process of diagramming sentences. The introductory clause (an ‘absolute phrase’) “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” sets the stage for what follows. It is a justification, if you will, for the main subject-verb section of the sentence. The core of the amendment is contained in the structure “The right shall not be infringed” This is the basic part stripped of all modifying phrases. What right are we talking about? “To keep and bear arms”.

          Who’s right are we talking about here. The prepositional phrase
          “of the people” is the modifier that establishes who the right belongs to. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. The introductory phrase provides the justification for this second half and would have been more understandable to modern ears if the word “because” had been inserted at the start of the whole sentence making it read thus:

          “Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Or as Mrs. McGillicuty in the third grade would have put it:

          http://www.german-latin-english.com/diagramamend2.htm

    2. Sorry pal, Europe just isn’t everyone holding hands and skipping around with polite manners. Just visited Europe for a wedding last year and mapped out all the places I wished to visit on our trip. My Aunt, who’s wedding we were attending, made changes to the route I had marked up because apparently there are places in Europe you don’t go if you enjoy living.

      1. When I was in Rome on my HS Senior trip I saw a few off duty cops corner an American couple(honeymoon types all lovey dovey, and totally lost didn’t speak Italian either.) and start pushing him down to the ground and kept him there and it appeared they were going to rape the wife. I looked around for any other cops, and when I saw none started heading for the alley. The tour guide grabbed me and told two other chaperones to grab me as well and they dragged me off. I was pissed off but they over powered me. The tour guide explained that you don’t mess with the dirty off duty cops in Italy. He explained that they shifted something on their uniform so you knew they were off duty. I can’t remember what it is that showed they were off duty it’s been too long.

        I never knew what happened to them, if they turned out alright. I wish there was something I could have done even if it meant getting in legal trouble…

        So yeah, I agree with you Europe isn’t a happy go lucky place. Even in a city like Rome you can find lots of trouble if you look down the wrong streets.

    3. And the Norwegian active killer did his thing in Norway, because if he had tried it in Finland, the instructors ( and students ) would have pinned him down and skinned him alive with their pocket knives, nailed the end of his intestine to a tree, and then they would have made him run around the tree until he ran out of guts.

      You don’t get to call that active killer an anomoly. He is the result of Euro policies.

  105. I know you and I don’t agree on plenty of things, Larry. My heart and empathy goes out to the families of the victims whose lives were destroyed by the killer.

    Also, I stumbled upon this video by TotalBiscuit, a well-known British YouTuber and gamer who has made an excellent point on the mass media covering shootings like this instead of focusing on the victims, among other things.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5uwAo8lcAC4

    I don’t know if it’s related to gun control, but I believe this is too interesting to pass up.

    1. PS: WordPress really needs to provide the ability to have collapsible comment threads and the ability to edit our comments.

  106. Great article!! Wish I had the time to read all the comments as well, but I don’t! Wish I possessed all that knowledge so that I could educate folks around here the way you do. Keep up the great work!

  107. Thank you for the logical, fact based article. I’ll be using many of the points in the series of letters and emails I’m sending to my elected representatives.
    Also, I enjoyed your writing style — I’ll be checking out your books!

  108. This is fantastic!!! I don’t own any guns purely because until now, I never felt the need. I grew up in a family of hunters and feel strongly about the right to bare arms. I love how thorough this blog is! I am for guns and this got me thinking even more about guns. Thank you!!

  109. Long and interesting, but from a very one-sided, set point of view.

    I have a particular problem with Larry Correia’s definition for “mass shooting,” in which he includes events with 2.5 victims or less, “The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5,” says Correia. This assertion doesn’t pass the sniff test.

    In order to get to a figure of 2.5 victims, you have to include “mass” shootings of two people or less, a definition that very neatly includes murder/suicides, which are fairly frequent and include the death of the shooter. Including these events, which certainly don’t meet my definition for “mass” shootings, is a neat gimmick that brings the average number of “mass shooting” victims way, way down. Also, while I could not find an agreed-upon definition for the number of victims required for a “mass shooting,” the FBI does have a clear definition of “mass murder,” requiring four sequential murders in a short period of time.

    I’m not saying Correia isn’t making valid points, but I am pointing out that there’s clear bias in the numbers and statistics he’s using to justify his point of view.

    I don’t, by the way, think comprehensive can happen right now — too much emotion behind the issue for coherent analysis to take place, let alone gain acceptance — but I’d really like to see a forensic social analysis of these mass shootings, which all seem to be perpetrated by young men. Taking a social forensic approach to these events is much more likely to yield information we can use to actually reduce the frequency of these sorts of events, where limiting access to firearms is more likely to result in a change of the weapons used, but not the frequency.

    1. Why yes. I am rather biased, never claimed otherwise. People who are subject matter experts on topics tend to formulate strong opinions on them. Louis Pasteur was rather biased against blaming disease on miasma or the vapors too.

      And here is where that comes from so you can callibrate your sniff test. http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/ You can change your definitions, but the simple point remains, if there is an armed individual present when a bad guy starts shooting up the place, then the violent response neccesary to interupt their plans is going to be quicker than police responding to a 911 call.

      1. After reading Davi Barker’s analysis I feel inclined to point out that you mis-represented the role of firearms in his findings. You said, “The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started,” implying that firearms played a leading role in stopping the shooting.

        If you read Barker’s article, however, he points out that, “within the civilian category 11 of the 17 shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians. What’s amazing about that is that whether armed or not, when a civilian plays hero it seems to save a lot of lives. The courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas was the only incident where the heroic civilian was killed. In that incident the hero was armed with a handgun and the villain was armed with a rifle and body armor. If you compare the average of people killed in shootings stopped by armed civilians and unarmed civilians you get 1.8 and 2.6 but that’s not nearly as significant as the difference between a proactive civilian, and a cowering civilian who waits for police.”

        In other words, if you accept and cite Barker, you have to at least mention that unarmed civilians who took action were *more*, not less effective in reducing fatalities.

        It’s also worth noting that Barker’s stats are far from complete. He mentions, for example, the shooting at the San Yisidro McDonalds in 1984, but misses the shooting at Cleveland Elementary School in San Diego in 1979 that claimed two lives, injured six children and was ended by police.

        Barker also mis-states some facts in his analysis. Substantially, claiming, “what many people do not know is that the school’s armed security guard and the police all stood and waited outside the library while executions happed right inside,” when multiple sources state something to the effect of, “[The Deputy] traded fire (that is, he drew fire) with Harris for an extended period of time, during which Harris’s gun jammed. The deputy and the backup he immediately called for exchanged fire with the shooters a second time and helped begin the evacuation of students, all before the SWAT teams and the rest of the cavalry arrived, and before Harris and Klebold killed themselves in the library.” (National Review, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336338/columbine-had-armed-guard-daniel-foster#)

        So, you mis-state Barker, and Barker uses incomplete data and mis-states facts. The result is a failed attempt to provide analysis, but a great collection of pro-gun-rights propaganda at a time when we really need honest facts and true analysis.

        Sorry, Larry. I respect that you’re trying to provide context, but true context requires an hones, thorough analysis of the facts at hand.

        1. Okay. You should totally go do a bunch of exhaustive research and put that together then. 🙂

          However, even if you did, (which I’m fairly sure you won’t because it sounds like you are straining at a gnat to swallow a camel) the numbers may change a bit, but even from my own knowledge of mass shootings, I know that shootings stopped by people who were present when the events unfolded have fewer people shot that shootings where they had to wait for the police to arrive. Simple matter of work performed over time.

    2. I agree. I also take issue with the comment that all mass shooting with 4 or more victims happened in Gun Free Zones (or something to that effect). What about Fort Hood?

      Still, I do aooreciate the time and effort you took to write this. However, it does little to convince me that more guns is the solution. Gun ownership per capita far exceeds that of any other nation (Yemen, an essentially lawless state, is a distant second), yetthe frequency of mass shootings seen in the US seems to be an American specialilsm. I’m not sure what the answer is but more guns doesn’t seem to be it.

      1. Military bases, outside of actual combat zones, since sometime before the 80’s (when I was in) are gun free zones. Unless one is a military police or serving in other duty where carrying of firearms is required as part of that duty and are actually on duty, the carrying of firearms is prohibited and, with a few exceptions (on-base family housing on at least some bases) all firearms must be locked in unit armory.

        So, yes, Fort Hood _also_ counts as a “gun free zone.”

      2. Yeah. Saw that Facebook meme. Everybody who has ever been on a US military base had a good laugh at it. Unless you are in a war zone (and sometimes even then), military bases are Gun Free Zones. The only place you will see guns on base is at the gate, and then on the hips of the base police. So unless the killer attacks the range or the armory, there will be no guns in the hands of good guys. The Ft. Hood killer attacked a clinic.

        And you may not be sure of the answer, but I am. See the first section of my blog post.

      3. They are correct, on post the only people carrying firearms are the MP’s. Downrange, at least when I was there, it was mag well clear with magazines on you. The only time you locked and loaded is when you went outside the wire or when you were on Force Protection(guard duty).

  110. The correct term to use is “Citizen”, not “civilian”. Citizens are armed and rank higher than any government employee. Civilians are serfs or slaves.

  111. You did an awesome job with this! It should be required reading for every liberal out there. Just wanted to say thanks a million & I’ll be linking to it a lot when I come across these gun control nuts online. Thanks so much for taking the time to put it all together!

  112. AWESOME article. I almost passed it up when I read you were a “novelist” (built-in bias assuming that was a code-word for “liberal”). Then, my brain kicked in and I thought I should take a read, because even if the article was in opposition to my views, I might learn something.

    That was an understatement!

    Plus, I was pleasantly surprised to find you were on the same side I am. Thank you SO much for writing this. I even went to all the links and read them, save one, and one of them I had already discovered previously and read on my own.

    1. You’d be surprised how many genre fiction writers are actually conservative. Problem is, just like Hollywood, the publishing industry is extremely left leaning, so most of the right leaning authors keep their mouths shut for fear of being blackballed. Me? I owned a machinegun store. I was out of the closet before I got my first publishing contract. 😀

      And luckily my publishing house (Baen Books) only cares if you tell good stories and sell books. We’ve got everything from hard core libertarians to an actual Trotskyite card carrying communist.

      1. I am a genre reader and I have been turned off many authors when they spoil a perfectly good read by inserting a liberal meme that yanks me right out of the story.
        So it is great to discover a conservative sff writer.

        1. There are more of us than you might think, but most of them keep their mouths shut for fear of being blackballed. My publisher, Baen, doesn’t care, and we’ve got everything from hard core libertarians to a Trotskyite communist. 🙂

    2. Check out Mr. Correia’s books. The Monster Hunter series is just plain fun to read. Also John Ringo’s books lean right: I particularly liked the Troy Rising series.

    1. No, you just had Derek Bird 2 years ago, who killed a dozen people with a .22 caliber rifle and a side-by-side shotgun, and wounded almost another dozen. Strangely, I haven’t heard anyone going after those guns like they did with handguns and semi-automatic rifles.

    2. in other words, banning guns didn’t materially reduce the crime rate or make the average Englishman any safer… right?

    3. Lies. Violent crime in England is way up. And home invasions have gone through the roof, now that self-defence has been criminalized.

      If someone breaks in to your house and forces you to kill him in England, claim you were stealing his wallet. You’ll get an ASBO instead of going to jail.

      Whatever you do, do not admit to committing self-defence.

  113. Larry, first of all I want to thank you for this post. I’ve been involved in the “gun culture” for decades now, and while very little of the information you presented was new to me, after reading what you wrote I can think of a dozen times when I said to myself “that’s how I should have said it” when talking to various anti-gun friends. Your skill as a writer serves us as well here as your skill as a “gun guy”. I do have two points to make, but while I would love a response, I understand if due to the volume of comments/email one is not forthcoming. First, please be careful about using the term “liberals”. I myself am a conservative. I am 45 years old and have never as much as voted for a Democrat. But I do have a number of friends who, while considering themselves liberals, look at the right “to keep and bear” as a civil right. We can talk about “Obamacare” later. For now just please understand (as I’m sure you do) that not everyone who sees themselves as a liberal is in bed with the Feinsteins of the world. Second, I believe that we gun-guys have to take some of the blame for the whole “automatic/semi automatic” confusion. I know many people who know better, who have used the term automatic to describe a semi. It was mostly amongst “ourselves”, but even so, it’s happened. After all, the designation is .45 automatic colt pistol NOT .45 semi-automatic colt pistol. Anyway, keep fighting the good fight.
    thanks again
    -Ed

    P.S. Got a letter from H&K yesterday. They wanted to make sure you know that you still suck, and they still hate you 🙂 .

  114. Excellent work Larry. I am retired law enforcement with fifty years experience and carry at all times. Everything you have to say is right on target. I wish the entire Congress of the U.S. could be required to read it.

    One added comment to the options discussed; law enforcement officers all over the Country are discussing measures they can take to help out with this effort, including those of us who are retired, possibly thousands of men and women, volunteering our time.

    Only problem is, that we are only discussing the public school system. There are myriad other venues where children are at risk, if someone wants to target them. However alll of these venues likely have employees who might be willing to carry concealed and would avail themselves of appropriate training. We need to look at the whole picture. Point is, the more responsible gun owners we have trained and carrying concealed, the better off everyone can be, including those who do not wish to do so.

  115. Quick addendum. While I am involved in the gun rights community, and read as much as I can, when I said “very little of the information you presented was new to me” I may have come across as more arrogant than I intended. My bad. I didn’t intend to undervalue anything you had said. BTW my copy of Monster Hunter Alpha arrived today, so I’ll stop yapping and start reading.

  116. You make a bunch of good points. Very awesome. I, however, am concerned also about the crazy teacher who goes “postal”…only when he is at work…well it is our kid he will shooting at. We have issues now with teachers abusing children….ok, let us allow them to have guns! Not a chance. Besides, having been an adult student for 12 years during higher education….I as a child or even as an adult, would have an issue with my teacher carrying a gun.

    1. What is to keep the teacher capable of mass murder from going on a mass murder spree now? I believe it was at a university in Alabama here this very thing happened. I believe a professor from that university has already commented in this very thread too. There is literally nothing stopping that person from going on a rampage now. Nothing. The difference under my solution would be that there would be somebody else there to stop them 5-20 minutes before the police could.

      Also, CCW holders are the single most law abiding group in the country. It isn’t the people who take the time and spend the money to jump through hoops and get trained who are going on mass rampages. In my state, we’ve had fewer permit holders lose their permits for committing crimes than we’ve had cops lose their POST certs for committing crimes.

      Are there bad teachers? Of course. Are there teachers who abuse children? Of course. The same could be said for any group of people you care to divide humans in to. There are police officers who abuse children and there are military officers who have gone on shooting sprees, doesn’t mean we disarm all of them now does it? Of course not.

      1. Amy Bishop at the University of Alabama Huntsville campus. Went to a department staff meeting after being denied tenure and shot six colleagues killing three and wounding the others. Recently plead guilty with life imprisonment without parole in order to avoid the needle.
        Turns out she probably killed her brother many years ago while still a teenager but skated due to her rich influential family’s influence.
        Everything I’ve seen about her says she was extremely bright and a total whack job who should have been locked up years ago.

  117. Well written and I agree with most of your points, but as someone who has worked in heathcare for almost a decade and a parent. I’m only okay with allowing increased gun presence in our schools IF it includes a much more thorough and regular routine background and mental health checks for anyone carrying concealed.

    I’d actually like that for all gun owners, but as you pointed out criminals don’t follow the law and their the ones breaking it. It might however lessen the number of people killed in domestic violence incidents, but I’m sure those folk would find another way.

    The most important point you made in this whole thing was the first one. The only way to stop someone on a killing spree is with deadly force. Just as true as that statement is that once you bring a gun into the equation you just escalated the violence to include death. A point that should not be lightly undertaken and certainly not included in knee jerk emotional responses and legislation.

    1. Autmn, thank you for your input and I appreciate the perspective of a mental health professional. I have a few caveats however, and would urge caution on what you wish for.

      Permit holders already go through extensive background checks as it stands now. In Utah, our permits are run daily to make sure there aren’t any warrants or anything of that nature against us. The problem I have with a mental health assessment is that if you give the government the power to deny a right based upon a psychological diagnosis, you are giving they a LOT of power. For example, over the last few years there was a proposal in congress to ban anyone diagnosed with PTSD from owning a firearm. Since PTSD is diagnosed for everything from you’ve got trouble sleeping, or you had a lot of stress at work, clear up to full blown war vet nightmares (which is what people think of when they hear the term PTSD) then a giant swath of US military vets would’ve been denied their rights, and it would’ve been pointless.

      Now I have no problem with anyone who has been legally judged as mentally incompetant from being barred a CCW, and in fact, that is already on there as a disqualifier. (in my state at least, can’t speak for others). This needs to be something harsh, professional, and stringent. Please just keep in mind that to some of our politicians, to them anybody who wants to own a gun is crazy already. 🙂

      On domestic violence, no. I don’t think that would do a thing actually. Also putting on my Ugly Fact Guy hat, that would also be a logistical impossibility, because there is no way in heck that you could do a full psych evaluation on 80,000,000 people every year.

      1. My 2 cents regarding mental health assessments, the Fifth Amendment says (among other things) “nor be deprived of life, _liberty_, or property without due process of law”

        “Due process of law.”

        One can deprive someone of liberty, including RKBA, but only via due process of law. Due process of law, however, is not some bureaucrat deciding using fuzzy standards (and they’re always fuzzy) that you are mentally unfit to possess a firearm.

        “Due process of law.”

        Make the challenge in court. Demonstrate in court that the person is mentally unfit to the extent that they are a danger to themselves or others. Allow the accused to defend themselves against the accusation in court.

        Then, if the court decides they are unfit and only then can that liberty be taken away.

        “Due process of law.”

        At least that’s how it should be.

      2. I am hardly an expert on mental health, but I have both worked in mental health facilities and done graduate level work in psychology, so I know a little about this subject. My point, as I think you’ve hinted at, is that mental illness is like physical illness in that it varies in both degree and type. On the one hand, you have “stage 4 terminal cancer” level mental illness ala Jarrod Laughner. On the other, you have “bad headache” level mental illness that is often of limited duration and afflicts millions every year. Now I think I can safely say that we are both in the “Jarrod should not have a gun” camp. But my real fear is a situation where a person who is suffering from something like situational depression (which is most often easliy treated) refuses to seek treatment because they don’t want to see their rights adjudicated away. Same with returning vets and PTSD as you said above. The last thing we want to do is put barriers between those who need help and the help they need.

      3. Passage of a law banning PTSD sufferers from carrying would be self-defeating: few officers working in an urban environment for more than a few years will not have their share of PTSD, it is a given in my profession. Moreover, the officers who had to respond to this horror are likely going to carry it with them for the rest of their lives.

        The nation needs a re-working of our mental health care system. Since Reagan dismantled it, first in California and later, nationally, our inner cities have become unfenced asylums. We need to address this before further infringing on the rights of persons who have no record of mental health issues or criminal behavior.

    2. So how do you reconcile the ‘mental health checks’ with the never-ending stream of “professionals” who claim that holding certain political beliefs is actually a sign of mental instability? Sorry, no fly.

  118. Guns have a place in the heirarchy of defense, but it doesn’t prevent violence.

    As you so succintly pointed out, the only way to stop someone on a killing spree is with deadly force, but it doesn’t stop them from going on the killing spree in the first place.

    Gun bans and gun control laws don’t do that either.

    I would really love to see an honest discusion on preventing these tragedies.

    1. Guns don’t prevent violence. Which is why we so many mass shootings at gun shops, shooting ranges and police stations. Also why schools and other gun free zones are the safest places in America.

    2. So why do nutters look for gun-free zones to go on rampages, if gun ownership does not prevent violence?

      Victim-disarmament hellholes like Chicago are free-fire zones. 20 dead in Chicago is just another full-moon night.

      Constitutional carry ( no permits needed, ever ) states like Wyoming are almost crime free.

  119. Thank you for writing this, it makes a number of excellent points. I’ve shared it in the hopes more people will stop screaming emotion-driven talking points, look at the facts and make an informed decision for themselves based on logic and reason.

      1. According to the Urban Dictionary “AMA” (often seen on reddit) means “Ask Me Anything.”

        From context it would look like it would be an offer to answer any questions on the subject anyone might have.

      2. You should do the IAMA on Reddit, if only to potentially increase your audience by 1000’s if it gets popular. You’d be answering a lot of questions you’ve been answering for the past 15 years though.

  120. First time commenter, so I know it’ll go to moderation, and I didn’t read every single comment already posted, so I don’t know if someone else has made this point already, but, this is my two cents:

    The 2nd Amend. should enjoy the same liberal and jealously guarded interpretation and application as the 1st. If the pen is mightier than the sword/gun, and it is, its misuse and irresponsible application costs lives, many more lives. But we are taught to tolerate the collateral damage inflicted by the 1st Amendment because that is the price that must be paid to protect it for everyone.

    Too many proponents of edge to edge 1st Amendment application honestly think it only saves lives, only delivers freedom, because they don’t see a straight line from the speech to the bodies. When the 1st Amendment kills the right people–oppressors and dictators and their armies–the anti-gun zealots utter not one peep. When the 1st is not at stake, but “merely” your self-defense is, then the 2nd Amendment is the written down protection of a natural right to triumph over your attacker. Oh, somehow, that’s different. Because it might lead to Sunny Hooks and Fort Hoods. So that murderous misapplication of only the very second Constitutionally protected right, that collateral damage, cannot be tolerated. That is illogical and is as negligent as parking a baby on a stove.

    Every woman, able disabled and able elderly is in grave peril every single time access to their 2nd Amendment is further restricted, further distanced, further treated like a crime in and of itself, casting aspersions on them as if they must be the criminals.

    I think the state should determine if you are not a felon, issue you a numbered wallet permit, and then destroy the search records. You renew the permit every year or so. But I refuse to get a CCL under current conditions because your name and address become public record and you will be outed (that has already happened, in TX, thanks to an anti-gun newspaper reporter). And should the government become so inclined, they just start disarming the CCL carriers first.

    As for TX being pro-gun: except if you’re “traveling.” It’s ridiculous.

    Thank you very much for the blog.

    1. FAR FAR FAR Too wordy for anyone. Paranoia appears to be the operative word for gun/killing fanatics. It is a form of mental illnes.

      1. Yep. It is fr too wordy for anyone. Which is why 100,000 people have read it in less than 48 hours and it has been reprinted everywhere.

        Once again, guessing you aren’t my target audience. 🙂

      2. Paranoia is one illness the unstable murderer suffered from, and yes, we all have ignored the mentally ill, because we just don’t want to treat them before they’re lethal. But it is a standard, and frankly, lazy, dodge to insult the speaker of a truth, the blogger and those who agree with him, rather than argue the merits. If you genuinely believe what you say, you are a fraud, if you don’t then you’re tiresome.

  121. Larry, well done! If it’s okay, I’d like to include this in my CFP data CD I give out in my classes. I will be quoting you a lot in the coming busy days. Stay well, Keep safe. You are doing the GOOD work!

    1. Steve, please do. I wrote it in the hopes that it would be shared far and wide.

      EDIT: and for the record, Mr. Beckstead here is the man that first certified me to be a pistol & personal protection in the home instructor many years ago. 🙂

  122. I shared it on Facebook, my humble website, and Redstate.com. As a former Marine I appreciate this wealth of excellent, and well said information. I hope it has an impact on the discussion.

  123. Just found your post on this today and I have already shared it in my Facebook and Twitter. I may not agree with every point you made, but you made a good case for letting teachers and administrators who are trained to carry. The only issue I have with guns being carried in schools is how to prevent accidents. Because i have been taught that a gun that is ready to use is also ready to be misused if found by the wrong person, especially a small child.

    1. That came up when school districts in my state were debating how to implement the state law of allowing their employees to CCW. The one school distrcit’s rules for their employees were actually very well thought out. (if I recall correctly, Clark Aphosian, who is a phenomenal instructor and firearms expert helped them draft it).

      The pertinant rules were that the gun had to stay on the teacher’s person. It could never leave their person. It could not be stored in a desk or a purse, so no off the body carry. The gun had to remain concealed and was not to be removed from their person at any point while at work (unless the obvious bit where you need it to shoot somebody). It had to remain concealed at all times.

      So pretty common sense stuff. Basically a gun in a holster is just going to sit there and nobody is even going to know it is there.

      1. Thanks for replying. Good to hear that the school districts really thought this out and so far there have been no incidents of accidents. That helps me get a better perspective on that part of the issue anyways!

    2. There’s this crazy thing that just came out, it’s called a holster… It’s crazy! 😀

      Also, Eddie Eagle. We teach all kids not to touch stoves, play with matches, swim in the deep end alone, and other safety stuff, skipping “leave guns alone, go get an adult,” is kinda silly. 😀

      1. Heh. Rule number one for safe firearm carry:

        “Stop touching it!”

        If it stays in the holster, and you don’t finger-f**k it, it will never go off.

  124. Larry,

    I just discovered your site, what a refreshing blast of fresh air.

    I live in Australia, which is, in effect, a giant Gun Free Zone for all practical notions of self defence.

    Port Arthur was a gun free zone, except for the killer, and 35 people died.

    I believe that the attack at the summer camp on the island of Utøya in Norway in which 69 were killed and a further 110 or so were wounded was in a virtual ‘gun free’ zone.

    Of course, such has been the success of gun control in Australia, that Sydney (the Capital of NSW) has a discharge of shots almost nightly this year (for some reason the total number isn’t on Google) and on this mornings news there was a report of more gun incidents over night.

    Keep up the good work.

    Eoin.

    1. Thanks Eoin, that is refreshing, because all I’ve heard so far in these comments is how wrong I am and there is like totally no crime at all in Australia since the ban. 😀

      1. Hey, now, I posted the link to the report that backs up what you wrote about the ban’s contested effectiveness.

        You’ve had backup here, big fella.

        🙂

      2. The strident, dishonest whiners tend to boast the most decibels, but there are just as many if not more who quietly stand behind you 100%, and will continue to when the going gets rougher. Hang in there Larry, you are completely right, but the anti-gun zealots just don’t want to hear it. Sometimes, the truth hurts, but really, only because they keep lying to themselves. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

  125. I really enjoyed you article. Actually, I learned a lot and share a lot of your opinions. I am a strong believer that education and respect toward arms in our society is lacking. I also appreciate that you refrained to comment about mental health issues; however, this is the cause of the problem. Before arguing armed vs unarmed, we need to talk about mental health issues. Unfortunately, we are not educated on this matter either. Therefore, it is easy to blame arms, movies and the government, that it is to take a hard look at ourselves and recognize that the problem is within us.

  126. I really enjoyed reading this, and I have to say I agree 100% with the concept of arming the teachers in schools. I have been saying that since Columbine (which happened when I was a senior in high school).

    My only critique is this- when you do your math to get to 800,000 people who won’t turn in their guns vs 700,000 police officers. . . the problem is that it won’t be the police collecting the weapons. It will be the army.

    1. I addressed that in the blog post, and having worked with the US military a lot, and knowing how the majority of them feel about gun ownership, I’m not particularly concerned of that actually working out too well. 🙂

      1. I know you did, and I don’t discredit your experience working with many of these people. I grew up on military bases, I was in JROTC in high school, these people are my friends and family. So it isn’t lightly that I say it will be the army which performs the disarmament of the country.

        Yes, the majority of the military right now are of a similar mind to us when it comes to gun ownership. Yes, the military is currently shrinking.

        Then again, I have also seen some of the “quality” kids who are being recruited from the inner cities around the country. Kids who have been “educated” by the shoddy second-rate day-care institutions which graduate barely-literate kids who don’t understand the second amendment, and frankly, DON’T CARE. How long, I wonder, would it take to fill out the ranks if the liberal machine started recruiting there in earnest? Were that to happen, the demographics of the US military would change dramatically, and quickly.

        Hey, I hope and pray I’m wrong on this. I loved this essay, I think it is truly brilliant, and I have shared it on among my acquaintance. I know that some of my friends on both sides of the issue are reading and thinking about gun control in a different light because of this essay.

    2. “My only critique is this- when you do your math to get to 800,000 people who won’t turn in their guns vs 700,000 police officers. . . the problem is that it won’t be the police collecting the weapons. It will be the army.”

      US Army had 560,000 personnel as of 2010.

      1. “I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. ”

        Which part of that do you think folk in the Army would not understand?

        Confiscating weapons? Some would probably. And some wouldn’t.

      2. David Burkhead I agree with you that some would and some wouldn’t. After horror stories from Katrina where cops confiscated guns at gun point from lawful citizens I wouldn’t put it past any authority figure to take my guns “for the better good” or “for public safety”.

  127. there are over 98,000 public schools in the US. there have been less than 150 school shootings. the idea of asking teachers to carry a gun is the most ridiculously stupid suggestion yet. are they supposed to carry it on their person, and draw it every time the door opens? if they don’t pull it when the door opens – boom. dead.

    are they supposed to keep it locked in their desk? if they don’t, it increases the odds of a student overpowering them and taking it. if they do, then it’s useless if a shooter enters the room.

    a former gun store owner supports using more guns to solve the problem of gun violence. what a shocker.

    i remember in 2nd grade on the playground when that kid threw a rock and hit that other kid; the teacher gave us all rocks and said “it’s everyone for themselves out there.”

    *sheesh*

    “i’m drowning – please give me more water!”

    1. And yet another one who obviously didn’t read the actual blog post.

      1. Not asked. Not mandated. Simply allow CCW.
      2. Gun is on the person. Concealed. Not off body.
      3. Why would they pull it everytime the door opens? Don’t let your own lack of competence and cowardice blind you to what most rational people are capable of doing.
      4. And this is so ridiculously stupid and dangerous that my state has been doing it for several years now with no problems. Obviously our teachers must be smarter than the ones wherever you are from, or we love our children more. Sort of like Texas, Tennessee, and Oklahoma now too.

      But hey, don’t let what I actually wrote stand in the way of your emotional reductio ad absurdium. 🙂

      1. Excellent reply.

        “I didn’t read the article, but I knew what you were going to say and I disagree with it” lol

        I appreciate you taking to time to write this, I’ve sent a link to at least 10 people. Now shouldn’t you get back to work? I need me some Nemesis. haha

        Keep up the great work Mr. Correia.

    2. “if they don’t pull it when the door opens – boom. dead.”

      Oh yeah, because anybody involved in mass killings knows instantly where the teacher is in the room using their psychic powers and is capable of shooting from the hip with no time spent aiming just like John Wayne does in cowboy movies. Needless to say, their first shot is ALWAYS a dead on accurate kill shot, even though they didn’t aim the gun at all.Mostly just because,but also because “and stuff”.

      “i remember in 2nd grade on the playground when that kid threw a rock and hit that other kid; the teacher gave us all rocks and said “it’s everyone for themselves out there.”

      On my playground, the teacher simply banned rocks and confiscated every rock on earth. It only took a bazillion years and a million times that in taxpayer money. Then people started flinging nickels at each other with rubber band slingshots instead.

      “I’m stupid-please give me more space to speak my mind!”

  128. I followed the Instapundit link over to this site, and after reading immediately posted a link to my Google+ page for my friends. This is a very well written opinion piece which makes a large number cogent remarks about the subject in a easy to follow manner.

    I have used bits and pieces of much of this same logic over several discussions when discussing this issue with “gun control advocates” in the past. However, the problem I find when discussing these issues with them is that a person with logic is attempting to appeal to people who prefer to make decisions based on “feel good” emotional reasoning. The same “feel good” reasoning which brought our first four years of “hope and change” and the same “feel good” reasoning which ignored every rational economic performance factor which matters to give us four more years of “Envy and Class Warfare Revenge”.

    The most commonly voiced objections I hear are twofold as summarized here:
    1) You don’t need that weapon any more – the second amendment was written for a more barbaric period in our history.
    2) Oppression could never happen here. Our country could never permit a tyrannical government to take hold.

    The problem I have is that I agree with them on point two. The problem they have is that I agree with them on point two because we have the limitations on the government provided by the second amendment. Every erosion of the second amendment makes it more possible for a tyrannical government to incrementally remove the other constitutional limits on the government’s power to infringe upon the natural rights of its citizens. It is always because they say they intend to bring about a “greater good” that the beginning of every tyrannical rule is granted. The “greater good” is never what results from any tyrannical rule. When the “greater good” requires less citizen rights, then you have your red flag.

    My own discussion with a nearly incoherent “anti-gun” person on this issue can be found at my web page mythlogicpress.com under the rants section.

  129. The kind of fame that these killers need is that of being the first one capped by a 2nd grade teacher. This would make a great rap song. It would discourage the next one though. Not only would the killer be dead. He would be a laughingstock.

  130. I applaud you for writing at length about a conclusion that should take 5 minutes for any thinking person to reach. Of course we should “deputize” someone at schools. It could be the custodian for all I care as long as they meet the basic requirements and are well-trained.

    The more pressing question is why are some so adamantly opposed to this solution ? I am not opposed to sensible gun restrictions, but they miss the main point, which is to protect children.

  131. Thanks for posting this. Excellent rundown of some very important points! After a week of hysteria and hand-wringing, it’s nice to hear someone speaking with knowledge, experience and reason on his side.

  132. You lost me when you stated early in your diatribe that your credentials confirm that you know what you are talking about. I disagree with your self serving assessment, so the rest of your drivel is irrelevant.

      1. Merely touching a firearm has made your words evil and unclean, Larry.

        You must now be shunned. For the good of the body!

    1. Say what? He lost you at his Credentials?

      Honestly do you get upset at your Doctor for having their medical degree on the wall of their office, or a Lawyer?

      You must hate when the authors of scientific papers and articles list their degrees. Do you only allow credentials to be listed if they are in fields you approve of? Or do you think it’s self aggrandizement for Larry to list his credentials. He listed his credentials to cut people like you off at the pass so you don’t say he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

      Either way credentials before, during or after you were going to try and find fault with his argument.

      Can you read any an opinion you disagree with? Or do you alwayse you find a reason right off the bat to ignore the entire argument. Not caring that you are committing a logical fallacy. Beyond the fallacy you are showing you can’t lack the ability to have a civil discourse or think critically. Thinking critically requires taking in opinions that differ from yours holding them up to what you know and or believe and seeing if it changes your belief on a subject. At the very least critical thinking allows you to take in new/different sources of knowledge and opinions. It’s impossible to keep the mind stimulated unless you take in new information, even if the information is wrong by examining it, and finding out how or why it is wrong compared to what you know you have strengthened your own knowledge and beliefs. Baring a change in your belief; civil discourse than occurs when you use your knowledge/ belief to try and refute your opponents points.

      You obviously can’t do that, so to protect yourself you dismiss the entire argument from the beginning.

      I sincerely hope you are trolling.

    2. Shorter JP: “Eek! Reality! Bastard!”

      Don’t know about Larry, but I always find the twits who do this sort of drive-by flouncing amusing. I can just picture the petticoats bouncing as they stomp a shiny buckled shoe and sniff with the kind of oblivious hauteur only a child can truly muster.

    3. “You know what you’re talking about, therefore I will ignore you.”
      Someone smarter than me pointed out that gun law is the only area where an invincible ignorance of the subject matter is defined as being sincere and informed.

    4. “You know too much about the subject, so you’re not allowed to talk about it,” Chapter 1: How to be an idiot.

  133. Here it is: Officially one of the best WordPress blogs I’ve encountered. Love love love the post. I’m already planning on sending it around to numerous people. Thanks so much!

  134. Author: I don’t own a gun. I love you. It’s a long article and I want to print it, roll it up, and use it to beat over the head my friends who are demanding stricter gun laws and telling me I hate children because I disagree.

    1. The do it. Be sure to use heavyweight paper.

      Better yet, take a hint from the mormons, and etch it on metal plates. The words will have more “impact” that way.

  135. Notice the pictures of the Police responding with Assault Rifles after the fact. Wonder what would have happen if someone at the school were armed with what the first responders had?

  136. That has been the BEST copulation of information in a well wrote blog i have ever seen. I have been saying the exact same thing for years. ( you do say it better though). Thank you for you past service and continued service with your writings. God Bless.

    1. Okay, now that I’m done giggling — I think the word you want is ‘compilation.’ Though leftists might feel a bit, uh, copulated by it.

      Another for the Damn You Autocorrect! files.

      1. On the other hand, this blog post (and attendant follow-ups, commentary, debates, responses to regurgitated idiocy, etc.) is so effing awesome that it has generated in me a sort of calm, euphoric satisfaction response that is normally associated with, you know….compilation.

        I’m gonna go have a cigarette now. Then I’ll be back to read the rest of the responses, and as much of the cited material as possible before I go try to get a few winks of the sleep I didn’t get last night because I was totally engrossed in this….compilation.

  137. So Utah does currently allow teachers to be armed? Any place else?

    I know there is that one TX disctrict that has been in the news again recently was the first in 2008, but in one article the super said that other areas had contacted him to copy their program but declined to name them.

  138. Fact is, other than a number of countries in Africa and Central / South America – the US has the highest homicide by firearm rate in the world, DESPITE having the most lax gun laws. There are actually more ACCIDENTAL deaths from guns in the US (over 650) than total homicides in the UK. If the tight gun laws in the UK were actually causing bad guys to be running amoke, wouldn’t you expect a much higher homicide rate?

    Add to this the very high number of suicides by firearm in the US and one can easily deduce that having more guns does NOT make us safer.

    The points made by Correia seem very well thought out and logical. The problem is, they don’t correspond with what is actually happening in the real world.

    More guns = more dead people….. period.

    1. I would think Switzerland has the most lax gun laws as they issue everyone a real assault rifle. What is the homicide rate there?

      1. One of the lowest in the world, Nate.

        And they allow kids to to shoot military rifles in inter-mural High School competitions.

        I’m jealous. I didn’t get to compete with an M-16 and get a letterman jacket for shooting …

  139. So you immediately disqualified yourself by stating you made a living training people in the use of firearms. As much as you enjoyed pumping yourself up, all of your arguments are tired, worn out catchphrases copy and pasted from other pro-gun message boards. Nice try though

    1. No. I haven’t made my living with guns for several years. I am a professional novelist. (as can be seen by all the, you know, books with my name on them over the the side). However, you did skim down far enough to find something to invoke your righteous indignation, so that you could then safely dismiss me without having read or thought about anything. But once again, didn’t write this for people like you.

      Nice try? 100,000 hits in less than 48 hours, national media attention, and has been posted far and wide. So yeah, it was pretty nice. Thanks for caring. 🙂

      And again, for those of you reading through all the multitude of comments, are you noticing a pattern yet? 😀

      1. “Lefty- Pattern, what pattern.”

        Logical fallacies, ad hom attacks, off topic bloviations, etc et al.
        I have blogged, commented to articles and write articles for the last 4 years at numerous locations. About 1 in a 100 liberal commenters attempt to use logic and debate rationally. It is the left.

      2. @Const. Libertarian That gets my blood boiling. I constantly attempt to debate liberals online. What pisses me off more than anything is when liberals use logical fallacies to accuse me of fallacies, or improper debate form. Obviously they know these fallacies exist as they are accusing me of using them. I honestly don’t know how they don’t have aneurisms with the contradictions and disconnects in their own reasoning. I’m not glad that others go through this, but I’m happy I’m not the only one who is realizing that this is their modus operandi because if we identify it we can counter it.

      3. Again, Larry, you touched a firearm, therefor your words are now unclean.

        You should hang a bell on your belt so that good clean liberals can avoid touching things that you have handled.

    2. Would an oncologist who specializes in the development and creation of new medicines be disqualified from speaking on the efficacy of a new medicine? How about an oncologist who supports euthanasia and has aided patients in their final passing, would they be disqualified from speaking on the subject?

      Nice try at avoiding critical thinking, and civil discourse. Good use of a logical fallacy as well.

    3. What do liberals have against subject matter experts? That’s right, Liberals get all of their facts from celebrities and news anchors.

      1. Don’t forget Memes… Memes and logical fallacies. Memes have spread like a virus, while they maybe funny there are some who believe what they say. I got in an argument with a comic book store owner over the “facts” in the Meme. He responded that they are just “generalizations” and even Mark Twain knew all “generalizations” are false. He gave some quote. Then questioned why my logic is so flawed. I pointed out that it’s dangerous and evil to knowingly use false info as rhetoric even if your intent is good. I then gave him the proper definition of “generalization” with two examples of their use in logical statements. I also suggested not quoting someone famous just because it fits their argument as it’s not a wise debate strategy. He responded with some childish remark about me being graded on my logic and I better not have a sub-par response. What’s even more sad, he was recently posting on a “why are conservatives so prone to logical fallacies/ conservatives are just ideologies who can’t debate”. Labeling one side an ideologue so you can ignore what they said is a freaking logical fallacy in and of itself…

  140. This is a well written article that exposes many of the emotionally based fallacies disseminated by gun control fanatics. I hope many of our national, state, and local representatives read this article to help ground them in objective reality. Thank you.

  141. Great article, but I feel it would be more effective without using labels like “leftists” and “liberals” with demeaning intent. There are a lot of self-described “liberals” who are very pro gun (for example, NRA-endorsed democratic governor Ted Strickland from Ohio). There are even “liberal” pro gun organizations (http://democratsforgunownership.org, http://pinkpistols.org/). The denigrating comments against the broad labels is at best unproductive and at worst counterproductive in making otherwise great arguments. I know most (maybe all) gun grabber types do lean left and do associate with the (D) political party and there are a lot of them, but they’re not all that way. It would be best to get more support by sticking to respectful discussion and facts especially with this current anti-gun political fever. More specific labels like “gun grabber” or “victimization advocate” get the same point across without the collateral damage.

    1. If you vote for or support people who have “Let’s ban guns!” as a major plank of their party platform- no matter if they themselves actually claim to be pro-gun- you’re not fooling anybody but yourself.

      1. That would be incorrect. Gun ownership is not the only voting issue. Further, having someone who votes ‘liberalitarian’ or even hardline blue but is contacting their elected representation advocating for not advancing gun control actually works in your favor as far as gun ownership is concerned.

        This is why it is confusing and frustrating to see you be derisive to someone who apparently agrees with you on the topic at hand. You would rather hurl an insult than cooperate on a common goal?

        These are exactly the sort of things that would help prevent electing Mrs. “Shoulder-thingie”. Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.

      2. Patrick, the DNC has been pushing total gun confiscation as a policy since I’ve been alive. If you want to stand with the party that sent SWAT teams after rifle owners in New York, ordered police to conficate guns in the Katrina disaster zone, and that has officials and major donors preaching violence against gun owners even now, go right ahead- but don’t pretend you’re supporting gun rights in doing so and don’t complain when people group you in with what you support.
        It’s not ‘advancing towards a common goal’ when someone supports and votes for the Party of Violent Confiscation, limiting his objections to the occasional (and quickly ignored) phone call.

      3. Dave, I don’t know how long you’ve been alive, but the DNC has not accomplished “total gun confiscation as a policy” despite having had several presidents and congresses elected, and a large cross-section of the population voting that way.

        If you want to think that you’re superior and more righteous than me, go ahead. There’s nothing I can do about that. Same goes for your apparent thinking that the RNC has nothing to do with the attempted citizen control that’s been increasingly happening the last few decades. I can’t and won’t try to change your mind.

        If you’re so ingrained in your bias and partisanship that you can’t see past or speak outside of simple labels then you’re part of the overall problem.

        Let me demonstrate: I’m not a democrat, but I’m not a hater either. I’m also not a republican, but I’m not a hater either. Gun control IS a voting issue for me, but it’s not the only one.

        My point was that anyone who brings pro-ownership into the dialog of the far-left is on my side. If you just want to see enemies in everyone who is not 100% like-minded then enjoy your rage & bridge burning.

      4. Patrick: Try reading comprehension. I said they’ve been pushing total confiscation- and in some parts of the country they’ve been very sucessful (New York City comes immediately to mind, as I said). I’m real sorry that you’re butthurt because I don’t appreciate your free-riding on my pro-gun votes, or accept your justifications for doing so.
        (Gary Johnson!? Tell me, oh non-partisan, nonhating one- how many pro-gun initiatives has Mister Johnson pushed through to sucess? Not talked about- I’m sure he’s a marvelous talker- but made into reality)
        Now, enough of you.

      5. DaveP, Try a little of reading comprehension of your own – you say “pushing total confiscation”, I respond “it has been fruitless despite being such a cornerstone of their existence”.

        You can be as dismissive as you want. That really does nothing productive. One last time: it is exactly this dismissive, derisive nonsense attitude that is costing “your side” the votes and base that it needs. Keep it up. It’s done wonders for us up to now.

        Yes. Gary Johnson. You tell me who you voted for? Romney? I’d put Gary’s record up against Mitt’s on any given day of any given century. Do some research before you shoot off your mouth.

    2. Exactly how many Republicans in congress are currently trying to ban any firearms?

      Sorry, bud, but Democrats own this anti-gun label.

    3. Hey Jeremy

      Would it have been more effective if Paul Krugman, in the immediate aftermath of the Giffords shooting.. didn’t implicate w/o any shred of evidence that the Tea Party was involved?

      That set off about 3 days of news coverage about Sarah Palin and cross hairs.. THEN.. when it was found out that there was nothing related to Jared Laughner in regards to anything ‘right wing’…

      The ‘story’.. the narrative.. in one of the greatest ironies of American Journalism.. said…

      Let’s talk about ‘tone.’

      Please consider how your side is perfectly capable and willing to essentially destroy people, their reputations .. all to make a point. Then come back and pontificate about how we ‘shouldn’t use labels’

  142. Larry,
    Thanks for the very thoughtful and informative article.
    I do a bit of pro gun blogging myself and ran across this interesting factoid. According to UN crime statistics for 2010 total violent crimes in the UK totaled 1,158,957 on a population of 60 million. For the same period total US violent crimes was 1,246,248 for a population of just over 310 million.
    Given their total ban on all handguns and strict restrictions on long arms I find it curious that the Brits have a violent crime rate five times that of gun crazy America. Or perhaps Lott was correct and more guns does equal less crime, just saying.

      1. Uh, no. In America we have that too. You know that Assault and Battery bit? Only half of that requires touching. 🙂

    1. Perhaps but a very very low rate of gun related deaths. Fact, I know they get in the way of an opinion but they remain fact none the less.

      1. So, if 20 elementary school kids were strangled to death, you’d be a-ok with that. As long as no gun was involved.

    2. That is a stunning statistic, and one that I never heard before. So I poked around a little and found your figures in a Daily Mail (UK) article. Other places show US total crime at about 12 million and UK at about 4 million, and make it hard to compare violent crime statistics.

      One shocking fact is that gun-free Britain has more than twice the frequency of rape as the US does. I posted below about gun-banners being racist and sexist because of the greater need of women and minorities for equalizing self-defense weapons. Thank you, Uncle Lar, for pointing to UN statistics that prove it.

      1. My main point was that the anti gun crowd’s real agenda is wholely focused on the guns while generally ignoring the real effects on a true gun free society. I also had seen the statistics of UK rape twice that of the US. Report I read also said that the Australian rate is three times ours.
        As for the low rate of British gun deaths compared to us, they always have been, but are apparently rising there, not falling as one would expect if the banner’s claims held any truth whatsoever.

      2. Wasn’t there just a major scandal in teh Home Office where the London Metros got busted for simply not reporting (or even taking a report on) certain types of crimes?

  143. I have to agree with Mr. Correia. My wife works at a Rural County Hospital that has posted on it”s doors “No Guns Allowed”. I have explained to my wife that if someone is disgruntled to the point of using a firearm that sign will not stop them. And who are they going to go after, the Dr they feel is responsible for whatever tragedy happened in that persons life, and anyone that gets between the shooter & their target. The cops when called are going to set up a perimeter & try to negotiate. However, one person with a concealed weapons permit can be the first line of defense in that situation that is not in the shooters plan or line of thinking. I think the hospital is nuts for not allowing Concealed Weapons inside the building. The kind of people that have a Concealed Weapons Permit are not likely to become the shooter in some criminal action.

  144. I truly enjoyed reading this for a number of reasons:
    1. one is either part of the problem, part of the solution, or part of the scenery. A REAL solution is what we need. When I was in the military, my bosses did not want to hear me gripe. I needed to come to them with a solution if I wanted to be heard. You (and others) have offered an inexpensive, grass roots solution. This has enabled me to have a meaningful discussion with my wife. She is a rational, reasonable person who tends to believe what people who say they are experts say. She feels bad about the shootings, and wants to do something. Now she has a different opinion, and I may get her to a range soon to learn how to shoot.
    2. Ignorance breeds fear. period. There is a reason that many returning military want to buy the same weapon they learned to use in the service. By the way, that is an AR-15 style rifle. If everyone was required to qualify with a handgun or a rifle (like in Switzerland or Israel) we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
    3. You are advocating that people take responsibility for their own protection, and you are reminding them that sometimes the world is a dangerous place. I hunt large animals once a year in the great state of Colorado. There are large predators in the state, and I ALWAYS carry a backup gun because I don’t have teeth or claws. I want animals to be very clear who is at the top of the food chain. The wilderness can be a very scary place. The city can be just as scary, but the myth of a cop on every corner gives folks a false sense of security.
    Enough of my soapbox. I agree with you, thank you for a well written article. – Dave

  145. You were able to put into words, in a better way, the same points I’ve been trying to make to people over the last week. Thank you. Why isn’t there someone like yourself representing the NRA when they meet with liberal politicians?

  146. This article is massively fantastic. Best I’ve seen by orders of magnitude. THANK YOU for taking the time to put this together.

  147. This is a fantastic post. I mostly disagree with your opinion and I can think of a number of ways in which your understanding of gun control advocacy is straw-mannish, but still, this was a very considerate and logical defense of libertarian gun ownership rules. I particularly appreciate that your argument makes a concession that a lot of conversations with libertarian gun law people do not; you admit that it’s a good idea to prevent people from having actual machineguns, and that regulating things like Rocket Powered Grenade Launchers and Bazookas is a good idea. That’s good. When people won’t admit that at some point we need to regulate weapons it makes those people sound crazy.

    I imagine this has already happened, but here is where I think people from my side are likely to take issue with you:

    #1: There really isn’t any evidence that CCW laws prevent crime. I don’t think there’s anything suggesting they increase crime, either, but the reality is there’s no strong correlation either way.

    #2: It’s hard to believe that gun owners are responsible people when you suggest that if their guns were threatened, they would start attacking the government. If that’s true, I think their guns should be taken away immediately, on principle.

    #3: There was an armed guard at Columbine, and he was useless. There were also armed civilians in Arizona, who were also useless. There are lots of cases in which armed civilians confront gunmen and are injured or killed in mass shootings. I’m not convinced your “speed bumps” are at all effective. As somebody who works in a school, however, I can assure you that storing weapons there would not make the building safer. A security guard might, but if history is a guide, he would probably accomplish little more than becoming one more casualty, at best taking a few seconds off the clock before police arrived. There are ways to do that without engaging in a firefight.

    #4: You neglect to mention that nobody died in the stabbing incident in China. That’s why gun control people think we should ban guns – knife rampages are less effective.

    #5: There is strong evidence that owning a gun increases the risk of suicide or death by gun violence in the home significantly. Most gun deaths in the US are suicides.

    #6: Anders Brevik’s rampage was bad news, but one of the reasons it was so awful was that in general there are virtually no gun deaths at all in Norway, thanks largely to effective gun control laws. You can’t cherry pick examples like that, it’s arguing in bad faith. You also ignore Japan, which has very low rates of gun violence and impossibly strict gun control, and Israel, which you would think would have lots of guns but in fact requires you to justify the presence of a gun in your home every six months or you lose it, and that country is under significant threat by actual terrorists at all times….and has lower rates of gun violence than we do.

    #7: I don’t agree about only hanging people once. If illegal possession of a firearm carried a harsher penalty, criminals would be less likely to do it.

    #8: Similarly, you don’t really talk about the fact that a lot of semi-automatic weapons are built so that they can be modified to full auto. If doing that was a felony, people would be less likely to do it. Again, even criminals.

    #9 Just because some gun regulations are stupid doesn’t mean the whole concept of gun regulation is stupid.

    #10: There are around 9, 000 murders with guns in the United States every year. In around half of these cases (and about 90% of the time when the victim is female) the murderer was someone known to the victim, which suggests that the attacks are person, not rational, and not the act of a criminal using good judgment about consequences. Thus your division of the world into “criminals” and “good guys” is suspiciously reductive.

    Anyway, thanks for the post, and I hope for your sake that you surrender your guns peacefully when the time comes.

    1. 1. Wrong. See the work of Dr. John Lott, conveniently published in More Guns, Less Crime. Which is despised and dismissed by the anti-gun side, but which has since been replicated by other economists and criminologists.

      2. It is called the 2nd Amendment. See my rather generous math, and then ask yourself how many Americans you are willing to see killed in order to bring about your utopian vision of the future.

      3. The armed guard at Colombine reacted differently than an armed school guard would react today, just like airline passengers would react differently today to an attempted hijacking than they did before 9-11.

      Oh, and you must read Slate. That was some spurious nonsense there.

      4. In that incident, no. But as has been repeatedly stated in these comments, the difference between a stab wound and a fatal stabbing is a tiny bit of anatomy knowledge. Also already linked in these comments, China has had a rash of mass school stabbings, hammerings, and meat cleaverings over the last few years. 21 dead v 90 injured, a ratio that is not too different than mass shootings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932012)

      5. Yep. And in places without guns, they kill themselves with whatever the most handy tool is available. See Japan’s suicide rates for example. Will you also ban high places and water?

      6. So mass killings that suit your agenda (though rare) are fair game and need to cause a national panic and more laws, but mass killings which don’t suit your agenda (though rare) are cherry picked and should be dismissed… Gotcha.

      7. You don’t know much about how criminal law currently works, do you?

      8. No. Actually you are totally incorrect. In fact any new gun design must be sent to the BATF’s Technical Branch where they will go over it and try to convert it to full auto, and if it is too easy, then production of that gun is forbidden. However, as the British proved during WW2, you can build functioning submachine guns (the STEN) out of plumbing supplies and sheet metal, and our machine tool technology has grown by orders of magnitude since then.

      9. So just because something is stupid, then we should still do it, because it might not be as stupid this time… Uh huh… Meanwhile I went through a bunch of various proposals and showed why they wouldn’t work for legal, logistical, or tactical reasons, but hey, whatever, let’s do the stupid thing more better extra hard next time and it’ll totally not be stupid again.

      10. I have no idea what your are trying to say on this one. I simply cannot ascertain your point. But hey, you reached 10 bullet points, which shows you are extra serious.

      1. Thanks for your reply.

        1. Lott has been discredited repeatedly. You can choose to ignore that, but it’s still the case.

        2. People who think the 2nd Amendment is worth killing for baffle me and I wish they were disarmed. Your arguments tend to reinforce that feeling for me.

        3. I *did* read Slate, but I agree, that article wasn’t well argued at all and seemed suspicious, so I looked it up other places. I’ve now gone through a few accounts of the record of bystanders taking on spree killers – my impression from all that media is that it’s not super effective unless the guy is out of ammo and running away.

        The truth is, “gun rampage” and “defensive use” are confusing terms that are hard to measure because they involved counterfactuals. There’s no good way to measure crimes prevented by defensive gun use, because to satisfy the gun control folks like me you’d need to prove that no other way of handling the situation would have prevented the crime, and that the introduction of a gun into the situation didn’t in some way escalate the situation.

        4. Sorry to be cliche, but ask the parents of the Sandy Hook kids if they think 90 injured vs. 21 dead is similar at all. The “every weapon is the same as a gun” argument is silly, and I know you know it, because nobody would argue that we should arm soldiers only with knives. Guns are the quickest and best way for people to kill people, and that’s why this is a conversation.

        5. Fair enough. I actually don’t support banning all guns, anyway, so I don’t really see how we can prevent suicide by gun. That said, this is at least an argument for better background/mental health checks on gun purchasers.

        6. Well…there’s a sense in which we have to acknowledge that gun control laws might serve two different purposes. One of those would be to prevent spree killings like Sandy Hook, and the other would be to reduce overall deaths and injuries due to guns. From the perspective of restricting spree killings, since Brevik is an isolated incident rather than part of a fairly obvious pattern, I don’t think my dozens of examples are the equivalent of your one example. From the perspective of reducing overall gun violence, I think it’s *also* important to notice that in general first world countries with strong gun control laws have lower gun violence rates than the United States (you can mention Brazil, but I assume you know why I wouldn’t take that seriously).

        7/8. No, I’m really not an expert on gun laws or gun modification. I’ve heard many of my friends who own guns talk about the ease of modifying their own weapons to full auto using equipment bought at shows or online, but it’s true, people brag and maybe I’m just being a sucker. I’ve also never heard of anyone getting more than 10 years in jail for a weapons violation, and as far I’m concerned that’s not enough.

        9. Your proposals are all binary. “Ban this!” (won’t work) “Ban that!” (already banned) etc. But you haven’t addressed the most obvious moves: Create a National Gun Registry database to track every weapon in the country, close the gun show loophole, make background checks more effective and require gun owners to re-apply for their license to own guns every few years the same way people who operate cars do, etc. You tend to mix objections that are obviously dumb with objections that don’t seem dumb at all (extended clips seem unnecessary to me; I don’t understand what situation you envision in which the “speed bump” people you mention would be carrying around bulky, extra-large magazines – so it’s more likely that they’d be used in a criminal act than in a defensive way).

        10. I *am* super serious, thanks for noticing. I work in a school with kids who I care about. I don’t make this argument because I want to outsmart you, I make it because I’m seriously concerned that there’s a level of irrationality to the way we talk about guns that is preventing us as a nation from protecting ourselves. I know I can be smug in an internet-type way, but I’m legitimately grateful to talk to someone who comes at this problem from your perspective and has the knowledge and logic you bring to the discussion. That isn’t going to make me agree with you – I’m bone-certain you’re wrong. But reading what you wrote is helping me to understand why we’re having such a hard time dealing with gun violence in this country. As for the point I tried to make – inelegantly – what I was trying to say was that Sandy Hook isn’t really a good model for the problem of murder by gunfire in America. Since about half of all murders are committed by people who know their victims, there’s probably no sense in which arming more people would help – if somebody wants to kill you and you don’t know about it, there’s probably not much anyone can do…but taking away the most efficient means of killing might help a little bit.

        In terms of spree violence…well…I’m stuck on the fact that some of those kids were shot 11 times. I can’t fathom why a device capable of firing that many bullets in that amount of time is necessary for self defense. The conflation of masculinity and gun violence in the Bushmaster ad suggests that, for most gun owners, the reason is something else entirely, but it seems to me that the price is too high.

        Again, thank you for responding, and I hope to think well of you one day while your guns are melting down into a pile of harmless slag.

        1. 1. Liberals don’t like does not automatically equal discredited. 🙂
          2. Oh good, more feelings.
          3. Or like every single professional who deals with this sort of thing or has trained with me on this sort of thing would say: Immediate Violent Response. Which is exactly what I said in my post.
          And for the record, I would put my knowledge of gunfighting against Slate’s any day. 😀
          And as for the last bit, sadly no. Becasue any stats or evidence which went against the narrative would just be ignored, sort of like how it is now.
          4. Never said they were. You tried to make one China case sound not as serious because of the killed to wounded ratio, and I pointed out that was not even close to true. (and actually that ratio isn’t too far off of the wound v. survial rate for handguns either) I brought it up because A. it happend this week. B. shows that even when banned, criminals don’t give a crap.
          5. Yep.
          6. Our non-homogenous population made up of the descendents of diverse immigrants, many of whom were from the poorer classes of the countries they left, is far closer to Brazil than it is to the small, homogenous countries gun banners keep comparing us to, yet you accuse me of cherry picking? Heh. 🙂 How about this one? That goes against my predetermined narrative, ergo it is bad. How about this one? Oh, that helps my case. It is good.
          And since you could pull every single stat out of my post, and it wouldn’t change anything I said about the logistics of the laws or the practical realities of violence.
          7-8. Yes. You have been a sucker, so I’d advise quit taking stuff a “buddy” told you and preaching it as gospel truth to actual experts, becasue then we’ll just think you are stupid. You got a problem with sentencing, taking up with the legal system.
          9. Once again, your ignorance is showing. My concealed carry gun holds 18 rounds. The spare magazines each hold 26.
          10. I hear a lot of emotions, and you obviously either missed, skimmed, or simply did not grasp what I wrote about magazines.

          You seem like a reasonable guy, but we’ve already seen displayed repeatedly in just a few exchanges that much of the information you are operation under is faulty, and you are basing your conclusions on faulty information and emotions. I am basing my conclusions on fifteen years of working with weapons and learning everything possible about how violent events and the laws relating to them actually work. Yes, you did come off as smug, and you did try to play gotcha, but it failed. Now I would sincerely ask for you to go and continue educating yourself. Our brief exchange scratched the surface of this topic, and I do believe that even if you disagree with my conclusions, you would be better off if you knew more about how this stuff actually works in real life outside the pages of Slate or Mother Jones or in the mind of Piers Morgan.

      2. My concealed carry gun holds 18 rounds. The spare magazines each hold 26.

        9mm 1911, I’m guessing? And to think, I always thought you carried .45acp.

        …don’t get me wrong though, I just switched to 9mm for carry myself.

      3. No, with Lott, were you referring to the Harvard “study” where they cherry picked MA judges to determine if a defensive gun use might be lawful (big surprise, they came to the conclusion they wanted to)?

        As far as your concern that anyone will respond violently when they start coming for our guns, have you read much history? This country was founded by a violent revolution when a tyrannical government went to far. If the government attempts to ignore/repeal the 2nd amendment, it will have gone too far.

        “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    2. When the time comes,I sincerely hope you wind up in a gulag eating pig shit.

      If you do not defend your rights with force,what do you intend to defend them with? Groveling? Your sniveling demeanor and tears? Do you think the people who rule over you actually care whether or not you continue to breathe?

      You don’t deserve to live in the first world. You should go live in West Africa and see what kind of treatment people like you get-actually, I’ll save you some time,they cut your dick off with a machete and force you to watch them rape your wife. Then they hack you to death with the aforementioned machete (but not before killing your wife with it 😉 ).The only thing keeping the sadistic morons you worship from doing that to you is my guns. Go ahead and confiscate them, you’ll probably die before me anyway. They’ll probably use you for medical experimentation or something.

      Your hubris is astounding. You actually think you have a right to our property. You don’t have any guns,presumably, so how are you planning to get ours? More begging? Maybe we should confiscate your magnum-sized dildos, all 8000 of them.

      1. Best put down I’ve read all day. Speaking of gun control, anyone remember that crooked Sheriff Floyd Tidwell in San Bernardino, CA?
        He stole over 1500 guns from the department’s evidence locker. Only about 120 were recovered, and last report, none of the stolen guns has ever been ran through NCIC.
        Hmmmmmm

      2. That’s really rude. I was kidding; I don’t expect to be loved on a pro-gun site, but if you noticed, what happened was I got the opportunity to learn a little bit. On the other hand, you sound really emotionally attached to your guns…maybe you should see a psychiatrist. On a deeper level, the idea that people only “deserve” to live in the First World if they buy into your machismo attitude about gun violence is pretty childish. You think your guns protect me? They don’t. They put me in danger – it’s pretty clear a guy who thinks the wives of people they’ve never met deserve to be raped and mutilated isn’t going to be much help in a crisis. West Africa is a place with fairly liberal gun laws, actually. You’d fit right in. But let me speak for the civilized portion of the country in saying that none of us need your help, your shitty attitude, or your guns. Honestly, you’re like a 9-year-old playground bully. I can’t believe people like you can own weapons, but yeah, I definitely would destroy them all if I could.

      3. So, you are OK with having the police do your violence for you, even if you are too squeamish or cowardly to do it yourself?

        And you want them to attack this rude one first?

        Simply because he refuses to defend you from the kind of third-world monsters that the second amendment prevents from reigning in the US?

    3. 90% of the time, when a female murders a male in the US, she uses a gun.

      70% of the time when a male murders a female in the US, he uses his bare hands or a muscle-powered weapon.

      Why do you want to dis-empower women and make them defenseless?

    4. “No” uses the typical liberal format for his/her arguments – ignore facts that do not support their position, claim everyone that doesn’t agree with their position on gun control as just over compensating for a small… uh… ‘gun’, and promote the theory that the only reason current gun laws don’t work is because… well… we need MORE gun control laws. Because strict gun control laws have worked so well in Chicago, Washington DC, etc. The same Chicago that had more American murders in it’s city than American soldiers killed in Afghanistan in 2012.

      I have absolutely no respect for anyone that exploits dead children and their families to push an anti-Second Amendment political agenda that would have done absolutely NOTHING to prevent the Sandyhook tragedy. And that is exactly what good old Barry and the other idiots in DC that supported his ridiculous gun control bill did last year. There is a special ring in hell for people like that. Obama and the rest of his ilk in DC have people like No convinced there is a ‘gun show loophole’ out there that doesn’t exist. His ‘facts’ are based on a study done in the mid 90’s – before mandatory background checks were implemented – and uses that outdated inaccurate data as justification for his gun grabbing agenda. Because the actual FACTS would not support that agenda. Because the FACTS are, any registered gun dealer has to do background checks at ALL gun shows. And only registered gun dealers can sell guns at a gun show. If you want to be accurate, the only ‘loophole’ would be the garage sale loophole. If you want to close a loophole, close the straw purchase loopholes that everyone knows goes on, but nobody wants to be the ‘bad guy’. Convicted felons get their girlfriend/baby mama to go to the gun store and buy weapons for them. With cash. Assuming they didn’t want to take the time or put forth the effort to buy one on the street. Enforce the laws we have on the books FIRST before you claim we need more more more.

      The Second Amendment isn’t about duck hunting or shooting clays… it is about protection from a tyrannical dictator running the Country. I’d say we are well on our way to a dictator as we have a President who routinely bypasses Congress with ‘executive privilege’, bypasses and outright ignores the Constitution – the same Constitution he swore to defend, ignores the will of the People – those he swore to represent (70% of Americans did not support Obamacare, which was proven out by Dems losing the House and almost losing the Senate in 2010), appoints ‘Czars’ who have political teeth, yet are accountable to no one but the President himself. Czars conveniently allow the President to bypass that pesky approval process of political appointees by Congress.

      So here is some homework for you No. Research how many mass shootings (as defined by the FBI and DoJ) over the past 30 years have happened in ‘gun free zones’ or other places weapons were prohibited. I’ll give you a hint – you really aren’t going to like the answer. Here is some more research for ya – according to the FBI, over the past 20 years have the frequency of mass shootings increased, decreased, or stayed the same? Mind you gun sales have skyrocketed over those same 20 years. Another hint – you aren’t going to like that answer either.

      1. Stevo, I agree with you on almost everything. One exception is that private sellers are allowed at gun shows, and they (unlike the FFL’s in attendance) don’t have to run background checks on people they sell to. These sales amount to about 4% of all gun sales, or about 10% of gun sales that occur without a background check. 17% of overall gun sales are between family members (no background check required, or realistically coerce-able) and 12% between friends (ditto). 3% of sales occur through the mail (without a background check) and 4% of sales occur without a background check and are ascribed to “other”. Gun control advocates tend to lump these all together (through ignorance or duplicity) to come up with the “40% of gun sales occur at gunshows and without a background check” false statistic.

        When calling for “universal background checks” however, there are a couple of problems the liberals never mention, let alone address. Private sellers at gun shows are in a known location, and are subject to spot checks by the ATF, who have a fairly strict definition of “private seller”. Sell too many items, and they’ll declare you a professional, subject to licensing and the requirement to perform background checks. In demanding that private sellers conduct background checks, the liberals rarely address the problem of logistics. Are they proposing that the NICS be opened up to allow public access? Or should private sellers have to go through FFL’s to process background checks? There is also the more practical problem of driving the private sellers from the known location of a gun show, to the unknown location of the parking lot, or other random meeting place to conclude their business.

        Liberals want to subject criminals to background checks, but are again either ignorant or duplicitous in offering proposals that will be followed by no one other than law-abiding citizens who are overwhelmingly not the problem. How exactly do they propose to force compliance with a background check when one (or both) members of the transaction are felons who know they wouldn’t pass a background check? The only way it works is with gun registration, assigning weapon serial numbers to individuals. Which again wouldn’t prevent black market sales, but would be handy for confiscation.

        Of course, the biggest problem with background checks is the woefully incomplete information contained in the NICS database. Jared Laughner passed a background check, as did Seung-Hui Cho and Aaron Alexis. James Holmes passed three. All had mental health problems, but none of that data made it into NICS. Before making this a beat-down on the mentally ill, I’ll also mention the flip side of the coin (defended by the ACLU, pitting liberal against liberal) which is that demanding that mental health professionals (or law enforcement officers, who may or may not be trained to assess mental illness) break doctor-patient confidentiality to label their patients as dangerous, will not exactly encourage these individuals to seek treatment. Compliance is already one of the biggest problems in mental health treatment, and this sure wouldn’t help. I’m afraid I don’t have an easy answer to this one, other than to be ready to defend yourself when these sociopaths inevitably avoid intervention before turning violent.

        Finally, an excellent point about “gun free zones”. Here we have a mass shooting in a “gun free zone” (a military base…which has been shown as much less heavily armed than believed by an ignorant public), in an essentially “gun free city” (read Emily Miller’s blog for the trials and tribulations of “Emily gets her gun” legally within the D.C. bureaucracy). This was not a random attack. It took deliberate planning and preparation, and targeted the innocent in a location the shooter knew would contain thousands of unarmed citizens. Paper will not protect you from criminals who by definition break the laws written on that paper. Signs won’t stop them either, and places the public at greater risk by keeping the law abiding gun owner out. Denial only works until the statistics catch up with you, at which point there is no “plan B”. The best answer I’ve come up with is to pay attention for what’s going on around you, and prepare for the unlikely event that you will be the victim of criminal violence. Failing to do so leaves you with nothing else in your playbook but “hide and hope he runs out of bullets before he gets to me”.

        Sources: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/31/police-chief-johnsons-testimony-40-bypass-background-checks-is-false/

        http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/

  148. You know, I’ll take the increase in other violent crime in England (and most of that “violent” crime is the offence of “causing an affray”, in which no one got hurt but they were afraid they might) in exchange for a murder rate that’s 70% lower than the US’s murder rate.

    1. Won’t happen. Diverse societies are violent societies on the verge of social upheaval and require blanket on-the-ground police presence to prevent this. In order to accomplish this, paying for and feeding all of the police you must expand your territory,but when you expand your territory you need more police,so you must expand again. Eventually you can no longer militarily support expansion and the entire society collapses, see the fall of the Roman Empire.

      I’d be highly surprised to find a topic on which you idiots could speak intelligently,but we know for a fact it isn’t (a) history or (b) the technical specifications of the guns or ammo you constantly try to ban.

      The reason why those other countries can afford the socialist provisions they have is because we are protecting their borders with our military. If they had to defend themselves against a land invasion on their own, they’d be deader than fried chicken. Let’s all be impotent sitting ducks powerless to stop the killing of our neighbors,friends, and family by a well-organized foreign enemy without our pretenses of “civilization”!

      Or not.

      1. And I, for one, am tired of expending our blood and resources to defend them.

        Let’s bring all the troops home and charge gold for any country that want’s our military’s protection. Lots of gold.

        Let’s also stop with the police actions. If our military needs to go in, it needs to stomp the country to rubble and leave. Why the heck are we paying to rebuild / modernize freaking Iraq?

        If Putin wants to colonize Europe, I don’t give a damn.

      2. i love you steve. you’re my hero, and i would absolutely support any bid you made for public office. (because this is the internet, i feel i need to qualify; this is NOT sarcasm)

  149. I called Robert Farago at thetruthaboutguns.com and spoke to him, asking him to approach you about possibly cross-posting on his site. Be well.

    1. RF is a talentless hack and the only reason this piece hasn’t already appeared on TTAG is that it has made too many rounds for any of the “authors” there to be able to claim it as their own.

  150. Thanks Larry for writing this article! Love your insight & knowledge that you share…..and just plain common sense with facts! I will be watching & reading your site…..very well done!

  151. Sir, You are obviously sensitive to the situation and paid by the word, hence your lengthy article. I am a physician, hunter, fisherman, and have some experience. I was initially repulsed when I saw this story, however, after a careful read I agree with your stance. As an Uncle, Father, Human being, I struggle with a solution. There is an issue of mental illness, however to denegrate our intelligence with a comment like:

    So since I don’t have enough first-hand knowledge about this topic to comment intelligently, then I’m not going to comment… Oh please, if only some of the people I’ve been arguing with who barely understand that the bullets come out the pointy end of the gun would just do the same.

    Pointy end of the gun?? We all know which end the bullets exit, right? I was also an engineer at NASA and worked the second Space Shuttle landing at Edwards Air Force Base, this is very insulting.

    I would respectfully ask that you address the key issues, get ur readers to debate the line. The NRA emabarrassed themselves, Americans, and myself today, can they fund a police officer in every school, mall, strip mall, highway? You have the power of the word, use it well…..

    Sincerely,

    DrCarl

    1. Doc, no offense, but you know about as much about being a professional writer as I do about building a Wolowitz Zero G Waste Disposal Unit. This was a blog post written on my own time to go on my blog, so no I wasn’t paid by the word. It is long because I had a lot of points to refute and I’m tired of facebook memes passing as coherent discourse. The only time I get paid by the word is when I sell short stories. Novels, I just get an advance and royalties, and they are pretty sweet. 🙂

      Pointy end of the gun!?! Hurumph! I’m offended! Okay. You’re an engineer. Take it up with the congresswoman trying to ban the shoulder thing which goes up or the guy on facebook arguing in favor of automated robot gun turrets in schools. To put this in your career field’s terms, I’ve spent the last few days arguing with the intellectual equivelent of people who think we faked the moon landings. That is their level of baseline knowledge.

      You would respectfully ask me to address the key issues. Done. Which was why this was long. Which you already complained about.

      Get my readers in line. HA! You don’t know my readers.

      I don’t speak for the NRA and I know you are simply setting up a strawman there, since I advocated CCW in schools, which is basically free and available now, but if you want to play reductio ad absurdium games, then sure, let’s just defund the utterly useless federal Department of Education and use that to pay for more police officers. 🙂

      1. My question to those who want the NRA to pay for armed guards. Who is going to pay for enforcement of gun control/ confiscation?

      2. Bravo, get rid of the USDOE. I have a Ph.D. in Education and believe you comment who heatedly. Has anyone noticed that these mass shootings happen in the liberal bations? you don’t see these crazy fu#s running to a Nascar rally, or NRA convention trying to prove their point.

    2. DrCarl,
      Did you think that Mr Correia’s remarks about “the pointy end” were directed at you? (Well, maybe it was, I don’t know Larry and certainly can’t speak for him, but I really doubt it.) FWIW I thought it was a bit of frustrated snark no doubt provoked by historical dealings with willful foolishness and ignorance. No big deal.

      Personally I learned a lot from his original post, and from some of the many many comments and responses. And I didn’t feel one bit insulted by anyone. (Annoyed/amused/dumbfounded by a few, but overall the level of discourse has been hearteningly high, IMO.) I’m not sure what your being a physician and former NASA engineer has to do with any of this, but if that’s relevant to perceived insult, then here’s my di-, uh, chest-beating: I’m also a physician, and although I have never built a zero-G toilet, like Howard Wolowitz I have a master’s degree in EE from MIT. So what? None of that has any bearing on my competence in other areas. I guess one could assume I’m not fundamentally stupid, but that doesn’t mean I can’t be ignorant, uninformed, or just flat out wrong about stuff outside my areas of expertise.

      What prompted me to comment, however, was the bit about:
      “There is an issue of mental illness, however to denegrate [sic] our intelligence …” Sorry, but I really don’t get this. Are you implying that Larry has some sort of mental health problem, based on your choosing to be insulted by a remark that, so far as I can see, was not at all to your address? I mean, geez, as a physician and former NASA engineer, I think you can safely feel that you’re not stupid, and as a hunter you’re probably not entirely ignorant about firearms. So in what way were you insulted? If someone said “I despise crack addicts who skydive naked,” that really wouldn’t bother me much as I neither do crack nor skydive. Naked occasionally, but that’s neither here nor there.

      This sort of slinging around of “mental illness” (and by a physician yet) is EXACTLY the sort of thing that makes me adamantly against an automatic and universal reporting of “mental health issues” to deny the right to possess firearms. If you hadn’t mentioned that you are a physician, I’d have just ignored your post, but once you raised the doctor flag, I felt obligated to comment that as physicians, our remarks on health issues carry additional weight.

    3. Dr. Carl
      Your need to be right trumps your need to get it right. Until you change; my sympathies to your patients and to the Dr’s who have to fix your bungles

  152. Hi. I don’t know you. Up until about an hour or so ago, I didn’t know you existed. I just stumbled across a link to this blog entry which some random person shared on a Facebook gun owners group, and decided to click it. Now I’d like to sincerely thank you for writing it.

    It sort of feels like you looked into my head (or hacked my Facebook account) and took all the gun control/gun rights arguments I’ve been having with friends for about the past week, and summarized them all here. I’ve been getting sucked in as well, by the multitudes of memes and the blithering “ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines!” posts. You’re absolutely right – it’s exhausting having to repeat the same facts over and over to different people, and it’s really hard to strike the proper balance of including enough data to make your argument convincing, while still keeping it short enough that the person on the other end will bother to read it. (I’m fed up with this “tl:dr” internet phenomenon.) It’s also a pain to wade through a gazillion Google results to find reliable statistics, when the whole issue is so politicized that you can’t even trust the numbers or the “studies.”

    Your post was a long read, and I’m half-tempted to just refer everyone I know here when we start to go back and forth over why gun bans don’t work, why “assault weapon” doesn’t mean what they think it means, why gun free zones suck the proverbial big one, etc. Buuuuuuuuut, I doubt they’ll actually read it.

    I’m just happy to have discovered an intelligent, literate, and reasonable piece that comes from a place of experience and covers all the current questions so well. Believe it or not, I’m a liberal-leaning gun-lover. Maybe that’s oxymoronic, I don’t know. Whatever the case, gun control is one issue where I believe that the Democrats have it completely bass-ackward, and we need to protect our 2nd Amendment rights before there’s nothing left to protect.

    Oh, and I liked this so much that you may have gained a customer, too. I’m gonna bookmark your site and come back to check out your books!

    1. @April: “I’m a liberal-leaning gun-lover. Maybe that’s oxymoronic”

      No, that’s a common first step one on the path of “I just realized I’m libertarian”

  153. I already SHARED your preview on Facebook. I will now share your article. I wish I knew where to download your article to my computer. I would post and forward it to my member-elect of the US House whose personal email I have and several Indiana state legislators I know, as well as anybody I’ve argued with since Newtown.

    1. Do a simple copy all then paste to any word processing program. You’ll need to do some cleanup of extraneous sidebar stuff, but the article and comments come across just fine.
      Or if you’re on a Mac simply do a print to pdf and it will generate a perfect image of the entire web page. Same can be done on a PC, but you need a separate utility since it’s not a built in feature.
      I also did the share to Facebook immediately after reading the article, then captured it on my computer so I would always have it to refer to. And I e-mailed the link to a number of friends and gun culture enthusiasts.

  154. I’ve read thru your entire piece trying to understand your point of view and I admit the internal logic holds up. But it is distressing.

    America, it seems, has pursued a path that it can’t reverse now, and it won’t end until everyone carries a gun and wears body armour and you’ll have an unregulated defacto police state with locks and fortresses, armed security guards and gated communities, and above all anxiety – all under the guise of Second Amendment freedom. Is that freedom? Violence begets violence.

    Meanwhile next door in Canada, guns can be purchased fairly easily I think, but I don’t know anyone at all that owns one, I have never fired a gun, I have never even seen a real handgun, and in my city, Canada’s third largest, we have had eight murders for the entire year (all gang-on-gang) and we are gnashing our teeth about our gang problem. I can roam any part of the city at any time of the day or night. Yet the lifestyle, income and culture are fairly similar; we watch the same violent movies and play the same video games. Perhaps to vent our violent urges, we play/watch hockey. Disagreements escalate to fistfights. The main difference I see is that we don’t have an obsession with guns.

    Granted, we are not immune and we have had our deranged mass killers too, most notably Ecole Polytechnique (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/École_Polytechnique_massacre), but I don’t see it altering our social fabric. We trust our police and we engage in civil debate and engage our politicians to enact policies and changes. We don’t try to take matters into our own hands by running out to get a gun. The majority of gunowners in Canada are legitimate hunters. Having a gun for self-defence here would be laughable (a nervous laugh, followed by shunning and ostracizing…)

    As I said at the start, with the proliferation of guns and the gun culture, it seems impossible for the US to back out of the situation you find yourself in, such as limited gun control. Selfishly, I just hope it doesn’t spread across the border north. I prefer the civility and relative calm in this country.

    1. Canada isn’t the US any more than it is Australia or any other country.

      However, if you pull our hyperviolent inner cities (home of our strict gun control) and you disregard our innercity drug crime and glamorized gang violence, then the rest of the United States is about as safe as Alberta.

    2. Ah “Violence begets Violence” also known as “Violence never solved anything”. Quoting a character from one of my favorite authors (other than Larry) “Tell that to the German National Socialist Party or the Confederated States of America, if, that is, you can find them.”.

    3. ” …an unregulated defacto police state…”
      Wait isn’t one of the defining characteristics of a police state that it is highly regulated?

  155. People like you need to be on TV setting people misinformed/ignorant people straight. I’m tired of people blathering on about “semi-automatic and assault weapons suited for the military” when they don’t have as much as a rudimentary knowledge of what those terms mean. It’s all political doublespeak.
    Also, I’m bookmarking this page. Thank you.

  156. Love everything you wrote, and thanks for the time and effort and thought you put into it. It’s the most informative piece I’ve ever seen… no kidding. I’m a lifelong cop in Missouri and I wish there was more training on shooting response, and hostage situations. My job is in a rural area, so I definitely see the need to respond immediately by whoever arrives first. Setting up a perimeter and securing the exits while people are getting shot would be insane. Would love to be the host for any training you might offer… thanks brother, Dave

  157. Larry,

    Thank you! You addressed every argument I have heard lately with the exception of the evil hollow points, which you did at least mention, in a thorough, logical, and convincing manner. Excellent — and amazing for something thrown together in the wee hours. May I link to your post?

  158. Larry,

    I was led to this post from a very pro-gun friend who I’ve been discussing gun control with, and have been moved to comment. The fact I am doing so means I found your post very compelling, despite the fact that I have been (and remain) very anti-gun for most of my life.
    In short, I am your audience.

    I am going to assume that the common ground we all share, red or blue, is the wish to stop bad people from doing bad things to us and to our loved ones.

    So here are some of the issues I wish to raise:

    1) Are the current offering of protective devices simply no competition for the guns that baddies are walking around with? If not, does the pro-gun community (if the ultimate principle is protection and defense rather than guns) support shifting investment from making better guns (and civilian gun ownership) to creating non-lethal weapons that are as effective as guns for civilian self-defense purposes? I suppose there might be a greater deterrence effect with the threat of death, but that seems a small concession to make for the pro-gun side if the ultimate goal is a more safe environment for everybody. It seems to me a weapon that causes a great deal of pain or immediate immobilization that is impermanent is preferable to something that kills.

    2) What we “emotional” liberals find disconcerting is that in the pursuit of a safer environment via easier access to guns, we may also be opening up a bigger Pandora’s box that ultimately makes society less safe. Having more guns around, in general, seems like to me that it would enable a whole host of new behavior, of unintended consequences that I don’t think any of us are ready for. Most of us, barring mental illness or disability, have been in situations where we lost control of our emotions, or drunk, or become extremely sad, depressed, irrational. And it seems simply logical to me that enabling people to be able to kill more easily would be a much scarier world. In short, doesn’t having such final power widely available to everyone disturb you? Especially if they’re not as trained/disciplined as you are, or have the time, inclination, nor talent to become so?

    3) Won’t bad people also respond and adapt to more citizen gun ownership? In almost every field of human endeavor, when the level of competition increases (in this case, killing) via technological or other means, the degree of sophistication of the field increases, sometimes exponentially. This is good when it’s a field that benefits us, like the NBA, but is it good when it comes killing more efficiently? I can imagine baddies becoming even better at killing, and that they would be more motivated, not less, to investing time, energy, and money to becoming better than the average gun toting citizen. And in response, we will have to get better as well.

    This doesn’t seem like the direction any of us want for our country.

    Thank you for your thoughts.

    1. Thank you for the very rational questions. I’m swamped, but will try to provide good answers.
      1. Basically, no. There is no less-lethal technology which currently exists which is nearly as effective as a firearm at stopping an actual violent aggesor. If you will notice, police officers use tasers, bean bags, and pepper spray on violent (but having not crossed the potentially lethal threshold of the Use of Force pyramid) or non compliant subjects, but when they do use them on the violent subjects, Cop #2 is usually there with a real gun in case it goes wrong. If the subject is armed with a gun, they aren’t going to mess around with less-lethal, they are going to shoot them, and for very good reason.

      I am a fan of pepper spray for civillian use, tasers not so much. They are both just more tools in the tool box. Pepper spray can incapacitate MOST (not all) people. Pepper spray is also more difficult to use, easy to get back on yourself, and pretty much useless at any sort of range, and really useless against a dude with a gun across the room. Pepper spray is a good tool to use on violent drunks, panhandlers that turn aggresive and threatening, that sort of thing, but against a man with a gun actually trying to kill you? Nearly useless.

      Tasers simply hurt a lot, and while you are being electrified you can’t do anything, but the second the electricity lets up, it is on like Donkey Kong. People who think tasers stop violent fights only think so because in the movies Tasers render people unconscious. No. Not in real life. They simply hurt and lock up your muscles. Not to mention they are single shot, short range items, which rely on two tiny little wires with fishhooks on the end, and if one of those fishhooks doesn’t sticks or gets knocked out, its over. Tasers are useful for cops to basically say “Quit dinking around so I can put the handcuffs on you.”

      2. You are correct in that is a very emotional perspective, because it already is a dangerous world. People already do bad things, which is what kicked off this entire discussion to begin with. The people who have taken the steps to arm themselves, get trained, and jump through a bunch of hoops in order to carry a gun are the single most law abiding group in America that I know of. You speak about making killing easier, but killing is already as easy as can be. There are more guns in America than there are people, and that will not change. (and from what my friends in the gun business have told me, after Obama’s comments this week, that ratio is going to get far higher. I believe we may have just seen the largest jump in gun sales in history).

      3. Of course. Criminals are as good at their job as you are at yours. According to Dr. John Lott’s research, when gun laws are eased, and criminals understand they now face a greater likelyhood of being shot on the job, violent crime drops, and property crime rises. As in, criminals don’t go away, they simply modify their behavior to maximize their odds of not getting shot. Criminals aren’t stupid (relatively speaking), and the vast majority of them aren’t suicidal.

      Florida was experiencing a lot of violent crime, especially against the vulnerable, such as their elderly population. Florida instituted a CCW law. Criminals, not wanting to get shot, looked for a new, vulnerable target. Then there was a rash of violent crime against tourists. Tourists couldn’t legally be armed, plus they were easy to identify becasue all of the rental cars in Florida were marked as rentals. Florida got rid of the rental car markings so that the tourists weren’t so easy to differentiate, so the crime rate against tourists declined.

      Many bad guys are just meth addled losers. It isn’t like those guys are training hard and staying fit and sharp. What fits your NBA analogy better are hyper-violent, professional, extremely well trained criminals. These are the pros. The best example of them in the world today would be Mexican drug cartels, including Los Zetas, who started out as Mexican special forces soldiers trained in the US at Ft. Bragg to combat drug cartels. These guys are profecient, professional, and when you screw with them, they cut off your head, and the heads of your twenty closest friends,and they arrange them in piles to send a warning to the federales.

      Mexico has extremely strict gun control.

      So, on #3, don’t let your emotions or how you wish the world to be disguise how the world already is.

      I hope all that helps.

      1. That all does help, and I appreciate the long and informative reply.

        I wanted to follow up with a few more questions/points.

        1) I fully accept your premise that pepper spray/tasers aren’t viable against against criminals with guns. The reason why I posed the question to you instead of just googling is that you clearly seem to be “in the know” via real life experience and interest and would know far better. And so I take your word when you say nothing currently exists that is effective against someone with a gun that is non-lethal (or less lethal).

        It does, however, seem to me that if there were the will and investment, that newer, more effective non-lethal weapons could be developed (and even a quick search seems to suggest that they are in development, especially for use by military forces) that were just as effective as guns in a pinch. And not to beat a dead horse, but self-defense is something we can all get on board with together– and if the ability to kill is not the key issue, it seems like the pro-gun/anti-gun sides can definitely find common ground with developing and promoting non-lethal, effective self-defense tools.

        I’ll end this line of thinking with a final hypothetical that seems to me to be not so far fetched: if there was a non-lethal weapon that was as effective as a gun, would the pro-gun community be willing (not necessarily enthusiastic, though logically they should be) to lay down their guns for the alternative?

        2) Hmm I didn’t see any of my points as being emotional– I’m not suggesting that the world is a safe place by any stretch of the imagination.

        I’ll elaborate a bit more on what I was getting at. What I was talking about was the very real realistic scenario where if more people are carrying around guns, and everywhere at that, that human error would be far more costly. Especially when we consider that everyday Jills and Joes who are untrained in the “proper” use of guns and when it is right to use them (traditionally an area reserved for law enforcement and military, and imho rightly so), it seems that there is much more potential there for tragedy. I’ve been in many situations where I thanked God nobody had a gun, because surely someone would have been shot because cooler heads would not have prevailed. I don’t see this as an emotional argument at all.

        Your point that gun owners you know are law abiding citizens is fair enough. I can totally see that. People who simply want to protect themselves and their families, because law enforcement is simply not sufficient. But could it be that the fact they are forced to jump through legal hoops, as onerous as it may be, is contributing to that fact? If we made it easier to get guns, would all those gun owners be as responsible as the ones you currently know? Personally, I shudder at the thought when I think of everyone I have encountered in life carrying around a gun.

        Your point that there are already more guns than people is also fair enough. The point I was making, however, isn’t that there are a lot of guns. The point is who and how many people actually have them. I’m happy as a clam that police and other people who are defending us are armed to the teeth. Give them anything and everything they need. As far as I’m concerned, too many everyday people have them already, and your argument suggests that everyone should have them. This is what I take issue with, for the reasons I stated above.

        Your claim that killing is already as easy as can be I think missed the point I was making. Of course it’s easy as can be for criminals with guns. But that’s precisely my point. Do we really want it to be easy as can be for everyone to kill?

        Yes, motivated criminals will always get their hands on guns. But don’t we want to make it hard for them? Don’t we want criminals to have to “work” to get them? And in the end, won’t it reduce the number of criminals who have them?

        You may still disagree, but I don’t see anything I’ve said here as emotional or sticking my head in a hole in some desperate delusional quest to avoid reality.

        3. Here again, I think you misunderstood my point a bit. I’m in full agreement with you that criminals run the gamut, from Los Zetas or whomever the hell to the teen delinquent, and that when we all have guns, that criminals will adapt along with us. Which means that while on the very low end the loser meth head might be deterred from robbing us, there will always be other criminals who are more motivated, more savvy, more organized who won’t be. I can imagine that certainly they’ll be under more pressure to be “better” than the average citizen. To stretch the basketball analogy as far as it can be stretched, what I’m suggesting is that we don’t want a scenario where everyone plays basketball and works at it, because the guys we’re playing against will have more time and inclination to practice. What I’m saying is that killing efficiently is not something we want to encourage universal participation.

        It seems that it’s in all of our common interest to find a solution where we don’t have to fight fire with fire.

        1. 1. Invent this better less-lethal item and make a zillion dollars. You should get right on that. In the meantime, my solution protects school kids now. Would gun people be willing to talk about that? I don’t know. Why don’t you actually create it. In the meantime, I offer a solution which works and costs nothing. If your answer is a hypothetical future solution which does not exist, or laws which will not work and which are functionally impossible to implement, then you don’t really care about protecting the kids. You are more interested in justifying your fears. This point is one step removed from the guy wanting to mandate the automatic robot gun turrets in schools.

          2. Not emotional? Let’s see, you are scared that people will not be smart. You are scared that people with guns will flip out. You are frightened about things you don’t understand. Because I’ve dealt with a couple thousand responsible gun owners, doesn’t mean they are all, so you are scared other people will be bad, so irationally you want to limit the good ones because of what may happen, even though that actually makes the real existing problems worse… Of course, there are already places doing what I suggest, and we’re fine, but you are scared that bad things will happen elsewhere, and surely these bad things will be so much worse than the bad things that happen now, and just think how bad that is because of how it will make people feel.

          Nope. That’s perfectly reasonable.

          3. And on the basketball analogy, it pretty much fell apart. Your point is for good people not to better their abilites becasue then bad people will better their abilities as well… Because there is absolutely nothing stopping the bad guys from doing it now, so you’re just afraid they’ll kill us harder if we resis better. That’s frankly stupid.

      2. Pepper spray is simply pathetic. I have used it several times, and it has never done more than make resistors blink and cry, if they already weren’t. Anyone in an altered mental state is gonna look at you and go, “Why’d you do that!?” and go about their business. Worthless weight for officer’s belts.

        Beanbag shotguns are simply long-range batons, and Larry is entirely accurate about the secondary officer having a gun with useful ammunition pointed at the person being engaged with the beanbag. That said, they have the peril of being less aerodynamic, and, in the end, only as heavy a hit as a baton, which can do as little as irritate the large, intoxicated, and ill-tempered, or could potentially kill if it struck the throat or was deployed in too close a proximity to the target.

    2. let me help you out here.

      1. screw less lethal, if you’re shooting up a school, I want you to -die-. preferrably in the most painful, humiliating, and embarassing manner possible.

      2. If you’re in the biz of violent crime, I”m perfectly happy with you being dead.

      3. Most criminals are lazy. especially the violent ones. Discovering that violent crime is a good way to get shot dead… most bad people will ‘respond and adapt’ by getting into a less fatal line of work, like telemarketing, politics, or some other form of quasi-legal thievery. Again, all to the good.

      1. 3. Actually, criminals in red states tend to get into empty residence burglary, making meth, and car clouting.

        Because they don’t like getting shot at.

    3. I’ve been teaching defensive shooting for 30 years, and I’ve also worked with survivors of sexual assault and other violence, so I’ve seen both sides of sel-defense.
      1. Sure, I’d love it if someone could come up with a Star Trek phaser that simply knocked people down. I’ll consider carrying one right after the folks who protect politicians adopt them.
      2. If you have to be disarmed and made helpless to be peaceful, you are never going to be non-violent. The only way to teach people to be responsible adults is to start letting them exercise responsibility at a young age, and increase that responsibility as they grow up. Britian was one of the most civilized and peaceful countries in the world, until they disarmed the people and taught them to be irreponsible. If people are civilized you don’t have to worry about them being armed.
      3. Crime is not a reasonable avocation, and does not attract reasonable people. A criminal reasonable enough to recognize the increased threat of armed former victims and motivated enough to train and equip up to compensate would be reasonable enough to select another line of work.

    4. Being former military, I can tell you the best reasons for armed citizens is that no one can ever say that there is NOT a 100% chance of any government NOT turning on it’s citizens and causing horrors beyond belief; I have seen Somalia, Croatia, and even got to pick up body parts from hacked apart children in Rwanda. You have done a great service with this, and I have taken the liberty to sending it personally to every anti-firearm advocate in Congress via letter (my printer is quite empty now of ink, but so be it). The news papers, if you can call them that, will be next. Then the homes of reporters. Turn about is fair play with them. Your time, your analysis, and your effort here is very much appreciated – many of my fellow service people, both active and retired, seem to be in full agreement with you.

  159. You started off by labeling anyone who doesn’t agree with you as either uninformed, ignorant, or stupid. I see no reason to read anything past that.

    1. Of course. That was nice of you to skim it until you found something to invoke your righteous indignation so you could then run off and not have to be exposed to any dissenting opinions. 🙂

      And another one. For those of you who’ve read through the hundreds and hundreds of comments, are you noticing a pattern yet about those willfully ignorant people I mentioned?

      1. Larry, you’re right a pattern is developing. Too bad it’s the same pattern we’ve all seen before when debating those who refuse to engage in civil discourse.

        As for the “uninformed, willfully ignorant, and obnoxiously stupid”. I’d tweak your categories a little based on something I’ve posed on one of your other topics and received positive responses.

        Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, we are all ignorant many times in our lives. We can cure ignorance with the application of knowledge.
        There is no cure for Stupidity however. Stupidity is the intentional or unintentional choice to remain ignorant. Nothing can be done to correct or cure those who are stupid.

        So your first category would be “ignorant” your second would be “stupid”, as for the third there is no polite way to describe them in civil discourse. Your use of “obnoxiously stupid” comes close but I consider all stupid people obnoxious off the bat. Those who deal in memes for their information are beyond obnoxious.

        I’m just posting this because definitions on the difference between ignorance and stupidity help prevent responders from feigning insult. It’s not an insult if it is an accurate description those you are discussing.

      2. I have to repeat it, “Lefty- Pattern, what pattern.”
        Just wondering if you ever read through comments before on articles? This is how lefties debate. There is always a pattern to their argument tactics. None of it uses reason. I would also say that about half of the lefties that go to conservative bloggers or articles that slipped through the MiniTru censors, are paid agitprop. If interested, do a google on Cass Sunstein’s paper about creating a federal agitprop division for the internet. Do you think our government is not going to try and manipulate the online conversation like they have done on legacy media? Welcome to what I have to combatted over the last 4 years. I am surprised none of them have offered to kill you yet. That should be coming shorty.

    2. You need to work on your Critical Reading and Critical Thinking skills. He said he has spent the last few days arguing with “the uninformed” “the willfully ignorant” and the “obnoxiously stupid”. He was not insulting anyone, nor did he say those labels apply to those who don’t agree with him. Rather they are categories of those who are arguing against him, or or a course of action he disagrees with.

      Try not taking the easy way out to avoid reading an opinion you disagree with.

      Larry then goes onto say he is addressing the post to the uninformed. He is trying to educate people, after reaching the point of exasperation.

      1. You need to work on your Critical Reading and Critical Thinking skills.

        I attended what has been called the most liberal university in the country–NYU. The overwhelming majority of my peers were liberal and, as such, had learned how to write but not how to think. Liberalism is great at fostering self-expression but not at listening to opposing points of view. So it is on gun-control as any other political issue.

        Proverbs 18:2 comes to mind:

        “Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions.”

    3. Was it deliberate irony that you picked your screen name (Yarbles = balls, “junk” or the like) from A Clockwork Orange? The poor victims who had the misfortune to encounter little Alex and his band of merry violent sociopaths would probably have come out much better had they been armed, trained and prepared.

  160. Reblogged this on Two Heads are Better Than One and commented:
    This post is by far the most complete treatment of the subject I’ve seen anywhere recently. Its author says that until his suggestion is honestly considered, any alleged “national conversation” isn’t a debate, it’s a “lecture”…and he’s 100% right. So please, take a few minutes and read this. It will either (A) change your mind completely, (B) reinforce what you already believe, or (C) leave you tremendously more informed on this subject than you were 10 minutes ago.

    1. As pointed out repeatedly in these comments, there are some serious disagreements in your own country over the nature of your violent crime stats, and as I said in the blog post, the cause and effect was arguable… But didn’t you guys just take the crown for most violent crime in the 1st World, even with your lowered reporting standards?

    2. Tell that to the citizens of the U.K. who during the recent riots and looting were told by their government (that is supposed to be protecting them) that nothing could be done to curb the violence, and their best action was to hide in their homes?

  161. A spectacular job with this, Larry! Can’t thank you enough for addressing this so patiently and intelligently.

    Re-blogging it over at our place (Two heads…).

    Thanks again, sir!

  162. Thank you Larry for your informative and thoughtful article. I am sharing with everyone I know. As a veteran and former police officer, these have been my stance for years, but you articulate them so much better than I can. Thank you again.

  163. Now that Powerlineblog.com has called attention to your post (quite positive attention), expect to be inundated.

  164. Brilliant, well-written article!

    One thing you forgot to mention is that, as the NYT loves to say, where there is gun control, women, minorities and the poor are the hardest hit. People who are physically weaker or live in higher-crime areas are much more likely to be targets of crime, and therefore they the most likely to need the equalizing protection a gun provides.

    This is so self-evidently obvious that I think gun-banners must be racists and woman-haters. Why else would they want them to be defenseless victims?

    1. Because defenseless victims need a champion. The champion obviously needs power (how many laws does Batman, or even Superman break in a single comic book?)

      Also, the champion gets adulation, votes, political power and money. It’s a sweet gig, if you can land it.

  165. I lived in California for a time when they banned the 50BMG. The media made a big deal out of how dangerous it was, how powerful, and how it could be used to bring down a commercial airliner. Even they pointed out that these expensive and difficult to use rifles had never been used in any crime.

    Then they did a ~15 minute segment on “Exactly How” it would be most effectively used, to bring down a commercial airliner. That firing at an airplane during takeoff aiming at a doorway to causes maximum chance of destruction is what any good terrorist should try for? Really.

    1. And a week later folks were selling rifles chambered in .50 DTC to Californians.

      Same bullet, same ballistics, but legal because you can’t chamber a .50 BMG round in the weapon.

      And Barret Arms now sells .416 Barret chambered rifles as well … even deadlier than .50 BMG, but with a smaller number to get by .50 cal general bans.

  166. Your common-sense opinions are the same as what many of us believe. How insane is it for liberal gun-grabbers to demand that people be like sheep to the slaughter in the face of a crazy, evil gunman or even just a common criminal with a gun or attempting to do bodily harm to those whom they view as their prey?

    I’ve been saying this a long, long time before Wayne LaPierre said it but I know he’s always believed it too:

    What does it take to stop a bad guy with a gun? A good guy with a gun!

  167. In light of the Pennsylvania shooting that happened WHILE Wayne Lapierre was blaming everything but guns for gun violence, we should probably start arming our priests as well.

  168. I understand you are incredibly swamped with replies but I would love to find your source for the quote “The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5.” I want to be able to use that in debates, but with no source, I simply can’t trust some random statistic on the Internet.

  169. You mentioned that you are not an expert on mental health, but you advocate for the use and educate people on the use of using firearms. My question is, how do you know if the person you are teaching has the mental capacity/health to carry such weapons? I really don’t think this is an issue of having and not having firearms. what really needs to be discussed is why some countries have lower rates of murders, even though there are low firearms rates. Thoughts?

    http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

    1. Thoughts? Pull out our hyper-violent media-glamorized gang-culture dominated innercities (with their strict gun laws) and the rest of America (and its gun culture and all its areas with lax gun control and super high rates of gun ownership) and America is about as violent as Canada.

  170. Larry,

    Great article!…have shared it with two LEO relatives and others. An interesting side story:

    Went to a school in a very small Cleveland suburb during the 60’s/70’s. My first grade teacher carried a gun — more amazing thing is my parents knew about it and found nothing wrong with that fact!…how times have changed.

    My parents were tavern owners and like most, had their place of business well-stocked with weapons in strategic places. My Mother had many conferences with this particular teacher (large family!) and the subject of guns had come up…this teacher had been assaulted / raped and this is why she carried. Now, I do not believe her purse was ever located in the class room (teacher’s lounge), however, she did have potential access to her gun if something were to have gone on within the school — and she were in the lounge for instance. At any rate, pretty wild when I look back at this! Keep in mind though, we children were well versed with firearms…and knew not to touch them — EVER. We not only had the fear of God in us, but also fear of our parents, teachers, principal, etcetera…hell to pay. Again, how times have changed.

    Thank you once more for the great read…I’m sure it will be passed along by me again and again!

  171. Good article, don’t agree with everything you’ve put out here, but it is presented better than most. I’m from South Dakota, hunted since I was fourteen. I don’t like the idea of banning guns, but I have a real problem with the general public having such immediate access to the fire power of the huge ammo clips. I don’t know what the answer is, but there has to be something better than putting the onus on school administrators and any other brave, decent souls who want kids to concentrate on their education. I’m a Vietnam-era vet, so maybe I should remind your audience in this post that some folks can flat shoot targets like nobody’s business, but when it comes to shooting another human being — then it’s a different story, like a golfer, they can get the yips. Allowing the kind of fire power available today in the hands of someone with the possibility of getting the yips is about as sensible as making it available to someone who is mentally imbalanced. I am sure there are plenty of folks who will find fault with this attitude, but I figure I have paid the price for posting it. Thanks for posting your article.

    1. First off, thank you for your service. The shabby treatment of our Vietnam era veterans is one of the lowest points in our nation’s history.

      The problem with focusing on firepower and capabilities is where do you draw the line. We already restrict automatic firearms to the point that there has only been one case of a legally owned one being used in a crime in over 30 years. Start limiting magazine capacities and gun mechanisms and the Brady crowd will go into full court press until all we have left is single shot .22s.
      Will add that in every one of these shootings one of the first thoughts I and I suspect every other knowledgeable gun person have had is “thank God the shooter didn’t have a 12 gauge with buckshot.” For at close range there is nothing more destructive short of crew served weapons and artillery. With a bit of practice anyone can throw an amazing amount of lead downrange with even a single shot break open shotgun. And with a few minutes and a hacksaw grandpa’s goose gun can become a very concealable and very nasty short range weapon.
      Once you fall for the restrictions on capabilities argument you start down a path that has to lead to total confiscation which is the dirty little secret the gun banners have learned to very carefully avoid. Guns, like any power tool, are inherently dangerous when improperly handled or when used with evil intent. And once you’ve eliminated all those evil guns you quickly find yourself facing those evil knives and rocks and clubs.
      One last thought, I’ve seen several observations from the gun ban crowd that they simply do not trust their fellow citizens with the means for lethal force. If such is the case then how pray tell do they ever get in a vehicle and drive anywhere. Every day anyone who drives runs the risk that one of hundreds if not thousands of oncoming drivers will suddenly lose it and swerve into them head on. Point being, we already trust our lives to the “kindness” of strangers that they will not suddenly become homicidal.

  172. Great article. The only bad thing about is that the people shouting for (more) gun control, are the same people that will never read it.

  173. Excellent article. You are addressing what is really the biggest and worst problem with the gun debate – lack of education among the general public. Sadly the anti-gun folks work from emotion, not logic, and they have a sensation-grabbing media to work for them. It’s going to be uphill all the way so please keep doing more of this!

  174. Thank you so much for putting these thoughts down on paper. It really helps those of us who inherently understand the importance of armed citizens sound much better when we contact our state reps — which I will be doing. Thank you again.

  175. Wow! everything you said its memorable, but I take this:
    “The gun culture is simple regular in américa, and is made up of people who think their lives and their families lives are more important than the life of anyone who tries to victimize them”
    And I say amen!
    Pablo, from Argentina.

  176. Larry, it would have been nice if one or two of your more than 10,000 words had been “Sandy Hook” or “Newtown” and you had expressed one iota of sympathy for what those people are going through. I’m a little tired of hearing that gun owners are the ones being victimized.

    1. Uh huh… I have plenty of symmpathy for them, which is whay I have offered a solution which will prevent more Sandy Hooks. I just have no sympathy for control freaks, the willfully ignorant, or those who obfuscate reality with their feelings.

    2. Let me summarize a couple of points about caring from the article you seem to have missed in your careful searching for a sympathetic word:

      Larry saw a need for armed teachers and students to prevent/stop school shootings. He donated well over $20,000 of his normally paid work to help protect teachers and students.

      And you say he hasn’t “expressed one iota of sympathy”. I’d say $20,000 worth of free work is more than “one iota”.

      What have you done?

  177. Great article.
    I also think that we should arm our FIREFIGHTERS. A lot of them are veterans experienced with weapons, trained professionals and fire stations are numerous when compared to police stations.

    I also like to suggest that you read this blog: http://www.chrishernandezauthor.com. You both have much in common and use a direct, no BS, writing style.

  178. Great article Larry. Taking away the means of self defense is taking away the right and I won’t be left without a means to defend myself. Also, I have no desire to be a subject. I’m a free citizen and as such, I need the means to protect my freedoms from threats foreign and domestic.
    “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good”
    — George Washington

    1. And another that didn’t read the article…

      And for those that are following through the comments, notice that he immediately picked something about me in order to get his rigteous indignation up, so that way he could safely ignore any of my arguments.

      1. Well Larry, your first 900 words talked about nothing but yourself, so it was a little difficult for Ray C to miss. You began your piece by saying how “exhausting” this all is for you. I’d bet the people of Newtown are also a little exhausted by now, and your only solution is to allow more guns into schools in the hope that they might deter a shooter who is probably going to take his own life anyway. (There was also a shooting in a Pennsylvania church yesterday. Should priests be armed too?) And you say assault weapons (or whatever name you want to use) are also a good thing because we need them to stop all those bad people who we need to allow to have assault weapons. Wow. And don’t tell me I didn’t read your long, self-serving article.

        Here is the Australian experience with an semi-automatic and automatic weapons ban: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/17/australia-gun-reform-buyback-us-national-firearm-agreement/1774549/

        1. I do believe I even pointed out why I put my gun related resume, and that was to establish I know what I’m talking about.

          However, since everything you wrote there was all about emotions and how I’m mean and bad and not nice enough and should be more sad and therefore shouldn’t talk or hold a differing opinion, I know that I can safely put you into the Willfully Ignorant camp and move on with my life. 🙂

          Oh, and for priests being armed, if they want to, why not? (that is rhetorical, becaue I fully expect you to sputter out some very emotional response) If you weren’t too willfully ignorant to bother, I would point you toward Peter Grant http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/ (a priest) or Black Man with a Gun http://kennblanchard.com/ (a preacher).

      2. Well Larry, your first 900 words talked about nothing but yourself, so it was a little difficult for Ray C to miss

        What was difficult for Ray C to miss? Larry drew on his extensive experience in the field to support his arguments. That’s hardly “self-serving.”

        And don’t tell me I didn’t read your long, self-serving article.

        Oh I’m sure you “read it.” But your eyes passing over the words doesn’t really count as reading in any real sense, given the asinine quality of your response. Just more emotion masquerading as reason.

      3. I’m replying again here because there is no space below to reply to your or anon coward’s reply to me. (Why is that? Can you cut off people’s ability to respond whenever you like?) You can call me “willfully ignorant” all you want, but it is you who failed to repond to my pointing out your own circular reasoning on assault weapons (and the same goes for high capacity magazines). Are you really saying teachers should have or be allowed to have these weapons in the classroom to prevent “bad guys” who have them. I mean, what would be the point of a teacher being armed with a mere pistol in the face of such superior firepower? And is she/he going to leave that weapon, — pistol or whatever — in an unlocked desk drawer to be ready to respond quickly in case a madman with a submachine gun comes charging into the classroom? You and anon can call me emotional or asinine or whatever you want, but that doeesn’t negate the fact that you have not responded to my challenges to the points you have made. And what about the Australian experience? Why is not a similar weapons ban and buy-back program a good thing for the USA?

        Larry, you are on the losing side of history. I actually feel sorry for you that you cannot see that there is life beyond guns. The idea of living in a society where it is considered normal for schooteachers to be armed is really just beyond belief. (My willfully ignorant asinine emotions speaking I guess.) I understand why they have to do it in Israel, and I feel sorry for them too.

        1. WordPress default on blog comments cuts off after 2 or 3 levels. I come at it through the control panel so I don’t even see these comments in order (don’t particularly care enough to figure out how to change it either).

          Let’s see, on your first bit, it is kind of rambly, but here goes.

          1. CCW means concealed. Weapon is on the person. Hidden. Not in a desk or stored anywhere off body.
          2. CCW means handguns, bringing rifles into that portion of the discussion is either obfuscation or ignorance on your part. They are all just tools in the too box, and you pick the right tool for the job.
          3. Rifles have other purposes, which I went into rather extensively in the post.
          4. High capactiy magazines work in CCW pistols just fine. I carry an STI 4.15 It has 18 rounds of 9mm in a flush fit magazine + 1 in the chamber, not to mention my spare magazines for it have extended base pads and hold 24 or 26 rounds each, depending on which mag pouch I feel like wearing, and it all fits under my shirt. When I don’t carry that, I am carrying a 5.0 with 14 rounds of .45 in a flush fit magazine, which also fits under my shirt. Nobody knows I’m carrying a gun unless I tell them, and I usually have to untuck my shirt and point it out when the try to figure out where I’m hiding it.
          Both of those guns, in their factory default sized magazine use “high capacity” magazines under the terms of the AWB, so your whole OMG! YOU WANT HIGH CAP DEATH MAGS IN CLASSROOMS!!111 bit is a bit much. Yeah, I’ve carried those in classrooms. Went to the elementary school’s Christmas program yesterday wearing the .45. Shockingly, nobody died, kids weren’t nurtured less, and the place didn’t burst into flames.
          5. What if the badguy has superior firepower?! Shoot him, Speed Bump. OMG! What if he has a submachine gun?! Shoot him more. What if he’s wearing armor!? Shoot him in the face, arms, or legs. (and trust me, getting hit in a ballistic vest is still very distracting, and if that happens then you can see why those high cap magazines I’m so fond of start to come in extra handy). Well huh, here you go bringing up bad guys with better guns (because criminals don’t give a crap) and go proving my point about how having higher cap mags or more effective ammo is helpful. OMG! What’ if he’s Godzilla! What if he’s Dracula riding Godzilla!?
          Yeah, I suppose you can just keep on going there and paint yourself into the impossible corner of doom eventually, and ergo we shouldn’t even try. :p I’ve already seen that in these comment repeatedly, where all the anti-gunners seem to think that the school shooters are telepathic, move like ninja, and will instantly zero in and pick off the only teacher with a gun. Well, gee whiz, maybe we should arm a couple of them then. NOOOOOOOOOOO!

          “Losing side of history” is a particularly ironic phrase to use as a wannabe gun confiscator when you realize the kinds of men who have uttered that phrase before you.

          And you “feel sorry for me because I can’t see a life beyond guns”? Yeah… project there much, buddy? I’m a New York Times bestselling novelist that lives in a mini mansion next to a ski resort. I think I’ll somehow manage to get by that I don’t have your approval. :p

      4. Ok, I understand now that the “Reply” link never appears under the third column ofstories, so I withdraw my parethetical remark about you actively deciding who can respond. The setup a little confusing

        1. Oh, don’t worry. I’m used to people I disagree with politically insinuating that I’m hiding or blocking their comments because I’m too scared of their mighty arguments… And then usually I get up in the morning and approve the new blog comments and they feel stupid.

      5. Well, Larry, you are obviously a perfect man who could never lose his temper or his mind, so it’s fine for you to walk around with the ability to simply blow away anyone you like. So I guess it’s OK for you. Now about all those others … I know you read psychiatrist Ed Tazelaar;s post down below.

        1. I think not wigging out and killing innocent people is a pretty low bar for perfection. 🙂

          And interestingly enough, there are already MILLIONS of us carrying guns legally in the USA right now. http://legallyarmed.com/ccw_statistics.htm There must be oodles of examples of permit holders flipping out and rage quitting life… Oh, wait, there’s not.

      6. And I still think you are on the losing side of history. The answer has to lie in less weapons, not more. What’s the matter with an Australian-style buyback/ban, coupled with closing the gun-show loophole and a mandatory “driver education”? Not a perfect solution? Like arming teachers? Believe me, the world does not want to go in that direction.

        1. Answered. Go look at my section about ban/confiscation and ask yourself how many of your fellow Americans you are willing to see dead in over to reach your utopian vision of the future.

      7. Not answered. Your facts on Australia run counter to what is in the USA Today link I already gave you. There were a number mass shooting incidents there, which stopped after the buyback/ban was implemented. There’s another recent article at FactCheck.org.

      8. “There were a number mass shooting incidents there, which stopped after the buyback/ban was implemented”

        Except this one-

        Monash University shooting – In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

        Take a look at some of the shootings. Not many involved the rifles in the ban. Six over 20 years, it appears.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders

        And, as I had posted way up above, here is the link to the findings after 10 years of the Aussie AWB

        http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

        Read that one carefully. It does not say that crime went up because of the ban, or that crime went down after the ban. It says, for the most part, that the ban had no conclusive results, positive or negative. Much like LC wrote in the above blog entry.

        1. No, Australia just has immigrant rape gangs that are never allowed to be reported by their controlled press. Australians don’t have a Bill of Rights. They have whatever rights the govt lets them have. How special.

    2. Really? Let’s take the UK, as it’s the kind of gun control wonderland envied by the Brady Bunch.
      http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf See page 14.

      “The number of indictable offences per thousand population in 1900 was 2.4 and in 1997 the figure was 89.1. The graph records offences that are reported to the police and recorded by them.”

      So you think that an increase of 3712% is a drop? Is that the new “progressive math”?

  179. Thank you for capturing everything that needs to be said, lately. You are an amazing writer, and it is so hard to find logical, concise, and most-importantly *calm* discourse on this topic these days.

  180. You all are forgetting one little thing that would derail the implementation of any armed teacher program in this country
    : the NEA! A liberal/progressive national union (that many teachers hate). If you think the NEA is going to stand by and let us arm teachers I have an ice cream stand in Death Valley I would like to sell you. Of those teachers who do love their union I am not sure I would want them to be armed. Some teachers mental status is a bit questionable. There should be at least one person in plain clothes in each school who is armed but not a full time classroom teacher. It sould be an administrator, janitor or utility (rover) person.

    The person(s) should be administered and controlled by local P.D., and/or answer directly to the Mayor’s office. If this position is administered by school administration and school boards it will be so loaded down with union and do good school board ‘guidelines’ and restrictions that the officer will have to fill out forms to even go to the bathroom.

    There is a program that transitions returning vets into teachers. These would be the first recruits to look at for these positions. A lot of us military vets and retired police like myself would love the opportunity to protect America’s future (our kids). Obama spent billions of dollars bailing out companies that failed, how about bailing out or kids safety and coming up with the money, no strings attached, to pay for these new armed school officers.

    Finally, after the 9/11 attack, the Pentagon boasted about some of their building reinforcemnet technology that saved many lives. Sandy Hook added a locking, buzz in door, but they did not make the glass around the door bullet proof. The killer shot out the glass and let himself in. How about the federal government use some of that Pentagon reinforcement technology to help keep our kids safe. Entry doors, office doors, and classroom doors and door windows all have to reinforced.

    1. @Bill: “If you think the NEA is going to stand by and let us arm teachers I have an ice cream stand in Death Valley I would like to sell you.”

      According to the article and comments, there are already a great many armed teachers in Utah.

      Where’s my new Death Valley ice cream stand?

      1. You got me. lol Maybe I should have said nationwide in all the blue states. The NEA only preys on the weak in the blue states.

    2. Simple solution to that one.

      Ban unions from organizing government employees. Including Police and firemen. Don’t like it? Get a private union job.

      1. One of the Roosevelts I can’t remember which said if public service jobs unionize it will be the end of the nation. They were also a big union supporter…
        There was a time when unions were necessary, but they have become a cancer on the nation and economy.

  181. The man who did the calculations on your “2.3 dead when civilans stopped mass shooting” admits this little tidbit: within the civilian category two thirds were STOPPED BY UNARMED CIVILIANS. Also, roughly half that were stopped by armed “citizens”, were actually off duty police officers (you can check his facts here: http://silverunderground.com/2012/07/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/)

    For all your talk of know gun laws, it’s hard to argue this article is not mostly conjecture. While it is very true that many may make ridiculous comments about gun regulation, most informed people have only a couple of arguments. I, for one, think the standard regulation for a new purchaser is fine. However, private sales are an entirely different system. The walk around on gun shows is also frightening. Similarly, I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument for the necessity of 30 round magazine clips and other high capacity systems.

    But keep telling yourself the same old diatribe. Sleep well!

    1. secondary thought: The argument that something shouldn’t be done because “it makes no difference” is silly. Do people who want meth get meth? yes. Should it be legal? No. yet you’ve applied this standard to both the argument with Semi-automatic rifles, machine guns, High capacity clips, etc. Is that really a sound argument? If I propose to all of america that Criminals will get narcotics anyway, lets make them legal, I get scorned. Do it with gun-fanatics however, and you get a pat on the back.

      1. FWIW – there’s more than a fair number of us who, having looked at the damage the “war on drugs” has caused, and the criminals get it any way, have gone a long way towards believing we’d be better off legalizing and managing it than banning it.

      2. Oops. You made an uninformed argument yourself. Meth can only be made by processing Psuedoephedrine which can only be produced by a few industrial labs. If the FDA banned certain cold medicine, meth would disappear.

        Meth is a consumable, like every other drug. Guns are not. Even magazines can be reused. the consumable part of firearms are the bullets. You can ban bullets, but gun owners buy them by the case.

        1. Yeah. It is impossible to make meth. They should make a TV show about that. I wonder if the dude from Malcolm in the Middle is doing anything now?

          1. Make is relative. You can cook meth, but the main ingredient is cold medicine. Cocaine and pot are made from naturally occurring plant material and would be virtually impossible to outlaw. Meth is made from one particular artificial substance.

      3. @1539days:
        There are alternate recipes to make meth that don’t rely on the psuedoephedrine in cold medicine.

        And it’s a good thing you said “virtually impossible” because pot and cocaine have already been outlawed. I’m sure it was in the papers and mentioned a couple of times on the news…

      4. I think we should legalize every narcotic as long as we don’t supply free treatment to the junkies. Humanity could use a little natural selection pressure.

      5. If they ban Pseudoephedrine cold remedies, people will start making bootleg Pseudoephedrine out of smuggled in Meth to sell to cold sufferers.

      6. “A Simple and Convenient Synthesis of Pseudoephedrine From
        N-Methylamphetamine” Journal of Apocryphal Chemistry, Feb. 2012

        http://heterodoxy.cc/meowdocs/pseudo/pseudosynth.pdf

        “A quick search of several neighborhoods of the United States revealed that while pseudoephedrine is difficult to obtain, N-methylamphetamine can be procured at almost any time on short notice and in quantities sufficient for synthesis of useful amounts of the desired material. Moreover, according to government maintained statistics, N-methylmphetamine is becoming an increasingly attractive starting material for pseudoephedrine, as the availability of N-methylmphetamine has remained high while prices have dropped and purity has increased [2].”

    2. I am sure the Korean shopkeepers during the LA riots were happy to have high capacity magazines to do the job that the police and National Guard were unable to do–protect themselves and their livelihoods.

  182. Good article, made many of the same points I’ve been making in other forums. Got in an argument with someone on my side that wanted mandatory carry for school teachers. Good grief, you make someone who doesn’t like guns and isn’t interested in them carry one and you have a liability, not an asset. I was sure firearm instructors would be happy to come up with programs for training teachers, and said so. I also thought they might even give them for free but didn’t want to speak for them. Thanks for validating my high opinion of the profession.

  183. Drugs absolutely should be legalised. If you argue for drug prohibition, be sure that the self-same arguments will be used to take your guns.

    The best argument against drugs’ prohibition is that a man’s life and body are his own Private Property. How he treats that property is no business of the State.

    But, Private Property has no value, if it cannot be protected from predation. We place value on our own lives, thus, we strive to protect them.

    Property which cannot be protected from predation, has NO value.

    Thus, legislation which curtails the ability to protect one’s life from predation, decreases the value of that life.

    What value had the life of a serf, when the local Warlord could happen by and kill him, without fear of resistance?

    1. Penn Gillette, of Penn & Teller, said:

      ‘If you could get the druggies to accept the gun nuts, and the gun people to accept the druggies, the libertarians would start winning elections.’

    1. Oops… Phone cut me off!

      Thanks. I feel more informed, particularly on the issues of “assault rifles”. My husband and I have been at odds over why he needs a gun that big.

      One thing, possible typo: “Gun control is historically extremely unpopular in red state and purple state America, and thus very hard to pass bit stuff, but there’s a century’s accumulation of lots and lots of small ones.” Did you mean “pass BIG stuff”?

  184. Below is a guest editorial I wrote following the VA. tech massacre in 2007 regarding mental health laws. It is still true and applicable to the recent Connecticut school shooting.
    I have over twenty years experience in Psychiatric Emergency experience in the California Mental Health system before retiring in 1988. I was a licensed Clinical social worker who was skilled at doing psychiatric assessment to determine if a patient needed to be hospitalized involuntarily using the criteria of “being a danger to self or others”. In all those years it was rare for a patient to come into our clinic/emergency room and declare they wanted to harm or kill someone. I say rare because I can probably count on my two hands the number of patients I evaluated who had to be involuntarily held (detained) under the statues as a danger to others when they declared a specific target. I must clarify, if the threat was general, i.e.. “I feel like I want to kill someone” but did not name an specific individual most likely, the patient would be hospitalized voluntarily or involuntarily for 3 days of evaluation. On the other hand, if those few individuals invoked a specific person, this would trigger the Tarasoff decision of 1978, which is also referred to as “the duty to inform law”. It is also referred to as a 5150 which is the Welfare & Institutions code for detaining a person for treatment. By law, any mental health professional (and this was later expanded to include many other service/caregiver types) had to report to the police any intended threats and specifically to the intended victim. If we did not we were subject to civil prosecution. This is exactly what happened in the Tarasoff case, which by the way was a student at a University of California setting and his counselor did not tell the intended victim, who was later killed. I was actively working in the mental health system at the time.

    I had to initiate a number of these calls/letters to intended victims under the law. Initially, their was a lot of confusion and ambiguity about the law and how it was to be implemented. We were treading on sacred ground because of the confidentially laws at that time and even now, but Tarasoff took precedence, but we were all nervous about being sued if you didn’t report it or if we broke patient confidentiality. I once remember the District Attorney coming to me about a specific patient who had made a specific threat, and asking me “How do we proceed; your the expert on Tarasoff in this clinic?” Whatever importance that made me feel was vastly overshadowed by my feeling very insecure about possibly being sued if the attorney’s office didn’t even know what procedure to follow! I believe Tarasoff was actually signed in law in 1974 but not implemented until 1978.

    Now how does this relate to the recent horrific shootings. As I stated, seldom does a patient come in with specific threats (although when I was practicing their was less violence then than now); there were many, many more people who were declared a danger to self. In fact, I think we spent more time trying to not admit suicidal patients because many times their claims were false.
    Many just wanted to get off the street and into a clean hospital setting…we called it “three hots and a cot”. Many times when a patient was told he/she wasn’t going to be admitted the response from the patient would be, “OK, if you want my blood on your hands”. A truly depressed patient with a wife or loved one still might resist voluntary admission and we would invoke a 72 hour hold for evaluation. Commitment is a complicated procedure with many patient safeguards built in to avoid the old practice of “railroading someone into a hospital”. Someone said the new mental health laws back then took “patients from the back wards to the back streets”. I actually had a few old State hospital patients beg me to send them back to the State hospital because they couldn’t adjust to the streets.

    Many TV viewers keep asking why wasn’t this “shooter” locked up or committed. Everyone seemed to know he had severe emotional problems. The answer is, it just ain’t simple. Can you arrest a known thief who is walking by a jewelry store and has thoughts about robbing it? No. We can’t be arrested or detain for our thoughts…deeds: yes…expressed thoughts: maybe.
    Many times a frustrated parent or spouse would call the hot line and beg us to admit someone who was acting “strange”. It would always come down to have they hurt anyone or themselves. They can come in voluntarily for an evaluation but too often a person whose mind is disturbed is not going to seek help, because of strong denial; a primitive, but sometimes effective ego defense mechanism. Often when a patient is admitted as a “danger to self or others” and they are receiving proper food, rest, counseling therapy and drugs, their symptoms remit. All one has to do is tell the psychiatric staff I no longer feel suicidal or homicidal, they are usually out the door to make room for precious bed space. Of course, some patients are clever enough to hide their pathology from observers. Someone once said the “best definition of normalcy, is one’s ability to hide their pathology”.I could go on and on but I hope you are beginning to realize the difficulty in getting someone help especially if they don’t want intervention. Even when they are willing it will be a very short inpatient stay with “voluntary outpatient treatment”.

    In my humble opinion, the most dangerous patient is a Paranoid Schizophrenia. We don’t see a lot of them because #1 theyare smart and clever and avoid situations which call attention to their behavior #2 They often have a delusion that many people would say their is some basis for that belief but it is harmless. Whether they are frankly psychotic (loss of contact with reality) or not of course makes a hugh difference. It is usually only after repeated hospitalizations that they realize the way to stay out of the hospital is to take their meds, or at least fake it, as much as possible. After all, a paranoid patient sees nothing wrong with himself, it’s all society, etc.

    Under the current mental health laws, and I can only speak for California, unless the legislators change the laws drastically, I
    don’t believe events like this VT tragedy can be prevented. There is of course a Court procedure that can be invoked to bring someone in against their will called a “Petition for Involuntary Admission and Observation”. I would think most states have this procedure, but still we are talking about limited in-patient stays, three days, or 14 day “intensive treatment” periods which are no different in quality than the 3 day commitment. Until someone invents a body scan, or blood test that can accurately diagnose a person’s mental state, and more specifically the particular type, we are at the mercy of lurking psychopaths and severely mentally ill patients. By they way, most anti social or psychopaths wouldn’t be admitted anyway because they are considered personality disorders and most psychiatrist don’t believe they are even treatable.

    Because the practice of Psychiatry is an Art and not a Science, I will close with this quote: “Everything in Psychiatry is etiology
    unknown, when it does become known, it is no longer in the field of Psychiatry”.

    Edward Tazelaar, Grants Pass, OR (now living in Vancouver, WA.)

    1. @Edward Tazelaar: The procedure and statute you referred to is a 302 involuntary commitment, as opposed to a 208. The problem with it as it is right now is that a person can change their status to a 208 within 48 hours if they are over 18, regardless of whether they have proven sufficent competence or self-management. That means that they can refuse meds and self-discharge against the advice of a physician.

    2. Highly educational, thank you.

      It makes me want to ask: what do you do with those are, so to speak, “terminally” mentally ill? Not as in lethal, but incurable.

      The stigma against the mentally ill is still quite staggering, it is a problem even in the 1st world. Consider how commonplace it is to mock someone who doesn’t make sense to you, or who simply is non-standard–“you’re crazy.” Those who fear for their sanity are genuinely terrified of being called crazy, even in jest, because it just might be true. And they can never, ever, say so out loud.

    3. Thanks for this post, Edward.

      Would you say things were better before Reagan dismantled so much of the existing mental health system? I ask as I have long held the opinion that our major cities became unfenced asylums for many folks simply because there are so few beds available for those who truly need constant care and medication to remain stabilized.

      I don’t know enough about meds for schizophrenics, but do they take a similarly long time as anti-depressents to build up in a patient’s system and take effect? I ask as I have had far too many experiences of detaining someone for 5150 and going off for the weekend, only to return to work several days later for my Monday and have the individual relapse (if they were ever truly stabilized instead of being smart enough to deceive their caretakers) and harm or attempt to harm themselves or others.

      Earlier I added a comment to another’s about the state of mental health care in the country. I truly believe a dialogue about reinvesting in mental health care is not only good for addressing this issue, but a number of other issues the nation is facing just now. If a more robust mental health care system can address many of the issues of the lone gunman, we will also address many suicides and quality of life for a great many patients.

      We can’t eliminate mass shooters with this, and we certainly won’t be able to stop those in acute mental crisis brought on by stress (The, “He just snapped because he just got _____ed.”), but opening a dialogue may get us to the point where more are aware of the issues of mental health, and actually say to someone who looks to be in mental anguish, “Hey, you want to talk about it? Can I help?” and then engage them with services that might do some good.

      Further, what Larry talked about, in reference to the mass shooters being in a fantasy that could be burst by resistance, is correct.

      As part of some training I received from my department in conjunction with the city’s health department, I had the opportunity to talk to three people who had attempted suicide by jumping from the Golden Gate Bridge and survived. Two of the three said that they previously tried to kill themselves by jumping and had walked out onto the bridge to do it. While steeling themselves to end it all, their death fantasy was interrupted by someone simply talking to them. Simply talking. They did return and make the attempt on a later date, but they had the chance to medicate, seek care, etc as a result of that occasion, simply because someone, and this sticks in my mind, “Thought I was worth talking to.”

      Of course, I am not advocating simply talking to a gun-toting killer engaged in the act, I am trying to illustrate that the dark fantasies of a diseased mind are sometimes delicate, and can be burst by action taken by those outside the fantasy. Further, if such fantasies are caught early and often enough (by a mental health system that actually works for its patients) then we have a chance to limit the harm these sick people can do.

      In addition, the news media could stop using the names of those who go through with the act, so the glory-seaking types could be limited in the number of people they could fixate on as examples of, “How awesome it would be if my name were on everyone’s lips!”

      To be clear: an active shooter must be engaged with lethal force immediately and without hesitation: there is no other answer to their individual and ongoing crimes.

      That said, if we can identify and treat more diseased minds earlier, then we might, just might, prevent such circumstances from ever arising.

      1. Reagan had no choice.

        The ACLU had gutted the ability of state governments to commit anyone.

        The Dems own this one, but keep blaming Reagan.

  185. This is one very eloquent and well-written article! I have largely been silent on this issue on Facebook while all my pro-gun friends have been voicing their opinions. This one, I FELT compelled to and actually shared on Facebook.

  186. A great article, lots of very good points. Much of this is why, after most of my life on the gun control fence, I finally purchased a gun, learned to use it, got a CCW, worked to NRA Distinguished Expert, and started shooting IDPA. Now I’m the pro-gunner of my social group. 😉 Great work here.

  187. Thank you – for writing this and for everything else that you have done. In particular, thank you for contributing a very intelligent and thoughtful analysis. This post helped clarify a lot of questions I had. I wish our country had many more people like you who were willing to take the time for a civil discussion on issues that impact our world.

  188. Oh joy… now I have to listen to an anti-gun ad on youtube when I’m playing my Filk Playlist(geeky/sword and sorcery themed folk music). Even better it’s an ad you aren’t allowed to skip.

  189. As someone who basically gave gun control not much thought until last Friday, I would now classify myself as someone in favor of “gun control” — but definately fall into your category 1 (people who don’t know much). I come from a family of hunters and law enforcement and are content for hunters to have their hunting rifles and all citizens to have hand guns for self-defense. I thought this article was very persuasive (a helluva a lot more than the NRA) and presented your arguments reasonably. I will likely reread it a few times as I come to form my opinions further. I am not sold on your assault rifle argument. If you aren’t hunting with it and not using it as a hand gun for self-defense I am thinking you just don’t need it. Under gun control I would certainly include “closing the gun show loophole” and as a former ‘professional’ seller can I assume you would also? Mandatory background checks might weed out a few more of the crazies (like the Virginia Tech shooter). When I have more time I will have to read through more of the comments and see what conversation/refutation you have gotten there.

    1. There is hope for you yet. Knowing you don’t know is the first step to learning.

      Re: Assault rifle: assuming you mean “military looking rifle”, so long as you are ok with hunting and “using it …. for self defense” we have no argument.

      Re: “The gun show loophole” is basically a made up lie. Dealers selling at gun shows have to do background checks. Gun shows are full of BATF cops/informants looking for and trying to buy guns without background checks, solely arrest gun dealers. If you’re privately selling guns at a gun show without a Federal Firearms License (FFL) the BATF will call you an “unlicensed gun dealer felon” and you will spend the rest of your days crying.

      Do a search on this page for “loophole” for a better explanation from someone who actually held the most restricted FFL available (Larry Correia).

    2. Cindy, you already have to pass a background check to purchase a firearm. Even in Arizona, a state with fairly loose gun laws, you cannot get a concealed weapons permit if you are diagnosed as mentally ill along with a litany of other disqualifying factors

    3. Need has nothing to do with anything.

      You don’t need to own a Maserati. But if you try to ban them, people would laugh at you, even though most folks who drive one end up wrecking them.

      I don’t “need” to own my collection of battle rifles … until I found myself in a situation where I had to defend my life and my wife’s against multiple criminals invading my home.

      If your view on need had been the law at that time, me and my wife would be dead now.

      So don’t take it personally, but I consider the “need” argument to be utterly fatuous, as do all those Korean shopkeepers that got caught up in the LA riots.

  190. Please stop using “liberal” as profanity or a slander. I consider myself extremely liberal, but I am also a great believer in the 2nd Amendment and own a number of guns myself. Also please stop grouping us in with the anti-gun nuts.

    Many of us are not stupid. Many of us do not think that nonsensical gun laws do a damn thing. Saying that gun laws are a “liberal” ideal and that it is “the liberals” pushing them is not only wrong, it makes me not want to associate with conservative gun people at all, and yet all us gun owners NEED to unite and show the world that we are reasonable, safe, intelligent, and not criminals.

    DO NOT lump pro-gun liberals in with the actions of the broken Democratic Party, who I have not agreed with in at least a decade on many issues, guns being just one. It’s divisive when we need to be united and I find it pretty insulting that any my political beliefs are assumed to be the same as that terrible party because they pretend to be a liberal organization.

    1. I’ve already addressed this above, but when the vast majority of the politicians pushing gun control laws self identify as liberals, and the people who are pushing for the gun control laws and calling me a baby killer are all liberals, and nearly all liberals belong to the democrat party, which has gun control as part of its platform, and the media, which is over 80% democrat, and of which those who aren’t pretending to be “moderate” would self identify as liberal, then I don’t think you should find it shocking when most of the people on my side connect gun control and liberal together.

      You want the majority of 2nd Amendment defenders to not connect liberals and gun control, you need to have a word with your elected officials who keep pushing this crap and tell them to knock it off, and then maybe we might.

      1. I really believe that it’s doing more harm and making liberals who own guns not want to identify and unite with conservative gun owners.

        Generalizations like “The left side of the political spectrum loves it some gun control” make me not want to discuss guns outside of the group of people I know, because if it ever comes out that I self-identify as left leaning it’s going to either be an uphill battle convincing them that no, I enjoy guns and the Second Amendment, or no, I’m not against banning guns stop saying I am.

        My personal gun group includes both conservatives and liberals (and everything in between) who, when discussing guns and politicians, strictly talk about those beliefs in that ONE subject, because that’s all that matters at that time. Pointing fingers at political spectrum and saying everyone who identifies like that believes in this one thing isn’t helpful in enacting real political change, especially right now. However, I do agree that us on the left who are all for guns need to start standing up and loudly proclaiming no, we don’t agree with an AWB, we don’t agree with the Democratic Party, please use some reason for once and look at the actual facts.

        But anyway, I do want to say I really enjoyed your article. I’ll pass it along to some anti-gun people I know and hope that they at least start to understand the issues. The people who say “guns are loud and scary make them go away,” nobody can help, but the people who truly are just ignorant about guns might be swayed by your article to at least open their minds to gun facts. I kind of want to distill it down to a “cheat sheet” of facts I can have with me at all times so I can end real life debates.

        1. Okay, I should go back and repharse that to say “the vast majority of the liberal left loves it some gun control, and if they don’t, then you sure as hell can’t tell it by the people they keep voting for.”

          I’m curious though, did you get offended like this when the national news media started talking about the “war on women” before the election, and conservatives all wanted to ban contraception. Did you stop and point out that only a tiny minority of conservatives wanted to ban contraception, and in fact, most conservatives use contraception, and there haven’t been any serious bills pushed at all relating to this, and their only beef was paying for somebody else’s good time?

          No? Not that I want to get into other forms of politics, because I really don’t, but the left and right get labeled. I suppose that as a right winger I’m just used to having ever lunatic which can be blamed on my side immediately picked as the poster child of my side, sort of like Fred Phelps (even though he’s a democrat, ran for office as a democrat, and campaigned for Al Gore) or how the media was all over the Giffords shooting, squeeling with glee because surely he was with the Tea Party. (nope, just freaking bug nuts you couldn’t pin to any coherent point on the political spectrum). But hell, then again, we’re used to being told that the National SOCIALISTs from Germany were “right wing”. http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/hate-mail-response-to-my-hate-mail-and-i-godwin-the-hell-out-of-this-post/

          Oh, so a minority of my party gets cherry picked, and so the entire conservative movement gets the “war on women” label. But gun control is part of the democrat party platform, and everybody who wants to ban guns is a liberal, but how DARE I say that gun control is a liberal doctrine.

          You don’t like it? Take it up with your anti-gun president, your anti-gun congressmen, your anti-gun senators, your anti-gun big city mayors, your anti-gun bureacrats, your anti-gun pundits, your anti-gun lobbying groups, your anti-gun judges, your anti-gun reporters and editors, 99% of whom are liberals and then get back to me about my salacious use of the term. So even if you support them on every single other issue, your leadership will go for gun control like a pack of vultures at the very first opportunity. Not all liberals are gun banners, but all gun banners are liberals.

      2. I couldn’t help adding: I am one of the liberals who recognize that most conservatives also use contraceptives. 😛 In fact, one of the reasons I found the anti-contraceptive rhetoric so baffling is because I am from a Catholic background and I don’t know a single Catholic that doesn’t use some form of contraceptive (though sometimes it’s a secret from their parents), and yet they mostly vote right wing.

        I think the manner in which people vote always comes down to picking the candidate who embodies your most passionate issues, and reluctantly dealing with the other issues that maybe you don’t agree on. And then the right side stereotypes the left, and the left side stereotypes the right. In reality, most people are more complicated than that.

        To continue with liberals as an example: there isn’t ever a liberal candidate (at least, who has a chance of being elected), so the liberals I know either refrain from voting entirely, or vote Democrat as the least conservative option. Likewise, I know people who vote Republican because of their social platform, even though they disagree entirely on economics. And nobody can understand why anybody else ranks their policy priorities in a different order…

    2. “Liberal” but can’t stand the Democratic Party.

      “Liberal” doesn’t mean liberal any more. When the country was founded, “Liberal” meant ‘allow myslef and others our freedom, so long as we don’t interfere with yours”

      Nowadays, “liberal” means “Total state control and the Democrat party running things. Freedom for everybody to do exactly what we tell them.”

      Labels matter, and taking the label has meant that the unthinking say “Of course I want the party that allows more freedom” even though it’s the party of :

      supressing opposing political speech

      disarming everyone

      impoverishing everyone

      making everyone dependant upon government handouts

      squelching all religions not of the “Church of Gaia, who control and
      extort bribes from all industries everywhere in the name of carbon tax”

      illegally seizing General Motors to give to unions who vote for Democrats

      Creating a fake “stimulus” which was solely to funnel money to unions to launder back as Democrat campaign contributions and paid ads.

      Buying assault rifles to give to a Mexican Drug cartel for the sole purpose of creating murders to blame on the US gun industry.

      Yes, as a “Liberal” I can see you might be disillusioned with the “Liberals” of today.

  191. “Yet when anyone from my side responds, then we are shouted at that we are blood thirsty and how dare we speak in this moment of tragedy, and we should just shut our stupid mouths out of respect for the dead,…” Larry you forgot another point: We, those of us who believe in the 2nd ammendment are just a bunch of ignorant, backward, uneducated rural hayseeds who aren’t intellectually sophisticated enough to take seriously. Well, this impassioned, beautifully written and impeccably argued essay throws that right out the window. Well done.

    1. Hey, it’s important to call us all cousin-humping redneck retards, and then get mad at us when we respond by not voting your way.

  192. Excellent article, I will add you to my blog roll and link this post. One comment: you say that some shooters were on SSRI’s during their formative years; this implies that SSRI’s were a factor in their madness. That is not correct. Further, SSRI’s are not prescribed to anyone under 18 years of age, so are not used in anyone’s formative years.

    1. Thank you for the correction. I thought Ritalin fell into that category (which is what most of them have been on). And that is an example of why I stayed out of the psychiatry angle.

  193. Great article. I agree with Wayne LaPierre – the only things that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I would add – the quicker the better. It took the cops ten minutes to get to Sandy Hook.

  194. Well written… it was easy for me to read because I own guns and have a PA permit to carry concealed weapons and do at times. The people that need to read it most will not get past the first paragraph sadly enough. If there’s one thing I learned from this, it would be the empty chamber isn’t such a good thing. Thank you for taking the time to write this… sincerely, Scott Wheeler – Part of the 800,000 that will NOT give up my guns or magazines.

  195. My usual argument against gun ownership (completely theoretical given I have a few locked in a safe) is law-abiding citizens owning guns being a SOURCE of guns for criminals (that steal them, as the latest shooter stole his mother’s). That isn’t addressed there & I wouldn’t mind actual stats on the subject. I did hear when I lived in the states that most people that get killed by guns get killed by their own guns (accidentally or due to the criminal taking it from them).

    1. That’s not even close to true. The closest stat you could possibly come up with was that for a period of time, cops had a pretty decent percentage chance of getting shot with their own guns, but that was becasue they had to go up and actually lay hands on a violent criminal in order to cuff them. That stat went down over time because of the invention of better retention holsters, and more weapon retention training.

      Civilians don’t have to go put the cuffs on bad guys, so that’s never been an issue.

      The whole “the bad guy will just take your gun away and use it against you” is a bunch of nonsense. If a bad guy tries to take your gun, simply pull the Felon Repulsion Lever. Usually when I hear somebody say that, it is because they personally have not come to terms with the idea of shooting somebody, so they know they will hesitate, and choke. Most people don’t have that problem, and by the time you’ve decided to carry a gun, you’ve made the decision that you are willing to shoot somebody to save yourself.

      1. After some looking around it seems each side has their own study and claims the other’s is based on agenda (for the getting killed by your own gun bit). But guns being stolen by criminals and misused later? Note that this is for the sake of conversation. While I own guns (stored in a safe) I’m not too involved in this debate, not being a US resident. Oh and I have no issue with using one against a life threatening invader. I’ll even pick the one that makes the biggest hole in the ground after going through to save some time.

    2. Re: law abiding citizens as a source…
      If that’s being floated as an argument for restricting guns from private citizens, all I have to say is…

      Steal tow truck. Hit parked police car at 45 mph. Turn on lights, incapacitate dazed cop, tow police car away.

      Enjoy loot in police car and assault rifles in trunk.

      So long as cops have guns, there will be guns to steal.

      1. Guns are a 15th Century technology.

        Buy electrical conduit. Buy a cap for the conduit and put a hole in the center. Pigtail a small lightbulb, and carefully break just the glass. Run pigtails through the cap hole, put cap on conduit, and seal everything with epoxy.

        Load conduit with gunpowder, or even matchheads. Load fishing sinkers on top. Shove wadding in to keep everything in place.

        Apply current to pigtails, and watch what happens to anything in front of the bore.

        If you need more shots, make more tubes and tape them together.

        Use this contraption to kill someone who has state permission to be armed.

  196. So, do we need a Newtown’s worth of school gun accidents every year, to keep schools safe from the 1 in a million chance of a spree shooter showing up?

    Haven’t read all the responses, but my response, is, well, why don’t we kill all bees, outlaw alcohol and cigarettes, and while we’re at it, kill all large sharks and venomous snakes.

    Why?

    All these are bigger risks than a spree killer, which is somewhere between one in a million and one in ten million per person per year, very crudely. Yes, none of the idiotic solutions proposed above would work, and if they somehow did, the second order effects on the rest of the world would be far worse than leaving them in place. That’s also true for trying to rid the world of spree killers. Go read the Wikipedia entry on “running amok” to see a much older version of the same phenomenon, where amoks also killed approximately a dozen people before dying.

    Doing nothing is better and 99.99% as effective as arming teachers. It’s also much cheaper.

    Why I don’t like guns at school? Well, approximately as many primary children were killed by firearms accidents in 2007 as in Newtown (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#accidents). I’m not sure how putting more guns around more kids will affect this stat, but I’m having trouble with the idea of a teacher *not* leaving the gun in a desk drawer or similar while she teaches her kids. I know that, when I was teaching, I was too busy bending over and talking to students to want to have a gun on my hip or in a shoulder holster. Remembering myself as a kid, I’m also having real trouble with the idea that some kids won’t try to get to the gun if they know it’s there. I’m also having trouble with the idea that said gun won’t freak out even more kids. Would you want to learn from a teacher whose nine millimeter is rubbing against your side? Yes, it’s creepy. I also don’t like the idea of the gun falling on the floor, either, and I can see lots of ways that would happen.

    And if a shooting starts (that one-in-a-million chance), you as teacher are supposed to control 24-40 kids (ideally less, but remember those cutbacks), keep them safe and quiet, while simultaneously psyching yourself up to get in a one-woman shootout if the shooter comes through the door? And said person is likely better armed with you. Good luck with that.

    Remember that this is a one-in-a-million nightmare scenario. I’m not sure what other problems will become more common if we’re silly enough to implement this “defense,” but there’s no way this can happen in a vacuum.

    Shall we do nothing and see what happens?

    1. Again, the idea is NOT to force all teachers to carry a gun. The idea is that responsible adults in education should be allowed to carry.
      A quick question- do your objections (accidental discharges, guns falling out of holsters, et al) also apply to police officers on a campus? The same issues apply to both.

    2. So your recommendation for the problem is “change absolutely nothing.”

      Well, since that’s better than “create more gun free zones” I have to say yours is probably the best we can reasonably hope for.

      Incidentally, there are a great many personal crimes stopped by the uncooperative ‘victim’ brandishing a weapon that never get reported.

      You’d have to be insane to report that your illegally carried weapon prevented a crime. If you figure you were randomly targeted by a young punk who got away, the very best you can hope for is absolutely nothing to happen, as the chances of apprehension of the punk are effectively zero.

      Even with a legal carry, by reporting you make yourself a target of possible law enforcement action and lawsuits by a poor punk with nothing to lose and a hungry commissioned lawyer. How do you know there wasn’t some new law passed just last week that made something you did illegal? Or maybe you are going to get called out as a racist, as proved by doctored tapes on NBC?

      Best to just stay quiet and leave the scene.

    3. I grew up around guns. I started shooting my Grandaddy’s 22 pistol when I was four. By the time I started school guns weren’t nearly as amazing as a nintendo (which I didn’t have). Most of my peers in rural Alabama wouldn’t have blinked at a teacher with a holstered pistol.Maybe acclimating children to guns at a young age will remove some of the mystery.

      2nd you worry about kids snatching a gun from a holster or it falling out. That is complete BS. Most holsters these days require a very specific angle of extraction and twist. It excludes anyone not wearing the holster from removing the weapon.

    4. which part of ‘the firearm must remain on the teacher’s person and concealed at -all times-‘ do you not understand?

    5. “And if a shooting starts (that one-in-a-million chance), you as teacher are supposed to control 24-40 kids (ideally less, but remember those cutbacks), keep them safe and quiet, while simultaneously psyching yourself up to get in a one-woman shootout if the shooter comes through the door? ”

      While I haven’t had a school shooting at any of my schools, I’ve had 6 different incidents of armed intruders on campus in my 7 years of teaching. In that same time, I have had also had one actual fire (in a school outbuilding) and two chemical spill events (we have refineries and chemical plants in our county) occur at schools where I have been working.

      So that’s six separate occasions where I have followed the protocols and had my students cowering on the floor in the dark while waiting to see if one or more “bad actors” would kick in the classroom door to attack us. On one occasion, we spent over three hours waiting for the police to declare the campus clear.

      In every one of those armed intruder situations, my students – even the disruptive and unruly classes – settled down and paid attention, since they were afraid, and looking to me to protect them. In every one of those situations, I was expected to have enough time to close and lock the door/s and windows, close the blinds, turn off the lights, and get the students quietly onto the floor and away from the doors and windows.

      That would also provide enough time for me to unlock my supply cabinet, open my safe, remove a firearm and ammunition, and prepare to defend myself and my students, if such provisions were allowed at the school (this would be my preferred option). Alternatively, it would allow me the time to make sure that a firearm I was carrying concealed was loaded and ready (I carried one or more loaded firearms at work for years, and am comfortable doing so). In either case, the students would not need to know that I had a weapon until the armed intruder came onto our campus.

      I have no qualms about protecting my kids – it’s a basic part of the job, since the primary duty of a teacher and school is to provide a safe learning environment for the students.

      I’m not the frail and helpless little girl schoolteacher you depict in your post – I am a retired military policeman and firearms instructor who entered teaching as a second career in order to continue to serve and protect our nation and society. However, I am nowhere near as fierce about defending and protecting my students as some frail looking lady teachers I’ve known, who have strength and dedication that you could never imagine.

      Allow our teachers an even chance with these attackers, and my money is on the teachers – every time.

    6. Larry – I took the liberty of writing the Presidents next speech using your facts-
      Presidential Speech, Barrack Obama
      A Gun Safe Union
      “The Gun Speech”
      Tampa, FL
      January 16, 2013

      “We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”
      Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands in Philadelphia, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787. In those proceedings, our founding fathers saw fit to include the 2nd Amendment , the right to keep and bear arms.
      Today, we are still mourning a recent tragedy involving the tragic killings of 26 people, twenty of them young children. The graphic images, the screams, the bloodshed and heartbreak have forever changed us. We proudly awoke as a nation to revisit violence in America, to better understand it’s roots, causes and tools – so that we can take drastic and immediate action to ensure such tragedy can never happen again.
      The issue is: Are there some sensible steps that we can take to make sure that somebody like the individual in Newtown can’t walk into a school and gun down a bunch of children in a — in a shockingly rapid fashion? And surely we can do something about that.
      As you President, I directed Vice President, Joe Biden to solicit inputs from all with a perspective to share, to not leave any stone unturned, to ignore politics and to simply focus on anything we can do to make America safer – even if any given step means saving just one life. Please join me in thanking Joe for an amazing job in difficult circumstances.
      I have carefully considered every recommendation from Joe and his task force. Included are: a tougher version of the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004; a limit on the number of bullets that magazines can hold; background checks for gun shows and other “private sales”; better database tracking for weapons sales; and strengthening measures aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of those with severe mental health issues.

      Plans that tinker and halfway measures now belong to yesterday. There will be many others offered in the coming months, and I am working with experts to develop my own plan as we speak, but let’s make one thing clear right here, right now: America can no longer tolerate a nation of Politicians passing feel good laws of little impact and great theatrics.
      Many will be surprised my my next remarks, yet history will refer to their honesty, focus and truthfulness.
      My fellow Americans, I stand before you tonight to correct a misperception, to re-align our national discussion on guns. Somehow, and perhaps with my involvement, we became distracted from analyzing the recent tragedies for lessons learned and how to prevent them in the future. Instead we became fixated on passing additional gun controls at any expense.
      There are few among us, who wish to pass restrictive gun legislation more than me and my cabinet. Yet, when I reviewed the important recommendations from Joe and his team – I must say that I was shocked and surprised to see that none of the recommendations would have reduced the carnage we witnessed in the recent shootings. Sadly, we have spent the last month focused on creating recommended laws, in addition to the 20,000 gun laws we already have, that would not make us any safer and instead simply creates more restrictions on law abiding citizens who are not the ones going on shooting rampages.
      Surely something must be done and can be done. Surely. As I studied this complex issue, I was greatly educated by an experienced firearms expert, Larry Correia whose keen insights are liberally included in my speech tonight. We all agree – “Something Must be Done”.
      Yet, looking at the facts, without emotion:
      Gun Free Zones
      Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.
      Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a statement. You conclude that the best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people? Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.
      In all honesty I have no idea how we, for so long believed that Gun Free Zones actually work.
      An evil crazy person commit several dozen felonies, up to and including mass murder, and that person is going to refrain because there is a sign? That “No Guns Allowed” sign is not a cross that wards off vampires. It is wishful thinking. The only people who obey No Guns signs are people who obey the law. People who obey the law aren’t going on rampages.
      Can we ban what already exists in our Society?
      We are a nation of more than 350 Million guns and hundreds of millions of magazines.
      When we banned alcohol, consumption continued and alcohol remained available. When we declared a war on drugs, we spent Billions of dollars that could have been spent on schools, teachers and your towns and yet – any 8th grade student can still obtain any drug desired within days.
      If we cannot stop 10 Million people from walking illegally across our borders each year, how can we conclude we can ban any gun or magazine?
      In every city in America we have meth labs that require advanced science to formulate complex illegal drugs.
      Guns and Magazines are easier than meth to make.
      If the mountainous people of Pakistan and Afghanistan who often live in caves can make enough guns to fuel large gun markets, surely the American people are equally industrious and able to create a large black market for firearms.
      Assault Rifles.
      We know these are evil guns – just look at them! What I learned is that they aren’t functionally any more powerful or deadly than any normal gun. In fact, they ARE normal guns, dressed in black metal instead of wood but with the same trigger and barrels.
      In fact the cartridges they normally fire are far less powerful than your average deer hunting rifle.
      Bill Clinton and Diane Feinstein created the first assault weapons ban. First, they needed statistics to demonstrate the need for such a ban – there was no data… so they actually falsified the data to justify the ban. Second, after TEN YEARS of having an assault weapons ban, there was no measurable benefit and it was allowed to expire. Once expired, there was no measurable spike in assault rifle use.
      True, Assault Weapons typically accept magazines that hold more bullets than a hunting firearm, which we will discuss next.
      High Capacity Magazines
      The Clinton Assault Weapons Ban banned the production of all magazines over ten rounds except those marked for military or law enforcement use..
      Over the ten years of the ban, we never ran out. Not even close. Magazines are cheap and basic. Most of them are pieces of sheet metal with some wire. That’s it. Magazines are considered disposable so most gun people accumulate a ton of them. All it did was make magazines more expensive, ticked off law abiding citizens, and didn’t so much as inconvenience a single criminal.
      Meanwhile, bad guys didn’t run out either. And if they did, like I said, they are cheap and basic, so you just get or make more. If you can cook meth, you can make a functioning magazine.
      As a matter of fact, just as our children can playfully take two straws and make one long straw, anyone with two or three magazines can without much trouble join them together to double or triple their capacity.
      In the past several years, hundreds of millions of high capacity magazines have been sold. It is likely that we run out of sneakers before we run out of banned magazines.
      The Killings at Newtown have ignited our outrage and challenged us to act. Acting in a direction that has no basis in fact or bearing on the fundamental issues is a disservice to our nation and its people.
      Let’s also reminder ourselves that while the recent months have torn our hearts out from these shootings, that still – in America, more people have been killed each year by hammers and blunt objects than by rifles and assault rifles. Less than 350 people have been killed by any type of rifle in the US in the last year. A single death is one too many, yet there reaches a point where no amount of money or laws can make our world perfectly safe.
      For a moment, Let’s discuss the “if we can save just one life” position.
      I have said that myself and meant it. I was quickly reminded that passing a law that cars cannot go faster than 45 miles per hour would save more lives than making all guns in the US evaporate. Taking the money that was spent in Afghanistan and Iraq and placing it in our medical system would have saved tens of thousands of lives. Our society has to weigh the cost to all of “saving just one life”. As harsh as it sounds – such expenditures as the above illustrate that while it feels good to “save just one life”, we rarely can afford to do so. With regard to guns there are several studies that clearly demonstrate that guns in America save more lives than they take by a very large margin.
      So what is an enlightened “Anti-gun” President like me to do?
      Surely something must be done and can be done.
      Yes, indeed it can. And there are many opportunities.
      Here are the first steps my administration will take, with the same seriousness and fire that Kennedy had in challenging the US to place a man on the moon and return him safety to earth by the end of the century.
      Effective Immediately, Vice President Biden will:
      1. Meet with those who made our aircraft flight crews safer and will apply similar measures to making school classrooms and offices safer during lock down. Further, classrooms will be provided one or more escape doors so that our children are not forced to cower in a corner waiting to be shot when evil does arrive.

      2. Replicate the program that allowed qualified airline pilots to be certified for carrying a firearm by implementing a “when seconds count, the police are minutes away” program for qualified and interested school personnel. School personnel will not be law enforcement, just speed bumps in the road of a rampaging suspect, at worse buying additional time until police arrive.

      3. Create a National Awareness Campaign that focuses on three important areas:
      a. Mental Health
      b. Gun Safety
      c. The Dangers of violence in movies and video games

      4. Mental Health.
      a. We must have medical databases of mentally incapable persons to be added to the databases used to background check a gun purchase.
      I myself and surprised by the results of reviewing the aftermath of Newtown. At the same time, I cannot be more proud that we are on the path to meaningful safety improvements that would have made a difference in Newtown and will provide vast safety increases in the future. Passing gun laws #20,001 through #20,019 would have been the easiest way out.
      Making a difference in safety and our society is what is required.

      Please join me in supporting these important initiatives. Write and call your senators and congressional representatives. Demand that they take meaningful actions described here and abandon the well-intentioned but misguided folly of restating an assault weapons and magazine ban that failed to deliver any value in its first ten years and will do nothing to increase our safety in the next.

  197. Admit it, sir, this well thought out article was nothing more than a way to get people to read your books! 🙂 Thanks for writing this. I’ve posted it on my FB account. And now I have to go find one of your books.

    1. Not really, but that was before I knew a couple hundred thousand people would read it over two days. 🙂 No writer has ever turned down book sales! 😀

  198. Larry, this is one of the most fascinating essays I have ever read. I am from a long line of gun owners. I lived the last fourteen years in a little town where I owned the local grocery store. I had teens and adults in my store all the time, carrying various rifles and hunting knives. I never feared for my life when they came in. They’d all been trained how to respect their weapons. Those teens and adults never scared me. But I was afraid of certain customers, not because they carried weapons, but because they were mentally unstable. Guns are not scary. People are. I actually kept weapons in my store under the counter so I could protect myself in case one of those crazy customers came in with an axe. I love what you’ve written here and will make certain to spread the word. You’re awesome!

    1. In my high school, back in the ’80s, all the hunters brought in their deer hunting kills and their rifles to show around.

      Do that today, and it would make international headlines.

  199. Yesterday morning, I had never heard of you. Read this last night and sat in the B & N parking lot this morning to get my copy of MHI. With my S&W .357 snubby by my side. Hope your novels are half as interesting as your rants 🙂

    1. MHI is a 4 AM book.

      You start reading the first page some fine afternoon, and you put the book down finished at 0400 and ask yourself “Oh god, what have I done to myself?”

  200. Nice article Larry – glad someone shared it with me and I will do the same. I was raised on military bases around the world and then served myself for 21 years (9 active and 12 in the Reserves) including both official combat (Desert Storm) and unofficial combat – have shot and been shot at in numerous bad neighborhoods around the world. I have also served on a Police Reserve force in the Midwest that took that role seriously and put us through a lot of training and shooting along with using us to help with everything from traffic stops to raiding meth houses. In short, I know guns and know how to handle them. I never considered myself a “gun nut” and have largely been silent on gun related issues. I appreciate you taking the time to write this and plan to start speaking up more in a passionate yet measured and non-confrontational way. I think that spreading the word among our immediate circle in that way can have an enormous impact. BTW – I am a fellow Utahan and own Lock-n-Load Java (www.locknloadjava.com) – keep up the great work and will definitely check out your novels. All the best, Carl

  201. Irresponsible use of alcohol kills almost as many innocent victims EACH DAY as assault weapons do in years in the US. Obviously, the only logical course of action is to ban alcohol. Same logic – different noun – just how many Liberals will see the similarity (or, hilarity) of their argument then!

  202. For those comparing the UK’s crime rate to America’s, you might want to think about this:

    “Police force failed to investigate four in ten crime reports”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9464223/Police-force-failed-to-investigate-four-in-ten-crime-reports.html

    “Police attacked for wrongly writing off thousands of crimes”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9036621/Police-attacked-for-wrongly-writing-off-thousands-of-crimes.html

    “Serious assaults being dismissed as ‘no crimes’ by police”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6406236/Serious-assaults-being-dismissed-as-no-crimes-by-police.html

    I remember reading articles about Englsh police cooking the figures on crime in the Economist (that bastion of rightwinger gun-love) going back into 2006 or earlier; if I had the back issues I’d cite the articles. But note that even here there’s a spread back to 2009.
    If you’re relying on the official reported figures to claim Jollie Olde is safer than Good Ol’, bear in mind that you might not be getting good data.

  203. Reblogged this on Matters of Worldview and commented:
    There is a national conversation going on, and it’s primarily emotionally vomiting and bleeding all over the place. Most of the conversation is not the result of critical thinking, of awareness of history, of the understanding of consequences of choices made. Some years ago Congress foisted one of its many logic-defying travesties upon the populace, which is called the Federal Gun Free School Zones act. When things like this are passed, it makes me wonder if there is anyone in those hallowed halls who actually thinks. They in essence hung a sign out front of every public school that says “Welcome to a Hunting Preserve for Innocent Human Beings”.

    The “hunting preserve” language is embedded in this richly presented, fact and history based blog by Larry Correia. Honestly, I was unaware of him until today. I think he needs to visit the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, then go on a national education tour. We need to reinvigorate Common Sense before it completely expires. This blog article answers every single argument for “Gun Control” of which I am aware. Whenever you hear politicians say “It’s for the children”, red warning lights should be going off on your dashboard.

    Please take the time to read and digest this wonderful article: “An Opinion on Gun Control”. This is one of the few persons in the conversation who has the robust credentials and knowledge to say things on the subject that are connected with reality. He seems also to have the basic understanding of human nature that so many elected officials seem to completely lack.

  204. Thank you for a thoughtful and well supported essay. In a land of sound bites and gripping footage, you are a welcome anomaly. I’ll be linking to this as opportunity arises.

  205. Thank you for this letter. It is right on. As a teacher, I dont know if I would carrybut I do know how to use a weapon and have trained in them. At the very least we do need armed security guards that do NOT go AWOL in time of needs.

  206. ” Especially when we consider that everyday Jills and Joes who are untrained in the “proper” use of guns and when it is right to use them (traditionally an area reserved for law enforcement and military, and imho rightly so), it seems that there is much more potential there for tragedy. ”

    I think people aren’t aware that there is an enormous amount of training material out there, from videos- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTr8xvkUWp4
    to books, http://www.amazon.com/Lessons-Armed-America-Kathy-Jackson/dp/1453685553
    to actual, in-person training http://www.icetraining.us/
    http://massadayoobgroup.com/

    And as soon as someone invents a Star Trek Phaser, that can be set to stun, puts it into the price range of $300-$900, and makes it the size and weight of a Sig 229, I’ll jump all over it.

    1. I must quibble with you on ONLY teaching the military and police when it is right to use “guns” or force. there is no reason to force people into ignorance about the proper use of force. reasonable people can argue who CAN use force, but there is no reason why a person shouldn’t know when force is appropriate.

  207. Thank you for writing this. I am strongly liberal and living in Massachusetts. I don’t talk to many people who are so informed. You have changed my opinion, and pointed out flaws in my own logic. I have always had an interest in firearms but had them pointed out to me as universally dangerous. I think it is time to become more informed and learn a new skill. Thank you

    1. William, you would fall into the first group Larry was mentioning (those that are just uneducated on the subject but have the willingness to learn.) I personally would point you to a couple of your fellow statesmen. JayG http://www.ma-rooned.com who tries to keep a running tally of criminals who met their fate because they were doing criminal things at the hands of everyday people rather than police, either on or off duty. Also, Jay is known to take new shooters on a range trip for free just so they can try it. And, Weerd Beard http://www.weerdworld.com who has a whole series of articles on the much bandied about term of “Gun Death” that the people who wish to ban guns keep bandying about but fail to realize other things cause as much or more harm.

  208. I wrote a blog post about guns and my issues with how people were reacting to the Aurora shootings. I ended up getting way more attention than I deserved for as many inaccuracies and corrections I had to make. (If you’re curious, it’s all on http://blog.frankmtaylor.com )

    This is an excellent article and I think it’ll just be my default response, now, when someone raises issues with gun control. Very well said and you’ve addressed all of the talking points that I think CNN and Fox News miss.

  209. Thank you very much. This is the most articulate, logical and indisputable article I’ve read on the subject. This must be read by every voter and every politician. Anyone who isn’t convinced by this piece is either mentally challenged or politically toxic.

  210. @ Whatever- you bring up several cogent points but you seem to imagine some coordinated terrorists attack against a school. not the lone nut or two loser buddies we always see in these attacks.

    Let’s be honest, the majority of time it will be one shooter. One shooter who chose a place expecting ZERO resistance. His guard is really only up looking for unarmed targets and listening for police sirens.

    All you have to do is some around a corner holding a pistol like a pro and you throw his whole world for a loop. If you have a shot, take it, but advance, advance, advance. If you’re a vet, you know the response to a Near Ambush. Move forward and clear the objective. Violence of action.

    You flip the power dynamic immediately by shooting at this guy. Ricochets are a factor but this is Least-Worst Decision making. You fire at him while moving toward him.

    Two shooters. From the stories I have seen, they usually split to cause more damage. You know what happens when you shoot one shooter. The other guy no longer has his back up.

    There is no such thing as instigating an in-progress mass shooter. They kill until they run out of ammo, are cornered or killed. You don’t need to be SF. You merely need to be a better shooter than the mass shooter and almost all of these guys are terminal losers with little to no real training.

    1. No, they sometimes suicide when the armed response shows up, as I believe the latest low-life did.

      If the idea is to go out in a blaze of glory, then suicide is a much better end than arrest and imprisonment. Prison rape and violence is rarely prosecuted, since it’s the best deterrent to an otherwise comfy living. You may rest assured that the Batman theater shooter will never be constipated again. Jeffery Dahmer did not die peacefully.

      Many shooters know this, and don’t intend to ever be incarcerated. Very few mass shooters seem to have included ‘escape’ in their detailed plans. Generally, they seem to hope for ‘suicide by cop’.

      1. The Clackamas Town Center active killer suicided because one CCW holder pulled a gun on him, but did not fire because of bystanders behind him.

        ANY disruption to their planned script shuts down a non-military trained active killer.

  211. Has anyone ever commented on the fact that these shootings take place in “safe” areas? Predominantly white, middle-upper class suburbs, colleges, and universities. Predominantly means “most of”, not “all of” or “every, single one of”. Perhaps we should learn from the inner city schools and install better security; EG. metal detectors, x-ray scanners, metal detecting hand wands, Kevlar lined desks, doors, and walls, bullet resistant windows, etc.
    But, we all know that won’t happen. On the subject of automatic weapons; thanks to the internet, you can buy the needed components to change a semi-automatic rifle to a select fire, fully automatic rifle. Also, and this one bothers me because of all of the “experts” can’t be bothered to learn a little history, the M-16 and M-4 series semi-automatic assault rifles are *not* fully automatic. The M-16 series hasn’t been full auto since the miserable excuse for a weapon was originally issued for soldiers in Vietnam. The M-16A series has never been full auto, neither has the M-4 series. On the subject of assault rifles, the AR ban was poorly thought out and even more poorly executed. No matter how awful a law is or how poorly it has been constructed; we all have to remember one thing, we (the people) put those morons in office by voting on issues. If they say the right thing on the right issue (Gun control is using Both hands! You need 5 times the ammunition issued to an infantryman to defend your home! {standard ammunition combat load is 210 rounds of NATO 5.56, five times that is 1,050 rounds or around 35 30 round magazines for the M-16/M-4 which is a bit excessive for one man-one weapon}) and people will forget common sense and vote with the one that said the best line. The gun control/gun rights argument mess is our fault for electing useless politicians.

    1. Of course the M16 and M4 series of weapons are capable of full-auto fire. As far as converting an AR-15 to select fire, that’s considerably more difficult that just buying a few parts of the Internet, but it is not my place to explain that here. It should be sufficient to mention that to sell the AR-15 on the commercial market, it can’t be easily converted to full auto. I have carried a number of the series in the field, and worked on a hell of a lot more, including building them. And I was the last person to interview Eugene Stoner before his death. I think I have a little insight into the workings of the design. The inclusion of a mechanical limiter was to decrease training time – it takes a long time to get really good with full-auto fire.
      The “Assault Rifle” mess is just a bandwagon that a few politicians really feel is their “thing”. I find most of those individuals repulsive.

    2. 1. no, you can’t aquire full auto conversion parts on the internet. Well, you might -think- that, until the ATF burns your house down with you in it.

      2. the M-16 family sure as hell does have some full auto members.

      3. a thousand rounds is a -day at the range-…hm. that might not make any sense to you. Suffice to say that a thousand rounds can be quickly expended by a couple of shooters in an afternoon of target practice.

    3. Trust me, an M-16 parts kit will not fit in an AR-15 without some extensive milling.

      This is not a drop in conversion.

    4. “Has anyone ever commented on the fact that these shootings take place in “safe” areas? Predominantly white, middle-upper class suburbs, colleges, and universities.”

      Look up the Red Lake school shootings. It was on an Indian reservation, a fairly poverty stricken one. The shooter obtained the weapons he used by murdering a cop, his grandfather, and stealing his police issued guns. Then he went to school and started by shooting the unarmed security guard manning the metal detector, then proceeded to shoot the place up until the cops showed up. After losing a gunfight with the cops he blew his head off with his grandfather’s police shotgun.

  212. I was just poring through Breivik’s manifesto and came across this handy tip …

    ….Obviously, focus on individuals who does not have armed body guards.

    From the horse’s mouth. He does hold the World Record, after all.

    1. Indeed. Didn’t he assassinate first the few guards who were present at the event on the island? I can’t recall if they were armed, but, they were the security force and he knew he had to take them out first. Because he was masquerading as a police officer, he faked everyone out until it was too late.

  213. Well I thought all that “moment of silence” around the country should have instead been filled with the sound of millions of rounds to be heard around the world that Americans are armed and ready to defend against all tyranny and whatever else arises as should always be as a matter of self defense that is the right of everyone, no exceptions!

    That moment of silence and all the people putting out their flowers all over the place is just so much idiotic sentimentality and garbage that will have to be cleaned up as the flowers wither and become a public nuisance for all to walk by.

    That moment of silence and the bell ringing and that damned military flag of the United States Armed Forces flying at half mast is such a preposterous misconception of the law and the fact that all these individuals were civilians and the flags should have all been upside down in symbolism of the state of affairs we are in that is – DISTRESS!

    Politicks are all sucking the life out of this country and it is amazing how may are now sucking us dry because so many are also on the teat of BIG BROTHER taking care of everything and only making things far worse with every new law that is supposed to solve some new imaginary problem that is as old as creation – None are rightreous no not one, for all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God and His Grace is the only answer to a people that have gone astray after the vomit of dogs!

    I really think that when all the media took that moment and the bell was rung as each victim was shown at the end they also should have counted two more casualties of the neglect of the people to control those in government and which the mother was victimized by the lack of competent assistance with a troubled child which child was also victimized and a round of shots should have been the conclusion to remind everyone that but for all who are in possession of guns all would be defenseless and helpless as these two individuals – mother and son to contend with life.

    Gathering Good Treasures from the Trials of Life

    Michael @ The “MIXED WAR” Room

  214. You have a Merry Christmas too. I’m afraid I shall share this further, but I’ll warn them that you are a bit burnt out.

    And thanks. I’ve been saying much of what you said for years, but without the creds.

    1. Laws that put up small hurdles like the ones in place in CT? Yeah, that didn’t really work so well, did it?

      The shooting stopped when other guns showed up. Just like in two other places in the US the same week. The sooner the opposing guns show up, the fewer the first guy kills.

      Or China, with much better gun control, and lots of knife violence. Where only the strong have even a chance of defending themselves.

      If the author’s wet dream came true, and a magic wand removed all guns in the US, very quickly the Mexican drug cartels would have a monopoly on guns. Then their friends and customers.

      Remember, that magic wand disarmed the military, FBI and all police.

      Mexican drug cartels BUY Mexican army units. There are currently
      signs up in AZ saying “from here to the border, drug gangs own the land, stay out” put up by the BLM

      1. The article doesn’t say it works flawlessly in every instance. It says it works to reduce gun violence overall. Is the article and the research it cites incorrect?

      2. can we kill this thread? I’ve gotten over a thousand plus messages on it. What does no one understand about a RIGHT that shall NOT be INFRINGED? Must we beat them with baseball bats until they get it or pass on? It’s a right, like freedom of religion. It’s not a suicide pact, so no, no neutron bombs, like we don’t allow human sacrifice. But that’s it. De facto, since police use chemical weapons, so can any one else.
        The modern strategic weapon of the day was a warship – so regular citizens can own one. If they can afford it. So artillery is OK.

        And just an additional note: controlling commerce does NOT mean Congress can control everything. Replace SCOTUS until they understand that point. So no, the Feds, nor the States, can prohibit substances they don’t like. It’s not a right given them in the Constitution. All the unenumerated rights are held by the People, US.

        We need to LIMIT government control. We have a nascent police state, and it’s getting worse. I’ve already told politicians if they pass gun control, then it’s going to be horrid for police, as we will turn on them at every juncture, since they are the minions of the state. No money, no support, we didn’t see anything. Bleed out on the street. Take the governments’ coin to be a thug, face the heat. I am sure every LEO in history has justified their actions via appeals to law, legislature or some BS. Sorry, there is no out for enemies of freedom.
        In a nutshell, don’t enforce it, and leave us the hell alone, or suffer the consequences. Shunning works.

      3. @steve: ” Is the article and the research it cites incorrect?” Yes.

        You’re saying: “here’s an article saying banning guns reduces crime” I’m saying “Here are lots of actual crime statistics showing banning guns increases crime”.

        Gun control laws have demonstrably not worked in US cities where they have been tried. In Florida, there was a huge problem until CCW was passed. Then tourists started getting robbed. In a rare display of shocking honesty 60 minutes ran a story about it. They interviewed an inmate robber and asked him why he targeted tourists. He said “I dunno if a regular person has a gun, but the tourists never do”.

        I’m still floored that they actually showed that on CBS.

        I don’t think things are any better in England, where the cops are getting lots of heat for transparently refusing to accept violence reports to keep their crime statistics down. But what the hell, there’s a fire department that is still catching wrath for stopping people from going into a burning house to save their neighbors who burned to death. While they stood outside and watched.

        Real life trumps scholarly articles.

    2. Chicago, DC two cities where it is nearly impossible to own a gun and when you are able to it is required to be stored locked in a safe with ammunition stored in another safe. Guess what, those two cities have some of the highest homicide rates in the country not to mention rapes, robberies, car jackings and other violent crimes. Yet looking to other parts of the country the violent crime rate is much lower even in areas where right to carry laws are in place both open and concealed carry. Do some more research beyond a liberal newspaper. if that doesn’t satisfy i refer you to http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/politics/27cnd-scot.html?_r=0 This supreme court decision ruled that a woman in CO did not have the right to sue the police for not responding to a call about her Ex husband kidnapped and murdered their children. She had a restraining order against him. He then committed suicide by cop. Had she been armed she could have prevented it. http://constitution.org/legis/03hr0648.htm The congress of the United States acknowleged that police have no legal obligation to protect and that citizens need firearms to protect themselves. Also they cite the fact that 2.4 million times a year citizens use firearms to prevent or stop crime. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html Here is yet another article that cites several more court cases around the nation where it was ruled that people have to defend themselves because police are not obligated to. Any more stupid questions?

      1. Look at the funding: Joyce Foundation.

        Obama used to be a board member. They currently fund ALL of the big victim disarmament groups.

        So, yes, the Harvard folks are being good little whores here.

    3. Read the first lines of my post. Right there your article on more guns means more deaths is defunct. Chicago and DC have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, (after browsing apparantly NYC is up there too), And those cities top the charts for homicides and homicides by firearms in the nation. Quick google search will prove those statistics.

    4. This was posted by another reader in response to another post and thought it rather fitting response as well, once again simple google search will verify.
      steve, on December 23, 2012 at 3:19 am said:

      Your argument begs the question that “more guns in the hands of honest citizens = more homocides” which is untrue. That’s why we have lots of murders in gun control areas, and not so many in ‘the wild west’.

      Having guns accessible to honest citizens is a severe impediment to crime, just ask Florida about their latest results from allowing concealed carry generally.

      Rather, more guns carried = less crime. How about individuals responsible for disarming the honest citizenry take responsibility for the escalating homicide rates in Chicago, DC and NYC?

      By your logic, as an advocate of gun control laws, you are responsible for quite a few murders.

      How many people have to die violently and live in terror of walking their streets for your feelings of smug self righteousness? How many CHILDREN have to die, like in CT, so you can spread the cancer of “Gun Free Zone” human hunting preserves to other states? …

    5. Allow me to explain my reasoning behind posting the articles regarding police. Individuals who post studies from such blatantly liberal MSM sources, especially ones regarding “more guns more crime”, often cry for more police and less guns. not necessarily in that order. I was jumping ahead of your logical thought train with that post. However if you want to see fact to the contrary lets review the homicide rate in the US over the last 10 years. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm We are going to look from 2000 on, so actually 12 years. over the last 12 years we have had a rebublican president and congress for some of that, then for the rest we have had a republican followed by a democrat president and a democratic congress through most of both. in 2000 there were just over 15k homicides in the United states, not all of which were committed with a gun. that peaked under bush at 17k+. Then in 2008 and on we see a decline in homicides. What is the trend that caused that? Lets see, an anti gun president caused the mentality “get em while their still legal” which brought about an increase in first time gun sales and gun ownership in general rose dramatically for all 4 years. OMG more guns and less homicides? that flies in the face of the study by the new yorker. O but wait it gets better, look 2 columns to the right to the rape index. guess what, those same years that gun control was lessened in many states and gun ownership was on the rise, you guessed it Rape decreased. Why, because more women were carrying guns and used them. OMG that goes against the new yorkers study. guess what the new yorker study is flawed and is in fact, WRONG! need more let me know i’ll be happy to show you more facts that disprove that study.

  215. I agree with you that having the ability to shoot back will end a homicidal maniac’s rampage faster than any other method that comes to mind. On the other hand, the literature shows that more guns equate to more homicide. If stopping a few mass murderers is worth the many thousands of gunshot homicides that happened in the U.S.A. last year you have a very valid set of arguments. If not, then maybe we should talk about disarmament. The Second Amendment is possibly outdated, as is, for instance, the right to import slaves written into the Constitution. It is conceivable that more firearms are not the solution to America’s problem with firearms being used to kill free individuals. If we want to frame the debate in conservative terms, individuals taking responsibility for the possession of firearms also need to take responsibility for the homicides that result from individuals taking on this burden. I would very much find it enlightening to have a conversation with you on this topic. You obviously know your position and can argue coherently. I disagree with your basic premise, that more guns are a positive force, and hope to be able to match your level of sophistication and knowledge of the subject. Thank you for your time and for writing this article.

    1. Your argument begs the question that “more guns in the hands of honest citizens = more homocides” which is untrue. That’s why we have lots of murders in gun control areas, and not so many in ‘the wild west’.

      Having guns accessible to honest citizens is a severe impediment to crime, just ask Florida about their latest results from allowing concealed carry generally.

      Rather, more guns carried = less crime. How about individuals responsible for disarming the honest citizenry take responsibility for the escalating homicide rates in Chicago, DC and NYC?

      By your logic, as an advocate of gun control laws, you are responsible for quite a few murders.

      How many people have to die violently and live in terror of walking their streets for your feelings of smug self righteousness? How many CHILDREN have to die, like in CT, so you can spread the cancer of “Gun Free Zone” human hunting preserves to other states?

      It’s ok, you know. Because you probably wear a ribbon or something, while you watch the brown people die (because it’s the poor minorities hit hardest by gun bans.) Heck, you might even be a poor brown person yourself, looking to thin the competition. Did you know that blacks in Philadelphia with all their gun laws have a higher mortality rate than soldiers in Afghanistan? They’ve even outlawed ziplock bags there as ‘drug paraphenalia’. Yes, outlaw ziplock bags because they reduce food contamination sicknesses and they’ll NEVER find any other way to package drugs.

      Oh, and there are more slaves today than there ever were in the past. Not that you care in the slightest, you racist murdering bastard.

    2. Ryan refer to my comment above your article, It links to crime statistics and looks back over the last several years. Guess what, from 2008 on during which gun ownership was on the rise and many states lessened their gun control laws homicides were on the decline, not only homicides but rapes as well. here’s the link if you’re too lazy to look at my other post http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

  216. @Whatever: I am also one of those until recently a soldier type people. I can tell you 100% that it isnt only SF personnel who can keep their cool. History has many examples of non SF soldiers who did what they had to do in the face of overwhelming odds without losing their cool. It isnt something that is necessarily trained into a person however, training does help. What were those SF soldiers BEFORE they were SF soldiers? Civilians, just like all the rest of the soldiers and non soldiers alike. Folks who successfully complete SF training do so because they already possess many of the qualities that make them good operators, the same skills that help them to remain calm cool and collected in the face of grave danger. Saying that they are the only folks who could possibly help to stop a mass shooting in progress is asinine at best.

    Situational awareness (SA) is important, Ill give you that. But stating that no one is waiting for anyone to evaluate a situation is also asinine. The only way to gain proper SA is to evaluate the situation. Im not talking about an hour long look at what is going on, in most instances in which life is likely to be lost a quick mental evaluation of what needs to be done, a formulation of your plan, and the execution of your plan happens rather quickly. During the execution stage SA is vital but so is further evaluation (while executing your plan), since as soldiers we all know that Murphy is always around and will rear his ugly head at the most inopportune moment. That should be something that you take into account in your initial assessment of the situation.

    Coordination is important, but the odds of a “squad” of teachers assaulting an objective are fairly low. The situation that we are more likely to see is a staff member seeing a gun wielding maniac, either in the hallway or as hes coming into the school, and acting to stop said maniac. And if it gets to the point where you have an active shooter roaming the school odds are pretty good that a teacher is going to secure their classroom and do the best to ensure that the students are in a safe location inside of the classroom rather than to go out and attempt to engage the gunman on his terms. Human instinct in general isnt to seek out trouble, its to wait for trouble to come to them in order to have a defensible position. So your argument concerning the danger of a “squad” of teachers losing situational awareness and shooting each other or kids is something that, while it should be addressed in training, is likely not a large concern.

    So, Im going to go out on a limb here and state that, you are the one underestimating the teachers and overestimating your abilities (if in fact you are an SF operator or ever were). Not everything boils down to who has the best training, whos been to the most schools, and whos got the most combat experience. Human nature. is to protect our young (something that is also seen in the animal kingdom by the way) and many people will go out of their way to ensure the continued safety of our children. I will give you this, you are right, it doesnt take a SEAL or an SF operator to defend out schools. It does however take people who are willing to go the extra mile to protect kids to include training themselves in the proper way to handle firearms and the proper way to deal with an armed criminal.

  217. Another intelligent, well articulated article. Thank you. I must say, however, after reading the comments posted by your detractors I weep for the future of this great republic knowing there are that many delusional people,wearing rose colored glasses that are allowed to reproduce and vote.

  218. I’m not sure how anybody could argue. Especially when you have provided substantiated evidence and (with the internet being what it is) your information can be fact checked with a little “google-ing”.

    I am in no means anti-gun – quite the opposite actually. BUT there has always been a stigma about guns for me and I always said I would never have one. Part of that, I believe, comes from my ignorance of guns. I don’t know much about them and have never held one let alone used one (except for a BB gun one time!).

    However, after reading this article, I actually hope to have a gun of my own for protection one day, but I will only have one if I can be fully trained and practiced with it. I’m not stupid and the stigma of “scary” guns is still there – if it’s not in my hand it could be used to kill me and if I don’t know how to use one it’s worthless and can be dangerous to me and/or others.

    ALSO I would like to state that I’m a female and a secondary mathematics teacher – that’s middle school and high school mathematics. And while I doubt I’ll ever be (and really hope that I won’t be) involved in a school shooting because I understand the statistics, after reading this I would still feel more comfortable (physically, mentally, and morally) living in Utah than in the blue state I’m in right now. You may have another couple residents moving there one day!

    Thank you for this article, it was appreciated and reposted on my facebook!

    1. The easiest way is to visit a gun shop or a shooting range and ask anyone there to help teach you the basics, all shooting ranges and gun stores should have a fair number of women present who can help or if you are looking to pick up a guy (if not already attached) i will tell you one of the biggest pluses you can get in a guys book is ask him to teach you to shoot a gun.

      1. Let me get this straight, you came here, disparaged what he wrote, and then publicly state you didn’t even read it?

        Come on, the first rule is to pretend to read something before pronouncing it not worth reading.

        And you took the positive action of commenting. If it isn’t worth reading, how in the hell is it worth commenting on?

        Larry, your trolls are winding down. This is truly bottom of the barrel.

        Melvin would head butt me for calling Clamps a ‘troll’.

      2. Clamps, really you have better things to read. It appears you don’t have anything better to do other than to troll though. You really should read the blog because you disagree with it. Reading things we disagree with is the number 1 or darn close to number 1 way to stimulate our minds. Just the act on internally refuting the points will at the very least strengthen your own counter points. If you can’t come up with a counter right away then you can either have your opinion changed, or you will force yourself to come up with new counter points. All of which makes you a smarter more active member of society.

        I guess you would rather troll though, you do realize that you just make yourself and your cause look bad when you troll right?

        Steve! Thank you for that Melvin Headbutt image. That is now my second favorite thing on this thread. The first being “Felony Repulsion Lever” I had to walk away from the computer after reading that I was laughing so hard.

    1. Is this a meme now? I reblogged this on my LJ (http://agilebrit.livejournal.com/840064.html) and also at therightfangirl on LJ (http://therightfangirl.livejournal.com/1585239.html), and some complete stranger with whom I had nothing in common and had never seen before said the exact same thing: “fifth rate science fiction author.”

      Or maybe you’re just the same person.

      Of course, when I pointed out that Larry lays out his creds right there, they retreated to the “well, then, he’s BIASED” argument. When asked to point to someone who isn’t biased on the subject, they never responded. I really love when people come onto my space and insult my friends. It’s the best thing ever.

      1. That is so wrong, and I am so very offended.

        I’ll have you know I’m a fifth rate FANTASY writer. Not science fiction! As if!

      2. I remember another case–a thread on FB (which Larry made truly epic with CM, the “operator”)–where the guy I was originally “sparring” with kept insisting that as a fantasy writer, Larry could be ignored. None of his other credentials apparently mattered. He wrote fantasy so (and said stuff the other guy didn’t want to hear) so….

      1. He’s only been published for three years. Get a grip.

        I love how you people would rather engage in ad hominem attacks than engage on the issue. All that means is that you have nothing to engage with.

      2. [[Clamps, on December 23, 2012 at 11:47 pm said:
        Correia’s never won any awards, has he?]]

        Tell that to his mortgage company.

        Oh, wait, he doesn’t have one any more…

      3. “Correia’s never won any awards, has he?”

        Uh, actually even though I like to joke about caring a lot more about sales than awards, I have done that too. I won the 2012 Audie award for Best Fantasy for Hard Magic, which is a pretty big deal. The same year I was also a runner up for Monster Hunter Legion.

        I’ve also been a finalist for the Campbell award for best new writer. That was top 5 in the world, at the Hugos, which are the biggest award in sci-fi/fantasy.

        And then I was a finalist for the Julia-Verlanger award for Hard Magic, for best novel. (that award is equivelent to the Hugo’s in France). 🙂 That one kills me. Don’t know how that happened.

        So I’m a multiple NYT bestseller, multiple Bookscan (high as #4), I’ve been on USA Today’s and Entertainment Weekly’s bestseller lists too, and a bunch of regional and chain lists too, I’ve won a national award, and been nominated for some of the biggest awards in my genre, I’ve got critical acclaim, I’ve got a TV deal, and the most successful writers in my genre have plugged me, so I’m not really sure what else I can do to be considered a “real” writer…

        Oh, I know! I need to be a left wing hack! That’ll do it! 😀

      1. Clamp,
        He’s been nominated for some very prestegious awards….have you? Go read the article before posting anything else or you will just make youself look even more stupid…if that is possible…

  219. Hi there.

    Love your article, read it and felt so affirmed. I, like you, enjoy my firearms. I believe in safety and training foremost and have put at least 20,000 rounds through firearms in the last 4 years since I got my CWP. However, everyone else in my family are intensely anti-gun. They paint the ultimate picture of liberal yuppy soccer moms and ponytail wearing, latte drinking bureaucrats. I’ve had the same conversation countless times, over and over again.

    Hell, I even tried explaining my enjoyment of firearms like yoga. You concentrate, focus, extend your thoughts to a target 20/50/200 meters away- there is a chaotic explosion and you have to recenter yourself as quickly as possible to once again attain that inner concentration. And add on IPSC or SASS and it is great exercise too. I guarantee you won’t get a more existential experience on any yoga mat.

    However, even putting it like that, they don’t care. I took one of my cousins out to let him try shooting. They treat him like a gossamer doll with no personality other than ‘The 2nd born male in the family’ and I thought letting him try something with more responsibility than ‘charge your cell phone before bed’ and you’d have thought I’d taken him out to a local sorority gang bang. Let him put a dozen rounds through my .22, my 9mm, my 357 and even a few rounds through my AK47. I couldn’t get him to try the 8mm Mauser though.

    The boy enjoyed it. I think it made him feel more grown up than any Bar Mitzvah ever did However, when his parents found out, they treated him like he had to be sterilized and ostracized until he wouldn’t touch another gun again.

    I was wondering if, with your permission, I could print out your article and keep it in my wallet? I know I’ll have “The Gun Conversation” with them again. All the arguments you discussed, they’ve made at one point. I don’t expect to even turn their thoughts, but hoping maybe having some hard statistics and facts would help.

    By the by, one of my favorite sayings to all the ‘gun control’ nuts has always been “The most expensive weapon in my gun collection is my gun safe.”

    Signed,
    Nep Mandora

    1. Perhaps you could ask the rest of you family if when phoning the police for help, will they ask the police to leave their guns at the station. Heh.

  220. Any chance you can add a link in your article supporting the average number of dead in mass shootings ended by law enforcement versus by private citizens? I don’t doubt you, but I have a circle of friends that tends to be skeptical, but persuadable.

  221. Teachers might be armed, but what about school bus drivers? 50 or more kids packed into a confined space with nowhere to hide would make a temping target for a psychotic student or stranger.

  222. I think because your constitution gives the right to bear arms, the police ( and criminals) carry guns I don’t see how any ‘gun control’ would work. They are part of the history and building of the country. I am English and live in South of England where the crime is nothing compared to our big cities. Luckily our police don’t normally carry guns so even though we get gun shooting episodes fortunately it doesn’t happen that often. Maybe everyone talking to each other without getting mad might be a start.

    1. Maybe it’s because I’m an American and we have armed police here, but I truly can’t understand the point of having a police force at all if they’re going to be unarmed. How in the world is an unarmed cop going to stop a crime, esp. if a gun is involved? Will he should “stop” and if they don’t stop, he’ll shout “stop” again? What if he is fired upon? How can he defend himself? This seems so ludicrous to me, I can’t even put it into words. I’d feel more unsafe in a country with unarmed cops than I do right here in the US, where both cops and civilians have guns.

      1. Thing is not every criminal carries a gun. We do have armed police but they are specially trained police in each area of the country. When we have someone on the rampage with a gun that kills people there is an outcry to restrict guns even further. See in this country mostly its the rich and upper classes who hunt and shoot animals so its not part of our culture. I don’t know anyone who has a gun or can shoot one. If there is an armed criminal then the armed police will be called, no one would go near the armed person. Or we use tazers which can actually kill. Mostly its only the big cities that any gun crime and when a shooting happens its big news. In USA people seem to get shot every day.

      2. Hardly any criminals have guns in the UK. Burgalars don’t have them because they don’t find them. The majority of police don’t wish to be armed, it’s just not a gun country, they’re unnecessary to carry around. However, there are guns in the patrol cars and criminals will get shot if the police think they have a gun. Gang members doing ‘gang stuff’ are quite often armed.

  223. Dear Larry,

    Outstanding article!! By far the best, and clearest, explanation of this topic that I have ever read. Before I read your post, I was attempting to write an article explaining most of the points you make. I stopped when I saw what the master had created.

    Now I can just forward the link to your post to my list – with attribution, of course.

    Please allow me to wish you a very Merry Christmas.

    Thank you

    Dennis Purvine

  224. I have met quite a few civilians that know how to shoot better and know guns better than I do. I’m seeing a lot of thought police on here and it’s aggravating. Do the research yourselves folks. look up the statistics of violence in other countries, with and without guns and weigh the variables and correlations out thoughtfully before you jump on the coat tails of the mainstream media. 4 years active duty Marines and 6 years National Guard. 6 months fighting in Fallujah Iraq.

  225. As a teacher with a concealed weapons permit, I am very frustrated because by South Carolina law, I have to leave my gun locked in my car in the parking lot. Your article is based on common sense backed up by facts. Unfortunately common sense is not so common in our current society.

    John Cipollina
    Hartsville, SC

    1. You, as an SC voter, are responsible to get things moving in your own state. Remember “First in Freedom”. Get politically active. A teacher pushing for CC in schools would make a splash.

      Just have a backup employment plan.

  226. This is the 1 and only intelligent bog about Gun Control I have heard from either side. And given the writers Professionalism, My respect. I grew up in a household of hunters, I am middle aged women. no I don’t own a gun. Yes I know how to shoot a .22 rifle or 12 guage shotgun. I am a terrible shot. Can’t hit the broadside of a barn , as my dad would say. My first husband was 5th Special Forces Vietnam, 2 silver stars, 8 bronze. He crafted a .22 rifle down to the size it would fit his then 2 yr old son. As my son grew, after his father and I’s divorce , He felt it necessary to bring his gun which he was very proud of even if he had outgrew it, ( size wise) and asked if I would hide it in my bedroom. Why you ask, because nearly every kid or adult who walked in his room, tried to get if off his gun rack, ( he had tried using a bicycle lock system to stop people, they broke his lock when he wasn’t looking final straw) so they could point it at some one and play with it like it was a toy. When a then 9 yr old boy has more brains than most adults about guns, well that says it all.
    When idiots allow a 7 yr old boy ( small size according to news) fire an Uzi on its highest legal setting at a gun show, unaided, no safety gear, such that since no adult was assisting him, accidently shoots himself in head, because he can’t handle the recoil, Well those 2 father and gun show booth person needed charged with negligent homicide, I have other rather barbaric ideas about their “sentence” but our Constitution doesn’t allow cruel and unusual punishment. In my first Marriage I have seen officers of the law fall apart after a shooting because it turned out even if a “{righteous shoot)” it turned out to be a preteen playing with dad’s guns in the house when parents were on vacation, kid was supposed to be at a friends house spending the night, he and buddy slipped out in the middle of the night to go play, he wanted to show off dad’s ( i think 357 mag been 30 yrs could be wrong) pistol. He fired the gun almost hitting his buddy, ( recoil saved the other boy’s life) officer came in on burglery in progress shots fired, saw about 5’2′ figure point gun at them, moonlight off barrel, yelled freeze etc as gun came up fired., shooter down, secured area, turned out to b e the kid. playing, Every police officer knows what happened mentally to the cop. knows what happened when after all was done at the station, he went to his Green Beret buddy to decompress, nuf said on him,

    THESE are the idiots i worry more about than the criminals, I know what the criminal with a gun is likely to do, and since i am a terrible shot, well everyone but him would be in danger ( shakes head sadly). These idiots are more dangerous, the show off who wants a big bad gun to show off to his buddy waving it around strutting are the ones that freighten me. They are the ones that need controlled before they screw things up for all the rest of us. I firmly believe they are the greater danger. These crazed madmen don’t happen that often. Not really make their splash and are gone.

    It is the idiot who should not be aloud to have possession of anything more dangerous than a pen knife to clean his nails I am scared of.

    I don’t have a clue how to accomplish that, sorry, but any meaningful legislation must address that issue, because your right criminals will get their hands on guns legal or otherwise.

    AS to Teacher having guns, I am against mandatorying them to carry a gun. If they wish to OK, as long as the can qualify, since setting is school i think same level as what Law Enforcement are required to have.
    My understanding of the “Gun Free Zone’s” ( based on rhetoric when put in place) was to keep children and youth from bringing guns to school ( gangs etc) Not what happened in reality but that was the intent. Good intentions and all that.
    So how about metal detectors you have to pass thru, hmm nice starting place.

    I am both fore and against gun control, I would rather see somehow someone wiser than I come up with a way to keep the guns out of the hands of these self appointed bad butts who are utterly clueless and only want to TOY to show off, GUNS AREN’T TOYS, how to keep them from the mental ill are violent prone I have no clue not a DR.,
    I still think my barbaric ideas about punishment fitting the crime would severely discourage the morons . And trust me, my 5th Special Forces Vietnam Green Beret 1st husband taught me some very interesting things, ( grin).

    Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New year to the all and the author of this blog. And by the way Anita Blake rocks .

  227. When my brother in law James D. Cleere died in 911, it was because the planes had been taken over by evil people to turn them into “Assault planes”. Of course we could have just banned those nasty “assault planes”! But what was done by Gov.? Armed Federal Marshals on planes, even after all the security checks! Why? Last line of DEFENSE as the only thing that stops “insane Kill them all” deadly force is opposing PROTECTIVE deadly force!

  228. This was really informative and I really appreciate it. I will be sharing this on my facebook as well as with my family and friends. It is the best written response to the common arguments to stricter laws/bans. I come from a family of gun owners not only for hunting but also self defense. Sometime in the future I would like to go for my CCW as well. This article has given me a way to verbalize why these bans/laws won’t work. Thanks!

  229. Thank you so much for taking the time to put together such an excellent post, I live very close to one of those elite liberal urban city centers. And while I’m most certainly not liberal, I wasn’t fond of guns and didn’t want one in our home when our daughter was small.

    That is, until we had several days of unrest that reached even the suburbs … and it became painfully obvious that there weren’t enough law enforcement personnel to even attempt to protect us should the need arise. My husband had several handguns in storage at that time and I asked that he retrieve them as soon as possible and then take both myself and our daughter (who was 9 or 10 at the time) to the range and teach us to shoot. I purchased my .357 Ruger a few weeks later.

    Fortunately I’ve never had a need to even pull it out, and hope I never do. But I at least know that I’m not helpless should the worst occur. If I could get a CCW I’d do so in a heartbeat but I don’t see that happening any time soon here.

    Anyway … again, thank you! I’ll be sharing this on FB. 🙂

  230. First let me say i love your article. Something that would make an excellent addition to the follow up piece you mentioned as a possibility is the fact that Police have NO legal obligation to respond to calls of citizen on citizen violence. Even if one has a restraining order against the other. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/politics/27cnd-scot.html?_r=0 Here is a supreme court decision stating that fact. A quick google search reveals more. I have done research on this several times and have found dozens of articles regarding this. Unfortunately computer went down that had my essay on this topic which had citations to 4 or 5 more such articles. I will be following your blog for more brilliant pieces. keep up the good work.

  231. No private gun ownership in china meant no deaths in that instance. Also if it becomes so common for teachers to have guns, the shooter just knows to go for the teacher first, and an entire class is dead before he is stopped. Same as always.

    1. True. No Second Amendment-type rights in China. No First Amendment rights either. That’s the kind of place I want to live.

    2. No gun ownership in China also meant 70 million political dissidents were murdered. Does the shooter know which teacher in the school is armed? Also, I learned in the military that entering a room alone is the easiest way to die. A doorway gives all the advantages to the person inside. Get a couple paintball guns and see who wins your shoot the teacher scenario.

    3. Oh don’t be ridiculous. The teacher is dead first, and no other armed teacher rushes in to help, and “an entire class is dead…” In my fantasy, the teacher knows the shooter will go for him first, and using their special x-ray vision and time warp capabilities, sees through the door and shoots the killer both before and after he shoots him later, and first. Same as always, both three times.

  232. I’m not sure why anyone would be of the belief that only a green beret or seal would be able to stop a school shooting. I served twenty-three years and carried a sidearm for most if it. I deployed and have plenty of t-shirts. But by and large I have met many civilians who are fully capable of stopping an assault with a few well placed shots.

    More importantly, it is OUR FAULT. We create these so called safe zones which the assailant sees as a “SOFT TARGET” and in the case of Newtown a “HVT” or a High Value Target.

    Newtown was a tragedy of the highest order, but it is one that could have been stopped if the Principle had been trained and armed. She (All 5’6″ of her) bum rushed the shooter. This boy wasn’t a highly trained and well armored individual, he was a punk. He chose a school because he knew there would be zero resistance. Criminals ALWAYS choose the path of least resistance. Even those who rob Armored trucks wait for the guard to exit the truck. This loser, this cowardly punk chose a school of children to make his point.

    What remains to be answered is how is it that Obama constantly has the most severe crisis to fit his agenda fall into his lap right when it helps him the most.

    It wasn’t just any oil rig that blew up on ANY DAY. It was a FOREIGN rig that just happened to be the DEEPEST rig that blew up on EARTH DAY!

    Now the NEWTOWN shooting. I highly doubt that Obama orchestrated this shooting, but he is going to milk it for all it’s worth to destroy the 2nd amendment and fools and followers alike are going to believe a guy with zero experience is smarter than a group of men who designed the greatest democracy to ever see daylight on the face of this earth.

    If you are convinced that only a special forces soldier could stop a school assault, you suffer from the same can’t do attitude that this nations needs less of.

  233. Well said, good poi.nts all. I’m one of the people who might well be armed in a school, if my school were to go that way. A miss, deflection or overpenetration striking a child scares the heck out of me. Guilty conscience until death, lawsuits well after death. No thanks.

    1. Murray, Glaser makes rounds that are designed for use inside airliners. As long as your school isn’t a tent you’re good

    2. So it is OK with you if the active killer uses the cheapest full metal jacket he can find to murder dozens of kids, and over-penetrate ALL of his shots, but totally abhorrent for an armed teacher to risk a single over-penetration casualty by firing back?

      You logic here sucks.

    1. The parts about guns, his area of expertise, but not the parts about countries he’s never been to. England’s crime rate is up since guns were confiscated? Come on, you’re saying a few privately owned hand guns were holding back a crimewave. This is offensive and stupid.

      1. So, out of twenty pages, you take issue with one paragraph, even though in that section I said the stats were debatable and you could find arguments going both ways. Okay then, so it is 99% good. 🙂

  234. This post made me do a lot of honest thinking. I think it has objectively strong and weak parts, but I think it led me to real conclusion on how I feel about this.

    It splits on the same line as most other issues: people who are aiming at societal goals that they’ll never live to see achieved vs. people who are aiming for the best reality that they can personally live. It’s too much of a core belief to really change someone’s mind; it’s a challenge for me to treat the other mindset as equally credible even when I want to believe it’s equally credible. We call each other unrealistic and idealistic or selfish and soulless, but it just goes in circles. I don’t know what the solution is.

    1. Easy.

      Slap the idealists who are getting children killed down hard, while the adults arm teachers and solve the problem.

  235. Hi: I’d only like to say that while being on the liberal side of the spectrum, I’m surely not for any more anti-gun legislation. If our citizenry would only remember that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, the passing of laws to end this insanity would be aborted. And, as has been well presented, you can’t legislate against evil.

  236. This is a very informative piece thank you for spending the time to write it. I dont think 80% of mass killers are on psychotropic drugs, i would check that fact. But the thing which is not mentioned is the Mother Jones study of 62 mass killings over the last 30 years, not one of which was stopped by an armed civilian.

      1. This report also confirms that armed civilians at the scene of mass killers are unwilling to shoot because they dont want to kill innocents. This is completely understandable – yet somehow outside of the possible thinking of gun enthusiasts. This idea that none of the 62 mass killings were stopped by civilians using guns is because these civilians were all there at the right time gunning down killers before they get to their 4th victim is simply laughable. Sorry, not buying it.

      2. But there have been times where the mere presence of the gun has changed the shooter’s mind (Clackamas Mall) without a shot being fired. And I’ll tell you this much: I for one would rather be armed than not in a situation like that.

      3. So when did they stop killing, Paxus?

        When the ran out of ammo, and decided to take a nap?

        Either they ran out of ammo, or someone with a gun showed up and popped them or threatened to pop them.

  237. Reblogged this on Mininerd and commented:
    Larry Correia has written the “go to” essay for explaining the how’s and why’s of protecting human rights in the wake of recent events. Go read.

  238. I definitely agree with arming teachers. It could really benefit the students so they aren’t as much of a risk. Shooters go to places where there won’t be guns, if there are more gun friendly places the decrease in shooting will go down substantially.

  239. Reading this blog reminds me of the absurdity of people out in the common populace. We live in a period of time where most people are living the best they ever have in terms of available wealth and ability to spend it on leisure items. Now come this maniac in Connecticut who was very disturbed shooting little children. Yes I was angry yes I was saddened. Yet I agree with the author if some brings a gun to a gun fight usually the other person decides he isn’t so big and bad.Another sad thing I have noticed recently and this is very sad. In NY in the VA clinics and Hospitals I visit, there is a sign on the door saying no weapons allowed for your safety. WHAT!!!! I am a Veteran of the Unites States Military, I was trained in the safe use of firearms. I believe so are the rest of the Veterans visiting the clinics and hospitals. So Why is it safer for us not to carry weapons? It is begging for someone to walk in and start shooting because of regulations passed by Congress and our lovely President.
    I am of the mind set the gun laws should be lightened not made more strict. So anyone can carry a weapon. Sure the bad guys will have them but then so will the innocents and maybe after we have had enough foolishness and if our Congress is dumb enough to pass a law that bans ownership of guns maybe the revolution that our forefathers participated in may come back to haunt us again.

  240. Hi Larry, nice write up. i think it’s pretty clear that we can’t stop everything bad that will ever happen, but allowing CCW’s to travel anywhere might help mitigate these types of mass shootings in the future.

    I think gun regulations needs to be streamlined nation wide with the goal being to produce more responsible gun owners, while limiting access to people who aren’t responsible. We should be aiming to not only reduce homicides, but also the ridiculous number of accidental deaths due to misuse of firearms.

    The only ideas I can come up with would be a vastly improved background check system that is allowed to look into mental health records along with mandatory training in order to receive an initial license for a specific class of weapon. Include annual or biannual renewal of that license. That renewal would require a note from a range saying you’d fired X amount of rounds and gone through a 4 hour refresher course or something like that. Pass that and and another background check and you’re renewed to own for another year or two or whatever. Make every license a CCW that renews along with your drivers license if renewing every 2 years is crazy. I think that type of regulated licensing system would produce the kind of responsible gun owner that won’t let their 3 year old shoot themselves through negligence.

    Trigger locks, and safes for home storage also seem like a good idea to me. The arguments I’ve seen in some of the comments were more about how that’s more of an honor system thing and probably not that effective. I didn’t find them that convincing. I’d also think some kind of magazine interlock (for the type of weapon with a magazine obviously) that would prevent firing if there’s no magazine would be beneficial. That way no one’s surprised by a chambered round to the head.

    Is the gun show loophole just media hype, or is that a legit issue? Seems like that should be something to get rid of, superficially at least. Make all purchases run through the same system of licensing and checks.

    There’s also stuff like harsher straw sale punishments and laws about reporting a stolen firearm within 24 hours or whatever that I’ve seen some police departments advocating for. Helpful or not?

    I don’t know. Are we just trying to find solutions to a problem that can’t be solved, do we just give up?

    1. The mental health records things is ripe for abuse. Authoritarians will cause diagnoses of mental illness in political opponents to prevent gun ownership rights. See Soviet Union.

      With all the gun locks you want, you might as well just have rubber guns, since they aren’t going to be available and working ‘when seconds count’. If you’re in a position to be surprised by a “chambered round to the head” there’s already a bigger problem than an unlocked gun.

      Straw sale purchases are already pretty harsh. If you’re doing it in quantity it’s years in the pokey for EACH sale, so it’s effectively a life sentence. If you’re doing it just once to help just one felon to commit a crime, you’re an accomplice to that crime as well as a straw purchaser, and likewise in serious legal trouble.

      The gun show loophole is a lie. Do a ctrl-F search of “loophole” on this page for excellent explanations. Basically a gun show is the LAST place to sell guns without a license or background checks. It is exactly as stupid as trying to sell drugs inside a police station. You will get caught and imprisoned.

      Gun shows are full of BATF agents/informants looking for the most work-free arrests of all.

      1. I actually have it on good credentials from an individual who spent several years inside of higher security institutions that drugs are very prevalent in jail. Apparently just over minimum wage that the guards earn isn’t enough to prevent a little palm lubrication in return for a blind eye or a bypassed check on a package.

      2. I think you’re being overly paranoid if you think different political views will lead to diagnoses of mental illness in the US. The US is not the Soviet union or Nazi Germany. But if that’s a concern, then you have an appeals process. If you’re denied a license due to a mental health check, you can appeal to some sort of board or court to have an objective look into your specific case.

        The rubber gun comment is also one that I think you’re taking a little to far to the extreme. How many cases of home defense would actually have gone sour if there was a trigger lock on a handgun, vs. how many cases of a kid shooting themselves or a friend would have been prevented with a trigger lock? I’d think it would be pretty tough to figure that out, to be honest. Trigger locks and safes are at the end of the day pretty much an honor system thing. The police aren’t going to raid someone’s house to check for a trigger lock. There’s also a question of if the kid or other person who shouldn’t have access to the gun can get their hands on the key anyway.

        I think my mandatory magazine safety/loaded chamber indicator point might have gotten conflated with the trigger lock point in your post, which prevents incidents like this: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-father-kills-son-outside-a-gun-store-20121208,0,3127920.story

        I think you’re kind of missing the forest for the trees with my comment though. I want there to be more responsible gun owners with CCW’s in hand walking around with guns on their hips. I just think that those licenses should be tougher to get, and renew. I want those people to be extensively trained on not just how to use their firearm, but also when to use it. and then to be retrained every few years. I also think there are some fairly simple existing things that should be mandated that would help prevent a lot of the accidental deaths brought on by having guns in your home. So basically the question is how do we make people more responsible with their guns? How do you take the seemingly large number of responsible gun owners posting in the comments here and multiply that across the whole population of gun owners?

      3. Also, if you read Obamacare, the mental health (and all medical health) information of every American will be available to the bureaucratic boards set up to determine if you deserve to be treated. Will those 14,000 new IRS agents that Obama hired to enforce Obamacare be armed? Your bank account info will also be availabe for the IRS to look at at their will, without oversight. I am trying to beleive that if people had read the Obamacare bill, with it’s massive loss of freedoms and privacy, they would have voted much differently last November.

  241. 88 died today in the US from auto accidents. 88 will die tommorrow.
    I know this because 88 is the per day average in the US.

    Literally 3x Newtons a day and not a peep.

    yet they would turn the Constitution into meaningless papper to save, “just one life” from guns.

    the simple fact is they are liars.

  242. Bizarre. I’ve had a couple of your books on my wishlist for at least a month. Read the whole article and then figured out you were the author of those books I thought looked so interesting! Enjoyed the article and the thought that went into it.

  243. God bless you Mr. Correia, I pray that your essay makes a difference with one or more of our elected yahoos in Washington.

  244. I am Australian and I wanted to tell you that right after the mass shooting in Tasmania, my Father said (and I believe he is right) “if there had been just one household with a gun owner on that street, there is a good chance no one would have died, or at least only one or two”. It has always been his belief that every home should have a gun and every parent should be responsible for teaching their children about gun safety. We had guns in our house growing up, yet we all knew not to touch them and we all knew ammo should always be kept separate from the gun.
    My advice to you sir, is that you should run for President! Or move here and become the Prime Minister….

  245. Awesome. Basically, anytime anyone gets into a gun control argument, instead of wasting time, just give the person this link and ask them to refute all the points contained herein.

  246. Good post, but I think you overlooked one of the strongest arguments against the type of bans that you referenced. Any government ban leads to corruption, and the degree of corruption is directly proportional to the desirability of the banned item. Bans are not the enlightened path to societal bliss; they are both a cause of and evidence of a society in decay.

  247. I’m a 21 year veteran of the USAF. It categorically does NOT require someone with special forces training to stop an active shooter. All it requires is someone with the tools and the courage to fight back. This is the only thing you need – the ability to fight back. Creating gun free zones doesn’t work. Creating laws banning an item doesn’t work. We have laws against murder already…it doesn’t stop the crazy and the willfully criminal out there. You simply cannot have a totally safe environment when you have humans involved. It will not happen. Our society has already mitigated the chances of this via our system of laws and our use of police forces.

    Gun control would punish the 80 million (estimated) law abiding gun owners in America – and wouldn’t have changed this situation one iota.

  248. Yeah, now that you’ve told me that the people who think we need to control guns “only want to increase their power and control” but that you are the good guys who really know what makes others tick…but, just in case we don’t get it about who’s really in charge, should there be any kind of ban-and-confiscation law, you’d all just shoot the authorities, thanks for letting me know where the ‘gun nuts’ (your term) really stand. Really.

    1. That’s the thing. Most of us simply want to be left alone. People like you are trying to take away our right to defend our homes, families, and freedoms. Just because you and people like you are helpless worms without honor or accountability doesn’t give you the right to take away the freedoms that other Americans much braver than you fought and died for. I’m sure some of your ancestors were counted among those lost in the defense of freedom from oppression. You dishonor them and yourself.
      You and your cowardly brethren disgust me beyond measure . I however would never never seek to deny you your rights under the Constitution. You seek to deny ours and we are the nuts?

    2. So you were OK with the Selma County Sheriff upholding the law and beating the living daylights out of all those blacks who wanted to vote?

      Can’t have uppity folks going to the wall to defend their rights now, can’t we?

      You are just another anti-human-rights bigot, Sue.

  249. Shared with folks who are not likely to comment here. 71 yr old mother and 69 yr old aunt. My aunt lives in Hawaii and is not a gun owner but will be looking into it now. Mom wants to go buy a shotgun now. She can’t move the slide on my carry weapon so a shotgun is her choice. That will happen very soon.

    When bad things happen folks keep pointing out that the police have guns and we should call them. I have MUCH more training, that I paid for, than the local Law Enforcement folks but they are the ‘professionals’…right.

    I was the kid that was picked on in high school. I was stuffed in lockers, trash cans and anywhere else my small body would fit. I was punched on a regular basis. It wouldn’t be fair to call it a fight, I was too scared to resist. I also had the combination to the gun safe at home. Taking any gun to school never crossed my mind.

    My qualifications are not near as extensive as Larry’s. I was the range officer at Seal Beach NWS for a while and as I said above, have paid for more training as a civilian.

  250. Thanks for this. I have felt for the last while that there will be a strong effort on Mr Obama’s part to disarm Americans. I found your thoughts on this issue insightful. I have thought that there would not be much co-operation from our military or police forces in this type of scenario. But I don’t trust this president as far as I could throw him and am convinced he’s fully capable of enlisting the aid of UN forces to carry out his agenda. Just a thought I’ve had.

  251. Great article but it had one overall flaw: in many cases you did not reference your sources for many of the “facts” that you presented. I would like to have these – and use them myself in similar arguments. Otherwise fantastic. An outline for a pretty book not yet written.

  252. I write like you do. And I would go back and edit this. There are only a few rough edges. People against you, and the truth – will focus on stuff like “only a few causalities” and other phrases which some will read as cold hearted.

    I am a “gun nut” and know many gun owners as well as those that have their CCWs. The one thing that isn’t mentioned above is this idea: I don’t know a single gun owner that wouldn’t absolutely DREAD ever having to pull a weapon and kill another person (for possibly many reasons).

    Some of those that don’t own guns see us that do as out of control cowboys of the old west, or the lead character from Taxi Driver. We are not.

    I have consistently encouraged people to obtain their CCW, because I know that those who may are responsible, law-abiding citizens. They are precisely who I want having weapons. God forbid that I may NOT be able to protect someone I love, I pray that one of those people WILL.

    I do believe strongly in my RIGHTS to own and carry a firearm. I also believe just as strongly in my fellow law-abiding neighbor to do the same.

    This writing of yours will circle the globe many times and I plan on progressing that effort.

    Cheers!
    ~ Mark

  253. Retired cop and retired army her. This is spot on. It won’t get the attention it deserves from our openly biased media but it is the truth.

    1. Please put a sign in your yard saying that, and stop hiding behind armed homeowners in your neighborhood.

      Bravely show us how ineffective guns are at stopping violence by taunting the lawless thugs in your town with your disarmed and pacifistic ideals.

  254. The essay didn’t even begin to mention the imminent possibility of 3-D printing of AR lower receivers. Or, for that matter polymer magazines.

    Also, artisans and craftsmen in the Mid-East have been able to craft, from scratch from pot metal, completely functioning AK47’s.

  255. Some people can potentially and are known to be able to kill people with bare hands. So lets banthe hands too.. this article/blog is very rational and right on the money. thank you for sharing.. I am passing this along for the bleeding heart libs/dems to read, and hopelfully get a change of heart with respect to gun control/ban. Merry Christmas ya’ll..

  256. Before reading this post, I was mostly uneducated about guns. All I knew was that I didn’t like how violent they were, but I also know that so long as there are bad people in the world, everyone has to have to right to have them…. I know they say guns don’t kill people, people kill people. I just feel that if someone had to kill someone with their own hands, or by their own muscle, they would be less likely to do so…. however, long range attack weapons have existed practically forever. This isn’t a perfect world, and so violence is sometimes necessary in self defense. I feel like I learned a lot from this blog, and I am glad the statistics support what I felt before. I don’t think it’s a bad idea to allow teachers to carry concealed weapons, but I think it is very important for the students to be unaware of which teachers are packing… otherwise, students could take the weapon from the teacher if only for a prank, and that is dangerous. Perhaps if the teacher were trained in self defense as well…. but I found this very informative, and I am glad I read it.

  257. As a CCW holder and full time carrier I hope never to expose my weapon, let alone use it, but if present when evil strikes I will do what I can to respond while others simply freeze in panic. This was a wonderful post, well written, to the point and ‘on target’.

  258. Awesome, Larry.

    Dude. I am not worthy.

    You have provided some sorely needed articulation from the expert-who-knows-his-stuff contingent. I have struggled with trying to write something cogent and pithy for a week now, and your post has handled all the “nuisance flak” trolling that inevitably shows up when someone deigns to voice rationality and reason.

    Yeah, sure there’s some “lint” to pick, but frankly I’ve never sat through a four-hour writing session without getting some “fly poop in the pepper.”

    You’ve been cross-posted kind of everywhere and, as of this evening, also submitted to the “Watchers Council” (Watchers of Weasels) for recognition.

    I’ll be writing a complementary post regarding “modern musketry” some time tomorrow, in which I will link to your post. This will be hoisted over at http://www.noisyroom.net (The NoisyRoom blog).

    Thanks, man.

    You have no idea how many people look to you for leadership.

    Carry on. Please.

  259. My first time posting here, but this was a great read. I hope you don’t mind, but I’m using quotes from this in arguments with several people I know.
    Still, would you mind pointing out the laws that banned “cute, ugly, long, etc.” guns? I would like to see it.

    1. Google up federal assault weapon ban.

      Self loading rifles that were all banned because they looked mean and were painted black.

      Wooden stocked self loading rifles that didn’t have evil looking gew-gaws on them were still OK to buy.

  260. If you ever need some education as to how many of these shooters spiral down into the mental and emotional gates of hell then you might want to know about Peter Breggin, M.D. and Ann Blake Tracy, Phd. They are but a couple of mental health experts who can and do testify in court as to how psychotropics play a big part in these massacres. My blog is http://www.prescriptiondrugsarekillingus.blogspot.com in memory of my son-in-law who died because of poly pharmacy.

  261. You know, while I’ve been a longtime gun owner, even I, until just now, could not see why “well-regulated militia” was part of the 2nd.

    The Founders knew that from time to time we’d need an army of some sort to beat back invasions, aggressors, and other threats. They *also* knew that a standing army was one of the biggest threats to any free state – one military coup, and you’ve lost everything.

    So, you have to have a military around to keep threats away, but what do you do about the military threat? *This* is why “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The right to keep and bear arms is a check on the militia! It has exactly *nothing* to do with people who belong to the militia. It has nothing to do with forming a militia. Arms are the primary mechanism to keep the militia under control!

    For so many years, I’ve heard it argued wrongly by both sides, this didn’t hit me until just now. Leftists always said this reading meant that only the militia could own firearms. The Right always said “that’s because the militia is made up of the people.” They are *both* wrong, and the founders are geniuses.

    An armed populace will not surrender easily to a military force.

    Now, re-read the Second Amendment, with that in mind:

    “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.”

    Samuel Adams in 1776: “A standing Army, however necessary it may be at some times, is always dangerous to the Liberties of the People…. Such a Power should be watched with a jealous eye.”

  262. Great article, Larry. I agree that we should arm teachers. I suggest 9 mm semiautomatic pistols; they are powerful enough and not that bad in recoil. They should be carried in Condition 3, no round in the chamber. Such a pistol is an inanimate, inert object and cannot be discharged so as to accidentally kill or wound a child. Teachers should be trained to draw their weapon from a holster and to be able to rack the slide and shoot.

    If it ever hits the fan when guns are forcefully confiscated, America will immediately become a more dangerous place not only for gun owners but also for law enforcement, the National Guard, and the military. Liberals believe that all gun owners will give up their arms. Not all will, as you state. The $64K question (old folks will recognize this reference) is, “Will the military fire on its own citizens?” I think some will. The military will split in two, those who will support the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution and those who will be tyrants. We, as armed citizens, may have to face armor, jets, armed helicopters, artillery, et cetera. We will only survive and win if a good deal of the military comes on our side and if high-ranking military officers relieve the civilian tyrants in charge. But, unfortunately, a lot of good American citizens will die. And, unfortunately, young members in the military will also die, those who probably haven’t given much thought to politics.

    The gun banning liberals will hide and suddenly come to the realization, “Gee, I could get killed! Maybe I should get a gun!”

    Well done!

    1. From what I understand, carrying a gun with no round chambered came from Israeli circles, often called the Israeli carry.

      Only a handful of their deep-cover operatives carried this way because they assumed that if they had to fight for their lives they would very likely be disarmed and as one of the bad guys tried to shoot him with the gun he’d taken from him, the second of pause that the ‘click-instead-of-bang’ would give them would be enough to kill their attackers with their bare hands.

      If you are advocating teachers to be able to kill a man with their bare hands, good for you.

      From what I understand, the Israelis dropped it after they realized that bad guys usually bring their own guns.

      I’d highly suggest you look into the Tueller drill, the OODA loop and disabuse yourself of this no-round-in-the-chamber nonsense. It’s just a mechanical solution for a training malfunction.

      1. Huh… well, I learned something new.

        Thanks for the read.

        That being said:

        Starting with the premise that it is “a method of carry that allows safe carry with quick response time for (at that time) a largely _untrained_ population with a diverse variety of firearms.”

        Then we go to speed… and yes, racking the slide slows things down dramatically when shooting from close contact. (speed-rock)

        Then we go to safety, and the author contests the person that uses this method of carry (because he is largely untrained) should be able to rack the slide one-handed. (not exactly an untrained skill, especially under stress)

        Ultimately, this article, while very informative, fails in that it looks at CCW from a non-gunfight standpoint.

        “To truly look at the safety issue we need to move beyond the “I’m in a gunfight right now” mentality and move more toward the “What is the risk involved in carrying a gun day in and day out?” ”

        Really? If THAT is the main concern, why carry at all!

        “Let’s face it, for most of us the actual gunfight scene is not going to happen.”

        Statistics are great until it happens to you.

        Once again, thanks for the read. Very informative.

  263. Over a thousand responses(!) and I can’t read them all, so forgive me if I repeat an earlier point.

    My desire is for the Gun Free Zones to be eradicated. They’re insane!

    As a parent, I want to be able to be armed and I am at school enough that it might make a difference. Allowing teachers to be armed and the use of official armed security is great, but let us not forget about all of the parents as a potential security force.

  264. I find your article very interesting. I agree we need more security in the form of officers or service folks trained in these kinds of situations. I was amazed hearing an anti-gun person say how horrible it would be to have armed security in schools. I guess its not horrible that a young man can walk into any school by shooting out a window then go unmolested through this gun free area picking his targets at will with literally zero resistance. Can you imagine as a teacher, hiding your kids in a closet then having to stand there, unarmed and not even be able to lock your door! We need armed security and better security features in our schools. I think it horrible and negligent we don’t have this already. Thanks –

  265. Unfortunately the facts don’t fit the theory that having armed teachers will stop anything. There were armed guards at Coumbine. Virginia Tech had their own police force and Ft Hood is a military base. President Reagan was guarded by well armed Secret Service agents. Hinkley was still able to get off 5 shots before he was subdued. More guns is not the solution. If a kid hits another kid with a rock, do we give rocks to all the kids? Gun fanaticism has led to infanticide. More guns equals more deaths. We’re number one, in deaths by guns.

    1. Columbine: Armed Guard. Not armed guards. Singular, not plural. Would you stop expecting one man to keep a campus with over 2000 students and staff members safe all by himself?

      Ft Hood: So… Military base = everybody must have a gun. ROFLMAO. If you only knew how little the US government trusts it’s soldiers with guns… a state-side administrative area of a military base is a collection of huge gun free areas…

      The facts fit the theory that armed teachers stop violence against students: Do you hear about mass shootings in Israeli schools? ALL their teachers are armed and in school trips, they carry rifles too. M1A Carbines… Gotta love women who know how to accessorize.

      1. One guard who chickened out and ran, and left a school full of unarmed teachers to face the monsters.

        Finding that guard and hanging him for base cowardice would be more effective than not having guards.

    2. Can anyone on the left argue without repeating facebook memes?

      The question is: If you have a rock, I have a rock, and Billy does not; Are you going to throw a rock at me or Billy first?

      By your logic the Secret Service couldn’t stop Kennedy or Reagan from being shot and should be disbanded.

  266. The idea that the purpose of a gun-free zone is to stop mass murderers from entering them with a gun is sort of sweet in its naivety, like imagining that the purpose of a deer-crossing sign is to let the deer know where it’s ok to cross.

  267. So a guy who’s been a gun nut his whole life and now writes gun nut fantasy novels for other gun nuts thinks we should introduce guns into all levels of society (church, school, dog walking, funerals), so that the rest of society can share in his gun nuttery. Freaking retarded.

    You want to stop “mass” shootings, take assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns off the streets. End of story. The only people who disagree with this approach are either selling guns or wearing tinfoil hats cause, ya’ know, the gov’ment can read your mind from space.

    1. Sooo… Mass violence is OK, as long as it isn’t shootings… When it is obvious that criminals don’t care what’s legal or not…

      PS: I sell no guns; I wear no tinfoil hat. Your argument is invalid.

      1. You’re comparing the lethality of, say, a baseball bat or a knife to that of a semi-automatic assault rifle? Really? What planet do you live on?

        1. not really, just wish that people didnt resort immediatel;y to the notion that anyone committing the slightest infraction upon your personal rights should lose their life, and the mechanism by which this is possible….i.e. an assorment of easily available weapons that end a life with a tiny tug on a trigger. Dont you watch Star Trek, man? How about a stun setting?

          I live on planet Earth by the way, with you.

          1. “Dont you watch Star Trek, man? How about a stun setting?”
            and
            “I live on planet Earth by the way, with you.”

            These two statements are mutually contradictory. Until you get the police, including the feds, to rely on “stun setting” and give up their own firearms, it will be taken as proven that “stun setting” is _not_ as effective at defending ones life than are firearms.

      2. According to FBI statistics for 2010, rifles (including “assault weapons”), accounted for 358 murders.
        However, during that same time:

        745 people were killed by “hands, feets, feet”
        6,009 people by handguns
        373 by shotguns
        2,035 by “unknown guns”
        1,704 by “Knife/Blade”

        So, since twice as many people were killed by “hands, feet, fists” than rifles (including “assault rifles”), wouldn’t it make far more sense to outlaw any of the above before rifles?

      1. The fact that tens of thousands of Americans die needlessly to gun violence every year. Time to pick up a paper and look for facts, not this conspiracy theory claptrap.

        1. “Tens of thousands.” “Tens” “s” implies plural. False. A large number of those “killed by guns” (more accurate would be “killed by people using guns”) are suicides in which gun laws are irrelevant. If a person has chosen to end his or her own life then at most gun laws affect choice of method. They do not affect the choice itself. Case in point, Japan. Gun laws as strict as you could possibly ask for yet their suicide rate is higher than our suicide and homicide rates _combined_.

          Also, “tens of thousands” die “needlessly” on our highways from cars exceeding the speed limit or in which alcohol is involved. I don’t see you agitating to ban either of those–cars capable of exceeding the speed limit or alcohol.

          “Die needlessly” hidden assumption there is that with stronger gun laws the deaths would not happen. Assumes facts not in evidence. At best, again, gun laws influence choice of method. At best. The examples of places with strict gun control and low violent crime had the low violent crime _before_ the gun control was enacted. (Yes, yes, “but gun violence…” does a dead person really care if it was a gun, a knife, or being burned to death?) We also have examples of places with strong gun control where “bad guys” (as defined by the government at the very least) still get guns (Northern Ireland ring any bells? How about Mumbai?)

          The worst school massacre in US history was done _without_ guns: Bath Township.
          The Happy Land Fire, as the name suggests, was done with out guns.
          The worst mass murder in US history was done without guns: Oklahoma City.

          Going further afield
          Genocide in Rwanda: mostly machetes.
          Genocide in Europe: started shooting but went to chemicals as “more efficient” for killing large numbers.

          Violence and crime were endemic to the world _before_ guns made the scene. Removing them won’t change that; it will just leave the field to the strongest.

          It has been said that Okinawan “empty hand” techniques (and the use of “farm implements” as “martial arts weapons”) were developed to fight their better-armed overlords. Well the better armed overlords _remained_ overlords, so while that may have been the goal, it failed utterly.

          As for crime on the “retail” level, the “bad guys” get to pick their targets. They get to chose when and where they will strike. Already they choose to attack where the police _aren’t_. That’s one of the reasons the courts have determined that the police have no legal responsibility to protect you. They can’t. They can’t be _everywhere_ and the criminals, not being totally stupid, will attack where they aren’t. In addition, criminals chose their targets. Now maybe you’re a big, strong guy. Maybe if there were no guns you wouldn’t be a chosen target for most criminals. Maybe. But that doesn’t mean the crime wouldn’t happen. It just means that instead of picking you they’d pick someone like, say, my wife. Your “safety” comes at the expense of my wife, who is not particularly big or strong, at least not compared to most violent offenders.

          Are you willing to sacrifice my wife for your safety? I have a problem with that.

          And that ignores that criminals don’t always operate alone. Maybe you’re a world class martial artist. Doesn’t matter. I don’t care how good a martial artist you are, despite what you seen in the movies, three or four guys with knives or even lengths of pipe can really ruin your day.

          No “conspiracy” involved, just recognition that the bad guys and their actions don’t all into your nice, sanitary world view.

          1. 1) We regulate who can drive cars and what kind of cars can be driven on public roads. Is it too much to ask the same of guns?

            2) You’re telling me that if Adam Lanza had been wielding a lead pipe instead of a semi-automatic assault rife 20 6 year old children would still be dead? Come on, you can do better than that.

      2. I get this opinion from 50 years of life. You’re of course entitlesd to your opinion, just like I am. All I see in these other posts is why we cant take away peoples guns…
        Which one of these posts is going to stop the next school shooting…none of them. Its not about guns, its about the devaluing of life in our culture.

      3. “We regulate who can drive cars and what kind of cars can be driven on public roads. Is it too much to ask the same of guns?”

        Ah, the old “license guns like cars” canard.

        I’ll take that compromise right now:
        -license (car or driver) only required for _operation_ on public. No license needed for ownership, possession, transport, or operation on private property (except as determined by the property owner or his or her authorized agent).
        – No background needed for purchase.
        – No Federal license needed for operating a business buying and selling.
        – No federal requirements for building one from scratch, not even if you’re going to sell it, even if you want to do it as a business.
        – No limits on what you can buy. Want a Formula One race car and have the money? Plunk down the money and it’s yours. Want a “big rig” and have the money. Ditto.
        – “Learner’s permit” at 15. Operator’s license at 16.
        – Operator’s license valid in all 50 states and most foreign countries (an “international driver’s license” is simply a translation of your State driver’s license for the convenience of people who don’t read English).
        -And so on, and so forth.

        So, yeah, I’d take that compromise today as a “good first step.”

      4. You don’t regulate guns in exactly the same way you regulate car. The argument that both can and should be regulated according to their own particular circumstances.

        1. So stop making the stupid comparison to cars. It’s either ignorant (_you_ don’t know that guns are _already_ far more regulated than cars) or cynically counting on other people’s ignorance (you know better but trust that _they_ don’t.)

          Thus, pretty much proving Larry’s point about the ignorance of gun-grabbers.

          1. A lunatic with a semi-automatic machine gun just killed 20 kids. And you think guns are regulated enough? Hope it’s not your kid next time.

          2. “semi-automatic machine gun.”

            You’ve just demonstrated your complete ignorance of the subject. Thank you for playing. (Hint, those two terms are mutually exclusive.)

            Would you have preferred that he were armed with half a dozen or so cap and ball revolvers, maybe with a spare cylinder or two each (a common historical “quick reload” method)? Would you have preferred if he were armed with a bolt-action rifle and a half dozen or so “stripper clips” for quick reload?

            He was given a free fire zone where he knew he wouldn’t face armed resistance until the police could get there.

            I would have preferred he were _stopped_, preferably before he started but, failing that, as quickly and decisively as possible. Requiring him to take a couple extra seconds to reload doesn’t accomplish that.

      5. Bad opinions have killed far more people that either guns or cars.

        Over 120 million people died in the Twentieth Century from bad voting and bad political opinions.

        Therefor we need to immediately regulate the dissemination of political thought in order to prevent deaths.

        We should start by immediately require people like Porter to obey a 30 day cooling off period and background check before posting another reply to this thread. Think of all the lives that can be saved!

    2. Not a gun nut, not selling guns, not reading Larry’s novels and not, currently, wearing _any_ kind of hat.

      I _am_ interested in intelligent dialogue, so you might want to open your mind and engage on the issue rather than speaking to others in exactly the manner deplored by the writer of the initial piece. Otherwise, you leave yourself open to unflattering opinions of your intelligence that are furthered by your inability to engage in civil discourse. By which I mean: no one will listen to you or your opinions because you are rude and appear disinterested in the thoughts of others.

      1. Dude, the OP begins by calling everyone who doesn’t agree with the author either ignorant, delude, or obnoxiously stupid.

        If you think that’s intelligent civil discourse, time to turn off Fox News and step out of the bubble, son.

        1. Perhaps you can point me to where you’ve made the same cautions about language to folk who oppose the RKBA? You know, the ones where they’ve called us things like baby-killers and what not?

          Or are you just a hypocrite who only thinks “intelligent civil discourse” works one way?

      2. No, he pointed out that he was not addressing this to people who were obnoxious, stupid, and unwilling to listen to reasoned arguments.

        I am sorry that you feel you fall into that category.

    3. So, Porter, tell me exactly how you accomplish that. Do you know how many households own “assault rifles” (a meaningless term, which you would know if you’d actually read Larry’s piece) and semi-auto handguns? Do you know how many of them would categorically refuse to turn them in? Are you going to go house-to-house on a confiscation spree?

      How many people are you willing to murder in order to attain your gun-free utopia? How many other Constitutional rights are you willing to violate in order to eradicate the 2nd Amendment?

      1. And what about those who don’t rise to the bait of your “generous” buy-back program? And you’re delusional if you think that criminals are going to sell their guns back, so your “peace on Earth” statement is patently ridiculous. Try living in the real world, not some made-up utopia where bad guys see a new law and go “OH! WELL. I guess I’ll follow THAT one.”

        Also, as regards your reply below to Spencer, NO ONE “carries” AR-15s around for self-defense because they are bulky, heavy, and difficult to conceal. And the semi-auto handguns you are so afraid of are THE handgun of choice for everyone who carries concealed. What kind of “hand gun” are you suggesting he carry?

      2. 1) Pass state laws to make CCW holders state militiamen.

        2) Allow them to buy fully automatic M-16s as state militia weapons from state governments. Who needs mere semi-autos now?

        3) Laugh at anti-gun retards like you who used to argue that the second amendment was all about the State’s right to arm militia.

    4. You’re comparing the lethality of, say, a baseball bat or a knife to that of a semi-automatic assault rifle?

      How about the lethality of 1-3 people rolling me because I walk with a cane and a limp and appear to be an easy mark? You’re fine with people being assaulted as long as it isn’t with a gun? You’re fine with people being assaulted but having no means to defend themselves?

      You don’t even have to shoot someone the presence of a gun can be a deterrent. Being hit with a baseball bat can kill you, it can also leave you crippled for life, same with a knife. So it’s okay for me to be assaulted, but not okay to have a gun that doesn’t have to be fired?

      1. then buy a hand gun or a taser. What you DON’T need is a military grade semi-automatic assault rifle with an extended clip and armor piercing bullets to carry around with you. Unless, of course, that’s what you use for a cane. Please gun folks, make this discussion about the actual issues, not about gun ownership overall.

        P.S. Where do you walk where you’re under constant threat of having three dudes jump you? I live in DC and I don’t even walk around that scared.

      2. In 2007 I had to defend myself and my wife against a local tweaker gang that decided I had dissed them.

        I used a semi-automatic rifle to prevent them from killing me and my wife during the time it took the Hillsboro OR police department to arrive, gun them down, and arrest the two who surrendered.

        Porter … fuck you and the horse you rode in on. If you had had your way, me and my wife would be dead now.

    5. You can “take assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns off the streets”, but you’ll have to go into people’s houses to do it. Let me know when you are coming by my place.

      1. Two words: buy back program… or would that be buyback? Oh, right: buy-back program.

        Unless you’re just intent on shooting law enforcement officers, in which case you’re a menace and shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.

        1. “buy-back program”

          There are over 300 million guns in the US. Average price over $500. That’s $150 billion to fund your “buy-back program” _just_ in the payouts for the guns, never mind administrative and other costs for a program of that magnitude.

          Where do you plan to get $150 billion dollars?

          You are aware, are you not, that the 5th Amendment forbids depriving someone of property without “due process of law” (which does _not_ simply mean “passing a law”) and that it requires taking for “public use” to pay a fair value.

          Or do you want to make the 5th go away just like the 2nd?

          1. Your emotion laden rhetoric doesn’t answer the question. Where are you going to get the money?

            Also begs the question: assumes that if that particular style of weapon wasn’t available that the crime would not have happened. Considering that far more people have been killed without using firearms at all, that is not a valid assumption.

            But thank you for demonstrating that you really are reduced to appeal to emotion and other logical fallacies.

      2. Also, I would like to know how you’re going to pay for this Nationwide Magic Buy-Back Program. What program are you going to cut in order to come up with the funds for it? There’s no Money Fairy, and The Rich are already tapped out.

        Keep in mind that people who paid a grand or more for their AR-15s (and that’s just the gun, not the scope and extra mags) aren’t going to want to sell them back for pennies on the dollar, either.

      3. Two words Porter: Fuck you.

        Right thinking people should not give victim-disarmament bigots like you the time of day.

      4. Kristophr, thanks for the civil discourse. Your inability to carry on a conversation has taught me all I need to know about the pro-gun crazies in America.

        1. And you have demonstrated all I need to know about would-be tyrants and their apologists.

          Agitating to take away people’s rights–and the possession of firearms _is_ a right, so confirmed by the US Supreme Court (Heller vs. DC and McDonald vs. Chicago)–_is_ tyrannical. More than that, it’s hate speech, exactly the same if you were agitating to force people of color to move or deny women or minorities the vote.

          The “collective right” argument is no longer a viable shield to hide behind. The two court cases confirm that it’s a right retained by _individuals_. The “it means the militia” argument is no longer a viable shield to hide behind since “the people” in the 2nd are the same “the people” referenced elsewhere in the Constitution: confirmed by those two court cases.

          Those two cases are the “gun rights” equivalent of Brown v Board of Education.

          The folk arguing against that are the same as those people chanting “two, four, six, eight, we don’t want to integrate.”

      5. David, you really consider yourself the oppressed equivalent of an African-American in the Jim Crow era South? Really? *sigh*

        Look, no one’s trying to take away anyone’s guns. I grew up with guns, I hunt occasionally. I have no problem with hand guns generally. But there has to be a group of reasonable gun owners somewhere who realize that the cost of assault rifles being ubiquitously available (see the most recent event in NY), just isn’t worth the benefit. Benefits that as far as I can tell amount to a hedge against government oppression and as a form of entertainment. But if there is such a group, I have yet to find them. Which saddens me, it really does.

        1. “Look, no one’s trying to take away anyone’s guns.”

          Absolute and complete bullshit. The very _author_ of the first Scarey-Looking Gun ban” said “if I could have gotten the votes to say ‘Mr. and Mrs. America’ turn them all in,’ I would have done it.” with “them” being “guns”.not just “asssault weapons.”

          But thank you for bringing up “Jim Crow” laws. That just destroys the whole “it can’t happen here” line. It not only can happen here. It did.

          BTW, some of the first “gun control” laws in the Nation were passed in the post-war (that’s “Civil War”) south in order to disarm blacks against groups like the “Night Riders” (most vicious of which being the ancestor to the KKK). This was actually remarked in an Ohio State Supreme Court decision from the time so it’s hardly a new “interpretation” (like the “militia clause” or “RKBA is just for hunting” arguments–they are pure fabrications of recent vintage, never used in the first 130 or so years of the 2nd Amendment’s existence).

          “hunting.”

          As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the 2nd is not about hunting. It never has been. That you continue to repeat this canard by this point has to be willful.

          “assault rifles being ubiquitously available”

          As has also been pointed out to you actual “assault rifles” (which have a full-auto capability) are illegal for _anyone_ to own (or transfer) who has not 1) passed an extensive background check, 2) had a “sign off” from their local chief LEO authorizing ownership, and 3) paid a $200 “tax stamp.” These “assault weapons” are simply semi-automatic (one trigger pull, one round) that have cosmetic features that _look_ like the military weapons. My 10-22, probably the most common “plinker” rifle in America can be had with cosmetic gew-gaws that turn it into an “assault weapon” just like the so-called Assault Weapon Ban forbade. It remains a .22 Long Rifle.

          “most recent event in New York”

          You mean the one where the guy who had previously been convicted of beating his grandmother to death with a hammer who started a fire and who used a firearm that was illegal for him to possess (as would be _any_ firearm since he was a convicted felon) to murder the responders to that fire.

          Oh, and since he had spent seventeen years in close association with other convicted felons, do you care to try to float the idea that he didn’t know who to talk to if he wanted to make an illegal gun purchase?

          Great Britain has strict gun control. That doesn’t stop the IRA from getting military grade fully automatic weapons.

          Mexico has strict gun control. That doesn’t stop the drug cartels from getting military grade fully automatic weapons.

          India has strict gun control. That doesn’t stop folk like the Mumbai terrorists from getting military grade fully automatic weapons.

          “But if there is such a group, I have yet to find them.”

          They exist. One term for them is “Fudds”. That you don’t know this just underscores your complete ignorance of the subject.

          “Divide and Conquer” cutting out one part of a group for suppression while saving others for later has long been a tactic of the anti-gun forces:

          First they came for the “assault weapons”
          but I didn’t speak up because who needs an assault weapon?

          Then they came for the Saturday Night Specials,
          but I didn’t speak up because they’re just junk guns.

          Then they came for the high capacity magazines,
          but I didn’t speak up because I only need a few rounds in the tube

          Then they came for all the handguns,
          but I didn’t speak up because I don’t use a handgun to hunt

          Then they came for the High Powered Sniper Rifles,
          but I didn’t speak up because I don’t use one of those.

          When they came for the shotguns and muzzleloaders,
          there was no one left to speak up.

          1. Guns are so easy to get in the US that a convicted murderer was able to get a semi-automatic assault rifle (the same make and model as the one used at Sandy Hooks) and use it to ambush and kill 4 fire fighters. I honestly can’t fathom how you don’t see this as a problem.

            Thanks for the info about the “Fudds”. How demeaning, but it’s still good to know that there are reasonable gun owners out there.

          2. “Guns are so easy to get in the US…”

            Guns are easy to get illegally. Illegally. The gun was illegal. It was illegally purchased by someone who was not able to obtain it.

            Making guns more difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain will have _no_ effect on that because it was _already_ illegal.

            “I honestly can’t fathom how you don’t see this as a problem.

            95 million gun owners didn’t shoot _anybody_ today. Yet you want to punish them for the crimes of one man. I would say I honestly can’t fathom how you don’t see this as a problem, but the truth is that I see it very well indeed.

            Both wolves and sheepdog understand the sheep quite well. It’s the sheep that are clueless about the others (to the point where they can’t tell them apart).

            “How demeaning.”

            Considering what the folk on _your_ side call _us_ on a regular basis, the term “Fudd” is mild indeed.

            “good to know that there are reasonable gun owners out there.”

            Yes, would be tyrants always find it pleasant to know that there are useful idiots willing to sell everyone else down the river for their own short-term “security.”

          3. Seriously, he beat his grandmother to death with a hammer. Beat her to death. With a hammer. His grandmother.

            What was this guy doing walking around free? If they weren’t going to execute him outright they should have locked him up and thrown the warden away.

            The problem there wasn’t availability of guns to law abiding citizens. It was that he was walking around free.

            I don’t always agree with Tom Kratman (another author that, like Larry, is published by Baen Books), but I think he has a point with the argument that we should go back to executing “common law felons” (to distinguish from a lot of “mala prohibita” so-called felonies that really shouldn’t be).

    6. First you post this. “You want to stop “mass” shootings, take assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns off the streets.” Then you post this. “then buy a hand gun or a taser.”

      First I do have a hand gun, just not a CCW as I live near Los Angeles and it’s very hard to get one. That aside, unless it’s an antique gun, or a replica all hand guns are semi-automatic. Semi-automatic means 1 trigger pull one bullet leaves the barrel.

      As for a taser, that’s a one shot weapon, and doesn’t stop everyone. If they are wearing a thick jacket it might not work as the prongs need to be in the skin. Plus a taser/stun gun deter them, but just pulling a gun could get them to back off.

      As for where I’ve been that I feel in danger, I find it interesting that I need to justify my safety needs but okay I’ll go along to get along. I’m an amateur Theater Critic, I do so to improve my writing skills and promote my first book via my blog. I’ve even been featured on http://losangeles.bitter-lemons.com/ multiple times. Most of the Plays/Shows I review are at black box playhouses in bad neighborhoods. To get to one Playhouse I have to walk by an apartment complex that I’m pretty sure is a crack house. At the very least I’ve seen drug deals going down. I would feel much safer with a concealed gun instead of just my cane.

      With your vacillation from taking all semi-auto hand guns off the streets and saying I can have a hand gun I have a question. Would you allow people to have guns if they “prove” they need them? If so who gets to say what is a valid reason for having one? I’m 27, what if someone looks at me and says my safety isn’t a valid reason?

    7. thewriterinblack “Would you have preferred that he were armed with half a dozen or so cap and ball revolvers” If we are going to go with historical rounds as an engineering student I’ve alwayse liked volcanic rounds, and other functioning rounds that didn’t seem to become common place. Though they were functional there were a pain to manufacture. I may be mistaken but the volcanic rounds were one of the first caseless rounds, as well as playing nicely with the rifling. If you know of any other obscure rounds please let me know I love studying up on something I haven’t heard before.

    8. Porter aside from your vacillation in terms of saying ban all semi-autos, and then telling me maybe I should buy a hand gun I have noticed other errors in your knowledge base. This is understandable everyone has gaps in their knowledge until they fill those gaps. What is not understandable is your choosing to propose regulations on something you seem to know nothing about.

      Perhaps you should take a page out of my book; vis a vis voting, regulation, political debating(though you can debate something you don’t know if you do so from the stance that you are willing to learn from your opponents), proposing solutions. If I don’t know enough about an issue I educate myself before I engage in the list I have provided.

      For example, I can’t remember the last time I voted for a judiciary position or school board member. It’s not that I don’t care about the legal system or school system. It is a lack of information, for years there wasn’t independent information on those ballot issues. Now times have changed and it’s possible to google them. It then becomes an issue of time for me. I’m dead after school and work, so I research the ballot measures I know will have a dramatic affect on my person or the city/state as a whole. I’ve also abstained from a few measures that I was unable to come to a firm conclusion on(though measure abstention occurs far less frequently for me than on actual politicians). Voting isn’t just a Right, it’s a Duty, and we all have a Duty to Vote well.

      So just as I have abstained from other issues; perhaps you should consider abstaining from any ballot measures about guns. At least until a time in which you can learn more about guns themselves as well as the issues. I would also suggest gathering information from multiples sources including those you disagree with, as you are apt to learn more form those you disagree with than those you agree with.

      Voting, civil discourse, public participation are not just Rights. They are are Duty as citizens and we must do our best to fulfill this Duty to the best of our abilities. Voting on something you don’t fully understand is not only dangerous, it borders on being an evil act.

      1. Darren, fucking chill. You are debating gun nuts, they rely on facts and common sense, not hysteria. As an Anti-gun nut you should research actual facts and use some common sense in making points in responding, otherwise you look a fool

      2. Darren is making a *PRO*-gun argument, 31BMSG – perhaps you should take your own advice and ‘fucking chill’.

    9. “Kristophr, thanks for the civil discourse. Your inability to carry on a conversation has taught me all I need to know about the pro-gun crazies in America.”

      While I have seen some negative comments on here I think you lose something in your cry for “civil discourse” when you follow up your statement with “pro-fun crazies”…

      Your statements in this post aside, there is your history of vacillation, and your statements that are just down right incorrect. On top of that, you seem to ignore posts that call you out on your mistakes, or your wavering stance.

      Ignoring posts because they called you out on something, or challenged your views in such a way that you could not counter them is not a form of civil discourse.

      Civil discourse involves critical thinking, an ability to take in new information hold it to the rubric of your own knowledge. Then either change your current belief, or synthesis a counter argument as to why you think the information you just took in stands invalid.

      Ignoring arguments that you can’t counter, or being snippy and inferring that someone needs to prove to you why they feel a need to defend themselves isn’t very civil. One must engage in civil discourse before they can cry foul. At the very least they can’t be uncivil in the same breath in which they cried foul.

    10. “True enough, but I have yet to drop the f-bomb on anyone, which Kristophr has done twice in this conversation. I guess you missed those…”
      So you’re going with the “two wrongs make a right” or the “but he started it”, both of which are logical fallacies the bandwagon fallacy to be specific.

      You’re response doesn’t address your wavering from statement to statement, your incorrect statements on guns themselves. It doesn’t address your snippy demand for a reason as to why someone else feels the need for self defense. It doesn’t address that your statement is a composition fallacy, that is if you are safe in DC you can’t see how someone else could feel unsafe. Nor does it address your lack of response to civil retorts which you have been presented with.

      You have received several civil replies, but you seem to use the few uncivil replies you have received as an excuse to not answer the civil ones. You’re posts are full of fallacies, and incorrect statements.

      That was the nature of my most recent reply to you. How can you expect civil discourse when you yourself don’t conduct discourse in a civil manner? Fallacies, dismissing retorts, and ignoring when you have been called out on your incorrect statements/ wavering statements is not very civil.

      In the face of incivility you should respond with even more civil responses than you already have, instead you use others incivility as an excuse for your own.

      1. I’m sorry my supposed use of logical fallacies offends you so. Rest assured, however, that I will not tell you to f-off, nor will I threaten you with violence, even though that is how I have been treated on this forum. I’m happy to be the better man in all of this.

    11. To my knowledge I have not made threats against you. Yet you use that as an excuse to ignore my and others posts?

      As for your fallacies, it’s not that they offend me. They are the antithesis of civil discourse. Civil discourse requires logical arguments, when you’re arguments aren’t logical your discourse ceases to be civil. The threats you have received(again not from me) are also a form of fallacy.

      Even you’re saying “I’m sorry my supposed use of logical fallacies offends you so” is itself more than one fallacy. It’s Argumentum ad ignorantiam that is since you don’t believe you are committing fallacies, though you have been given proof, you say my claims aren’t valid. You also have reversed the Burden of Proof fallacy. Saying that I haven’t proven my case therefore I have to prove my case… It’s a strawman in that you are claiming offense on my part as an excuse as to why my claims that you use fallacies aren’t valid.

      You’re parting statement in this post, you’re attempting to claim the moral high ground is itself an uncivil act. You can’t cry for civility when you yourself aren’t civil.

      Your posts are full of many fallacies, and if you want to continue using fallacies there is nothing I can do about that. But to use others uncivil replies as an excuse for your uncivil replies is just in poor form.

      Try responding to the points I made in previous messages instead of looking for excuses as to your logical fallacies, and uncivil replies. I see no reason why any uncivil replies from other participants in this discussion serve as any justification for your lack of civil discourse.

      The more you make excuses for your fallacies, and uncivil replies the more I think you are unable to actually debate the subject at hand.

      1. Yeah, your major premise, that illogical arguments equal uncivil discourse, is incorrect. If you and I have a discussion where we contest an idea based on logic, then one of our positions must be proven illogical. Ergo, according to your premise, one of us was behaving uncivilly, meaning that no arguments based on logic are civil.

        … I think I’m getting a headache.

    12. You have an incorrect assumption of how logical statements work. It is entirely possible to construct a statement that is 100% logical but incorrect. It is also possible to construct a statement that is 100% illogical but is correct. Logical statements have no bearing on Truth, or Falsehood, correct or incorrect. They are a form of debate, when held to they allow for the synthesis of ideas, and counter ideas. From which Truth or Falsehood can then be determined by the parties involved. Person A makes a Logical statement in support of their case, Person B makes a Logical statement for their case, they then counter each others points with Logical statements. They are then looked at objectively and the truth is determined. Just because the position that a statement supports is defeated doesn’t mean the statement itself is illogical, or fallacious.

      You’re just looking for excuses at this point… You have yet to counter my original points of your vacillation, your incorrect statements regarding guns themselves and other points I have made.

      You are not conducting discourse in a civil manner, and are grasping at excuse after excuse instead of actually responding.

      Perhaps you wouldn’t have a headache if you actually addressed my points instead of engaging in mental gymnastics to justify your illogical statements, and uncivil way in which you have tried to dismiss my points.

    13. Even ignoring your logical fallacies, you are still debating in an uncivil way. You use the attacks of a few as an excuse to not address all counter arguments. You paint all pro-gun people as crazy. You vacillate, and demand proof for why someone else feels the need to defend themselves because you don’t feel the need to. Then when called on all the above you simply ignore it, or make excuses that you have been treated uncivilly…

      You can’t demand civility while being uncivil yourself… As I’ve said if you are being treated uncivilly your response should be to respond with even more civility. Two wrongs don’t make a right…

    14. I have to give you points for working Monty Python into the debate. Anytime you can work Monty Python into a real debate it breathes levity into the situation.

      That aside, am I to take it from this most recent retort that you aren’t going to address this post.

      “First you post this. “You want to stop “mass” shootings, take assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns off the streets.” Then you post this. “then buy a hand gun or a taser.”” I won’t quote the whole thing as that would eat up posting space, and be redundant.

      Or how about my post suggesting abstaining from voting on certain measures until you know more about them as I have in the past?

      Or is it easier to post Monty Python, and hid behind the incivility of others as an excuse not to engage in civil discourse?

      1. Sure:
        1. Those statements are not contradictory. A taser or handgun is a reasonable (if unwise) form of self-defense. An assault weapon is not (nor a handgun with an extended clip).

        2. While generally a good idea to know about the subject on which you’re voting, if you expect Americans to stop voting on issues just because there’s someone somewhere who doesn’t think they know enough about the subject at hand, i think you’ll be disappointed. Besides, content knowledge is overrated–Adam Lanza no doubt knew WAY more about guns that I do, but I’d trust my conscience over his in questions of how to keep 6-year-olds alive in the face of mass murderers wielding assault weapons.

    15. Not contradictory? I’ll quote you again. “You want to stop “mass” shootings, take assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns off the streets.” Then you post this. “then buy a hand gun or a tazer.””

      You said take all semi-automatic handguns off the streets, unless it is an antique revolver, or a modern replica all hand guns are semi-automatic. Can you not see a contradiction there? Oh I see to save face you are trying to say it’s about the size of the magazine. Will you please stop using the word “clip” already, you don’t put a clip into a gun you put a magazine in.

      Which is unwise though the tazer which will only temporarily incapacitate 1 person and that is if it doesn’t malfunction. Or the handgun which may not need to be fired to get criminals to leave you alone? What if there is more than 1 person attacking you? Which one is the unwise form of self defense, the form that can stop multiple assailants, and might not even need to be used? Or the form of self defense that can only take out one criminal and is prone to more malfunction?

      While we are at it, what do you consider an extended magazine? My current gun can hold 10 bullets and is flush with the bottom of the gun. I do like how you try to make it about an aspect that I haven’t addressed though, is that in an attempt to cover up your faulty argument?

      Still I pose my question again. Which is it, do we ban hand guns, or can I have a hand gun? Who gets to decide that, as you prejudged that I shouldn’t need one since you feel safe even though you live in DC. Why should you or a government agency decide if I can exercise my constitutional rights?

      Going through and pointing out another quote you’ve made that show you need to learn more on guns.
      “A lunatic with a semi-automatic machine gun” Machine guns are not semi-automatic. There are some select fire weapons that can cycle from semi-auto to full auto. For the most part it’s not legal to own a full auto weapon. Machine guns however, are full auto 100% of the time, the weapon used wasn’t a machine gun as it’s not legal to own one unless you have a very expensive license for a legacy weapon. So even if your statement was correct he would have obtained it illegally, and stopping other citizens from having guns would not have stopped him.

      I pulled that other quote to illustrate my counter to your second point. The fact that you need to learn more about guns.

      Not just content knowledge as you put it, because it seems you lack knowledge on the intangibles of the topic as well. Your statements equating gun-nuts to crazy people based on the actions of a few posters show you need to take in more information. Heck you even seem prepared to judge all gun owners and vote based on that assessment from the recent actions of a few criminals. To vote blindly on something that will affect so many law abiding persons based on the illegal actions of a few illegal persons is mind boggling.

      At present I don’t think many Americans know they can or should abstain if they don’t know about an issue. That’s why I bring it up every so often to spread that thought around. If you are saying that most people will be resistant to a reasonable argument and continue to vote blindly well that is a sad thought indeed. It appears that you will continue to vote on things you don’t know because your conscience though lacking knowledge is better than the conscience of a criminal who had knowledge.

      …Wait really? So you’re advocating voting without knowledge as long as your conscience says it’s okay? Do you know how many atrocities have been committed throughout history because individual or collective consciences have said something is okay?

      You’re right if I continue to encounter persons who after being presented with the knowledge that they can abstain; will decide to keep voting I will be disappointed. Quite frankly I find that sad, and akin to the definition of insanity. You’re telling me that because of the actions of a small % of criminals you will disregard the actions of the overwhelming majority who don’t break the law?

      Is there anything else you feel your conscience compels you to vote on though you do not have all the facts? How about this, if your conscience compels you to vote without the facts and it turns out your vote led to regulations that caused more harm then good would you have a clean conscience? After all, it’s not your fault you voted poorly you didn’t have all the information. If only you could have abstained…

      1. You’ve completely convinced me that I should vote FOR any anti-gun legislation, up to and including a ban on all hand guns. The level of paranoia you live under is just plain unhealthy, and you shouldn’t be allowed to own weapons.

        1. What you fail to realize (or perhaps just fail to admit–you may well realize it) is that you have demonstrated that it is not paranoia but entirely justified.

          A complete ban on even a class of firearms, let alone all of them, would require violating the 2nd, the 4th, and the 5th Amendments for more than 90 million gun owners.

          Paranoid for fearing tyranny? Your proposal is tyranny.

          1. My point, David, is that when you tell people like me that we’re too dumb to vote on an issue of public safety because we don’t get the terminology correct (“clip” seems to be the term most commonly used in the media), then you will evoke the reaction I gave in my previous response. But I am sorry if my tongue-in-cheek comment offended you.

            I’m not convinced by your arguments that we shouldn’t do something to curtail the availability of assault weapons, but I thank yo for the timer you’ve taken to discuss the issue with me. I’ve honestly learned quite a bit through this exchange. I’m going to bow out now. All the best.

          2. Have you listened to yourself? You are justifying making public policy on things of which you are utterly ignorant. It’s not just a matter of “don’t get the terminology correct” but that the reason you don’t is that you don’t know what you’re talking about at a very fundamental level.

            And if you are so emotion-driven that getting called on that will “provoke the reaction” you gave, well, I suggest your comments about paranoia are projection on your part.

            “I’m not convinced by your aguments”

            No surprise. With every post you make you demonstrate that you came here with your mind made up and completely unwilling to listen to anything anybody else had to say.

            “do something”

            Yep, the old “do something!” even if it’s wrong.

            “curtail the availability of assault weapons.”

            Case in point. Deny the rights of literally millions of law abiding gun owners, something that would require stomping on at least three of the ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights to accomplish, because of a few crazies.

            As I pointed out in another post, in 2009 there were, per DOJ statistics, 3,683,750 robberies (a robbery is defined as a theft where force or threat of force is used). If 1% of those were of a dwelling where the homeowner or tenant is present (home invasion by definition) then that’s still nearly 40,000 in a single year. If it’s only 0.1%, that’s still nearly 4,000.

            Local news reports here in Indianapolis on home invasions, compared with statistics on total number of robberies, suggests that the “actual number” is somewhere between those two limits.

            When it comes to defending ones home against a home invasion, nothing does a better job than a fairly compact semi-automatic rifle with an intermediate power cartridge. The pistol grip that makes libs wet themselves means that it’s easier to maneuver in tight quarters (like your hallway). A rifle is easier to aim and more accurate than any handgun. The “flash suppressor” diverts the flash to the sides rather than up in your line of sight, meaning you can keep eyes on target and are less likely to be temporarily blinded by the flash in the dim light (as robberies often happen at night). A rifle has better “stopping power” than any handgun. Even so, it’s not uncommon for a violent offender to keep going after being shot several times. While the “average” might be stopped in one or two or even three shots, when life is on the line, you don’t plan for the average. You plan for the worst case. And in the worst case you keep shooting until the threat stops. Being able to do that, by having a magazine of the normal size (“extended capacity” is a misnomer) is part of planning for that “worst case.”

            And that leaves aside cases like the LA riots where people with “assault weapons”, by simply sitting on their rooftops with those weapons prepared to defend their homes and businesses, were able to divert the riots from their neighborhoods.

            On the flip side, In the 2009-10 school year, there were 11 people killed in school shootings. While tragic, that’s 11. Add in a “Newton” to that level and we’re at 38. Round it to 40 to be “generous.” Even if all of them were committed with “assault weapons” (however that’s defined this week) and that none of them would happen if those e-e-e-e-vil “assault weapons” weren’t available and you’re telling me that you’re willing to sacrifice, by denying them their best means of defense, those 4 to 40 thousand people who are going to face home invasions every year? Their homes, their lives, and their families are expendable on the altar of gun control? Why? Simply because their cases don’t make national headlines and aren’t talked about for weeks afterwards?

            Minimum of about 4000 home invasions a year, many in households with children. How many of those children are you willing to sacrifice on the altar of gun control? Don’t you care about the children?

            I certainly care. I just don’t happen to think that restricting the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves, their homes, and their families, is the best way to deal with the problem.

      2. thewriterinblack With you post starting “Have you listened to yourself? You are justifying making public policy on things of which you are utterly ignorant.”
        Thank you for that. Your post is more articulate than I was able to come up with. You touched on his projecting his feelings on us, and his voting emotionally. You’re post said all that I was unable to in my replies.

    16. You are completely incapable of civil discourse aren’t you? You make logical fallacy after fallacy. Prove you don’t know about guns by your frequent mistakes. And you’re response is to disarm me for pointing out your mistakes?

      I’ve even told you of a better, more rational way to exercise your voting duty, and your response is to vote away my gun rights?

      I’m not the one who is paranoid here. When confronted with logic and rational statements you cringe in so much fear you’re only conclusion is to vote away my and others rights?

      You must be a troll, I find it hard to believe that someone who could come to your conclusions would have enough common sense to remember to breathe.

      I just think it’s really hilarious that you cry for civil discourse yet when your faults are pointed out you try to question the definitions of logic and when that fails you resort to labeling me paranoid. You are in severe need of remedial philosophy logic and debate classes.

      Don’t worry though, me and my guns will go nowhere near you. I try to avoid unsafe situations. From your debating style it’s clear I wouldn’t be safe around you.

      1. Spenc what a wonderful response to this idiot! Your wit and writing style is similiar to mine. You closed out my year perfectly reading this, and gave me hope for the new year. Thank you! I believe our logical discourse will win against the low information fact-phobic anti gun crowd we are up against in the end.

      2. @Bill
        Thank you for your kind words. I admit though I got a little hot headed and strayed from my normal civil tone. I try to remain civil when debating as it is not only polite it allows for the synthases of ideas as well as the free ascent of knowledge. I reached my civil discourse breaking point with Porter here though.

        I had provided logical argument after logical argument and deconstructed their counter arguments while pointing out their fallacious points. His response was excuse after excuse, and even at one point saying that arguments must be logical fallacies or no one would ever win the argument. From there he went into insults.

        I just couldn’t handle it anymore. While I generally believe that uncivil ripostes should be met with even more civility on my part. Sometimes a troll must be called out for being a troll.

        Thank you again for your kind words and I believe you are correct. Logical and civil discourse will triumph in the end. If only for the fact that it will cause such cognitive dissonance in our opponents they will lash out and show their true colors.

        1. It is appreciated when you keep the discourse as civil as possible. Every “gun wielding maniac” they can portray as being angry and irresponsible is another check in their ban more guns win column. Every calm rational thought out reply especially in response to their provocations is a win in the Second Amendment rights column. Let the “lunatic left” hoplophobes lose the argument by demonstrating they are fearful madmen who are incapable of knowledgeable rational discourse on this issue.

          The ones I am most worried about are not the average hoplophobes who just hate guns, but the crafty fascists hiding behind them using their fear to achieve their anti-gun agenda to eventually take over and control of the country. A person who is scared can potentially be talked out of their irrational fears. A person with fascist ideals can rarely be talked out of their ambition to rule over others.

      3. @Kelly Martin
        I agree every time I or others lose our cool and act uncivil it is a negative mark that can be used against us.

        Sadly even when we are cool, calm, collected and logical that can be used against us. Not in any rational way… I’ve thoroughly trounced others using logic as well as proper definition and facts many times. Many times I am than accused of being “too cold, logical, detached” and that because of my logical approach I can’t be trusted. Obviously my logic masks cold hearted sociopathic(sp) tendencies. I’m told I am only using logic to make sure I don’t resort to violent rhetoric(this is really funny when the saying this uses violent rhetoric themselves).

        Those who engage in fallacies, and who seek to take away the rights of others will alwayse try to turn our positive attributes into negatives. As you implied they are lost causes.

        I will however continue to use logic, in the hope that those who witness such actions will come to realize the true nature of those I argue against. I will also continue to use logic because insults and accusations of being a sociopath are a small price to pay to maintain my civility and expose the true nature of others.

        I’m interested in your experience though. Have you found that after someone can’t defeat you when you use logic they try to label you as the villain because your use of logic?

        1. I am quite willing to use any rhetorical means to challenge an opponent beyond logic if necessary. What I refuse to do is treat someone impolitely in the process. I will use reducto ad absurdium, bad analogies, weak metaphors, etc. if that is what most appeals to make a case to their level of understanding.

          I do not call specific individuals names, not even President Barak Obama. However, I do arbitrarily categorize groups of people into unflattering classifications just as they intentionally do to us. I don’t feel constrained to in any manner fight fair, I do however choose to fight “politely” in the face of their agitation. If a term like Hoplophobe or fascist fits the argument they are presenting, then I have no problem calling it as I see it. I do not feel obliged to give their position a fair hearing unless they also show they can give the same consideration to points made by our side.

          I will feel free to be passionate and emotional regarding my feelings on an issue. What I will not do is be angry and hate filled about any issue. Enthusiasm, not anger is the way to get past the unfeeling “rational” only argument limitations. In this particular case I think people need to feel in their core being that the limitations on the government’s power provided by the Bill of Rights are necessary for freedom, and that the Second Amendment is the critical right to protecting against infringements of the rest by an over reaching tyranny. As I have said before, every tyranny starts by saying they are trying to perform “the greater good”. What differentiates a tyranny from a reasonable government is that tyranny always tries to remove rights “for the greater good”. In my philosophy the actual greater good is never served by limiting people’s rights.

          I may of course be called on not having enough “rational logic” behind my philosophy of governance or its basis. My response is simple, people are at their core naturally irrational beings. My irrationality is not any worse than anyone else’s. The difference is that my irrational belief is not requiring anyone else to surrender their rights to create utopia. Utopia is simply a myth sold by ambitious people who want control over others. Every historical attempt at creating utopia has shown this eventual result. People are not perfect beings, and never will be. Bad things will always happen in greater or lesser quantities, and pretending that forcing everyone to think nice thoughts will stop bad things is utterly foolish.

          Some people are simply broken, evil, screwed up, crazy, or whatever else you want to call it in the political jargon of the moment. A portion of this is probably the fault of society at large, some of this is genetic, and thus beyond anyone’s control. Most of it is people making choices to become bad actors against their society.

          The problem is that these outliers of society are actually the minority. Most people happily live their lives within the bounds of their society as long as it isn’t a repressive one. These outliers have a disproportionate amount of impact in comparison to their numbers. Unfortunately modern governments do poorly at separating these outliers from the masses. In order to restrict their influence the easiest solution they can conceive is to restrict everyone “to be fair”.

          It may be “irrational” of me, but I don’t feel a need to be fair to the outliers of society. When they deliberately set themselves outside the bounds of society, then they need to be handled as such. If some lunatic thinks it is personally desirable for them to murder innocent children, or citizens because of their rage issues or psychosis, then I have no problem with thinking that individual, and society as a whole is better off if they are dead.

          I would personally prefer such an aberrant outlier individual to self “check out” before trying such an action. If that isn’t possible I want a responsible citizen to stop their action before they can create the greatest level of harm they intend. If that citizen can do so with a kind word and a slice of pie, then great, I have no objection. If it takes a responsible citizen with a Concealed Carry Permit, or open carry firearm to do so, then I’d accept that outcome as well.

          What I do not accept is a reduction of our freedoms, and a strengthening of tyranny to “feel safer”. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, anyone who would trade liberty for security deserves neither. There are no guarantees of absolute safety in this life. Any claim to such is an illusion sold by dishonest people to willing dupes. At least that is how I feel about it. No statistics or facts required to make my point here.

          I hope this helps.

    17. “My point, David, is that when you tell people like me that we’re too dumb to vote on an issue of public safety because we don’t get the terminology correct (“clip” seems to be the term most commonly used in the media), then you will evoke the reaction I gave in my previous response. But I am sorry if my tongue-in-cheek comment offended you.”

      I did not say you were too dumb to vote… You should drop the persecution complex.

      I did nothing but suggest you do the same as I have done it the past. That is abstain when you don’t understand an issue or know enough about it. I’ve done the same thing, so how could you take offense when I was recommending something I myself have done?

      You seem comfortable voting on something that you don’t fully understand. I won’t vote on anything I don’t understand enough. So between the two of us which is more responsible. The one who goes off and votes emotionally and half cocked. Or the one who chooses to abstain if I don’t know enough about the issue at hand?

      Voting isn’t just a right, it’s a responsibility and one we have to exercise with great care and caution. To vote on something we don’t understand is very dangerous.

      So please stop feigning insult when someone is trying to have a reasonable discussion with you.

  268. Great essay, I posted one myself on my FB page under the two signs of gun free zones or armed teaching staff. Post as follows;
    I’m not saying we should arm every teacher, that’s ridiculous. But there are teachers who might be capable of carrying responsibly and no one would be the wiser. But posting the sign on the right outside of a school entrance might give a potential shooter pause to reconsider. I’ve been around guns my whole life, I’m comfortable with them. I learned early on what they are capable of doing and I have witnessed first hand the carnage a bullet can do. But I also learned that dead is dead, there is no reset button. If you ever want to see me on edge just watch me when I’m around other people who are handling firearms. (I’m almost as tense while sitting in the passenger seat of a car.) Some people shouldn’t be allowed to drive others should not have access to firearms, ever. Personally, I am well trained with a gun both in safety and the proper use of them. My hand guns are registered, I did formal training and completed a thorough background check to obtain a CCL and I carry everywhere. I shoot competitively (USPSA and IDPA) for sport and to keep up my skills. I believe that the right person in the right place at the right time can make a difference. I don’t ever want to be helpless while others are harmed. Anyone who knows me know that I spent my entire adult life in the medical field preserving life. I would hate to ever have to be put in the position, but I guarantee that in the event that someone breaks into my house, threatens my family, there will be a world of hurt coming down. Now, banning guns is just not going to happen. There are just too many out there and there are too many people who would literally fight to keep them. The criminals would still have them and the black market would soar (prohibition hello?). We (Americans) should know that if someone wants to make a statement by killing people they don’t need guns. Terrorist used airplanes, cars, cellphones, and home made explosives. Timothy Mcveigh used fertilizer. Ted Bundy killed 35 people, Deffery Dahlmer 17, and Gary Ridgway 49. None their victims were shot. We have a real problem in our country with mental illness. Many of our mental institutions have been shut down or are understaffed or over filled. Our correctional institutions are over crowded and ineffective as criminals are released every day. Our legal system protects the criminals more than the victims. There should not be a term called repeat offenders. People are afraid to get involved. (I am still baffled at how the mall shooter got from his car to the mall carrying a rifle, and no one saw anything.) Putting an armed guard or surrounding our schools with barbed wire is not financially feasible. (that cost compared to a human life is not lost on me) And no, I don’t think we should arm our teachers, but there may be some who are capable. Same goes for airplanes and malls. Some would argue that there might not have been time to stop the shooting but I would argue this. What would you give to have kept him from shooting even one less child? Could you have tolerated me walking around with a concealed weapon? Could you forgive the teacher who happened to break the rules and used their concealed weapon to save at least one child? Do you think if certain people were allowed to carry, that maybe the planes might have crashed on 9-11 but maybe would not have hit the towers?

  269. Excellent piece. I am a Police Officer in a small Louisiana town & myself & one other officer handle all of our training. We also have begun working with the local school system in an effort to strengthen security at the schools & one of the things we have discussed is the possibility of arming the teachers. I would appreciate any information you could send me that would assist us in proving to the school board that this is a viable option. Any assistance you can give me would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

  270. lets VOTE YES/LIKE this, and we will read/understand it later, u know Nancy Pelosify it….NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!…

  271. Simply said: God bless you sir. That is the most elequent expression of the issues I have heard to date. My wife is an employee at a NJ elementary school where the principal is a US Army combat veteran and one of the teachers (a woman no less) is a US Marines combat veteran with multiple deployments in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They both have CCW permits and ample training, yet they are forced to sit as defenseless in their school as the preteen kids they are responsible for.

  272. THANK YOU for writing this. Think I’m going to keep a copy of this (and the related cited posts) handy – would save a lot of verbiage since I can’t discuss the matter as knowledgeably or eloquently.

  273. Mr. Correia: Like the above poster, please excuse me if I repeat an earlier post.

    I’d like to recommend that teachers and people who work in public places have access to an over-the-counter product that would act as one heck of a speed-bump: wasp spray. I keep a can by my bed — it shoots out powerful (it has to be — wasps are tough insects and they’re crazy), quick-acting (like, immediate) and debilitating chemicals for some 30 feet.

    What if the principal who ran toward the Newtown shooter in an effort to stop him had shot wasp spray at him from her end of the hall? — or if the teacher, Victoria Soto, had been able to confront him with a blast of wasp spray (the shooter entered her classroom after he had murdered the kindergarten class).

    The wasp spray would have not only have shattered the shooter’s fantasy but rendered him unable to function, thereby saving some lives.

    I thoroughly enjoyed this post; it is an excellent piece. Thank you for writing it and for allowing me to comment.

    1. Wasp spray doesn’t work. It may be toxic as heck but it is not immediately disabling.

      I have no idea who started that rumor, but I sure hope it dies away.

    2. Unfortunately, chemical agents are rarely as successful as their manufacturers would wish. Watching news coverage of riots around the world show their lack of effectiveness against determined or altered mental state individuals.

      That said, armed with ‘something’, even chemical agents, at least they could have tried to defend themselves and the children.

    3. Wasp spray is not disabling. I’ve accidentally sprayed myself in the face. It’s nasty and made feel kinda shitty for an hour or so but not disabling. Please do not bet your personal safety on bug spray.

  274. I didn’t know of your Instructional background until I read this. As a fellow firearms instructor, it makes me want to pick your brains in regards how to be the best possible firearms instructor.

    On regards the article, thank you for writing this, you saved me the work and now I can just link people to it and be done with it.

    (What? Oh, here, read this. If you have questions, read it again.)

    On regards your work, I’ve already bought all of your MHI books so it’s wasted in me.

    Gods, that was SUCH a wonderful yarn.

    …it was called ‘The Last Dragon’ and I still didn’t see that one coming…

    Tanya and Ed, as little dialog as they have/need, it’s such a great idea… I look forward to learning about them both.

    Merry Christmas to you and yours.

    Day.

  275. Hypocrisy of Gun Control
    Advocate Dianne Feinstein
    By Ron Branson
    VictoryUSA@jail4judges.org

    According to the testimony of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, out of fear for her life, she carries a concealed weapon, and expresses a willingness to take down anyone who threatens her.

    Thus, relative to the Newtown, Ct. shooting scene, had Dianne been present within that school at the time, she would have pulled her gun and fired back at the assailant as a matter of life and death.

    To make sense of Senator Dianne Feinstein’s position, she thus believes that she has a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and to use it against anyone whom she perceives might threaten her, but she does not believe the People have that same right.

    Her expressed justification for her stated belief is that the world has become much more violent with the People having the same right she has.

    Therefore, she is proposing legislation cutting off access to what she believes are dangerous guns in the hands of People.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vQMwpbSjC1A

    * * *

    Interesting is the change of terms within the liberal media in the furtherance of gun control. Weapons in the hands of the People that are called “Assault Rifles,” are called “Tactical Weapons” in the hands of the government. It just depends upon whose hands the guns are in. Try switching these titles and their applications, and see how the media is manipulating the news, and control of the People.

    I suppose that “Two irons, two irons, the British are coming,” can be transposed into, “The SWAT Teams are coming with Tactical Weapons, and the revoltees are resisting with their Musket Assault Rifles.” Then the news reports, “We just have to outlaw those Muskets, because they are dangerous weapons that must be taken off the streets.”

  276. You’re a true Patriot to teach others for nothing! Most others would have their hand out first you are strong and you’re like I and so many others. Thank you

  277. Well, the Founding Fathers couldn’t have envisioned machine guns so we should only allow muskets. That said, they didn’t envision the internet either, so we should ban the internet. And cars. No cars either.

  278. Why o why won’t more people listen to very detailed, nuanced statements like this? The very people who NEED to hear this are the ones who won’t read it. :headdesk:

  279. Reblogged this on Mutterings and commented:
    This right here is probably the greatest post I’ve seen yet on the “gun control” issue. But because it is long and very detailed, no one will read it. No one will really think about what this writer is saying. No one will take it into consideration. They just want to hear the quick, easy answer of “ban the guns.” :headdesk:

  280. I agree with you and wish you could get some national tv and radio attention. Also be supported to go through Congress educating our elected officials.

  281. It is scary how retarded you people are. “I don’t know anything about mental illness but…. Let’s get into the mind of a psychotic killer.” That is smart. I was going to say that there should be more gun control but honestly they should regulate who gets to posts shit online. Dumb people like you should not be allowed to have your opinion heard.

    1. So not only do you want to abolish the Second Amendment, you want to gut the First as well. Why don’t we just do away with the pesky document altogether? It just gets in the way of what you want to do.

    2. How about refuting the points Larry said. You’re engaging in logical fallacies. Critical thinking and civil discourse require you to actually refute what is said. You can’t simply label something as dumb because you lack the ability to articulate a response.

      On top of that you would limit the first amendment rights?

    3. Guess what Aaron, if we gun owners were so scary, how is it that all you idiotic anti-gun people still breathe? If we were so violent and psycho as you morons like to say, why have we not just dealt with the problem of your ignorant asses?

    4. aaron: At least you admit you don’t like the First Amendment any more than you like the Second.

      Sod off, little fascist.

  282. I am a veteran and have handled firearms in a limited fashion throughout my life. I do not own a firearm at this time but do have the ability to protect myself with various less than lethal mechanisms. One thing I have seen in this argument is that all sides have legitimate points even though they are not expressed as well as they could be by the interference of passion, fear and intolerance by many on each side.
    RESPECTFULLY, I would like to say that I find your viewpoint to be extremely and naturally slanted towards the “give everyone a gun” viewpoint as by your own personal history you have immersed yourselves in selling, promoting, training, distribution and encouragement of auto/semi auto/single shot firearms or the use of these firearms for your entire adult life. Now, it appears that you derive your income from publishing and selling violence filled novels about Hunting Monsters or whatever. I can only assume that these are thrillers in the style of The Walking Dead or some other zombie style blood and guts filled stories. I read your entire blog post with an open mind as it was recommended by a friend. It’s certainly not a surprise to read that you would encourage the arming of more teachers or citizens at large to prevent school or other mass shootings. It’s the only thing you have experience in…”shoot them before they shoot you”.
    I have a different viewpoint that I would like you to consider. I am a big, mean looking guy with tattoos, etc.. that doesn’t get a lot of grief from people. I have never been arrested for a crime and have a pretty good record of service both in the military and a very high tech type of federal service for over 31 years. I operate a national solar astronomy outreach program on my days off and at my own expense, that visits over 60 schools or events per year and teaches over 60,000 people per year about hi tech solar physics in an effort to educate our youth in science before they are incarcerated later.
    Much like the Roman sword, pots of boiling oil, mustard gas, nuclear weapons, etc… have been banned or greatly reduced because of their inherent brutality and the fact that killing folks with these things was thought too brutal to allow them to continue, I believe that the ability to end someone’s life so easily and over the slightest of conflicts with a chunk of led shot from a gun should also be simply taken out of today’s society in favor of less lethal alternatives.
    The little kid in Conn. that shot the other little kids and adults in Conn. mostly draws sympathy from me as in a short 20 years of life I find it unlikely that he was an evil monster or a human being hell bent on murder all by himself, after careful deliberation. It is way more likely that several factors went into his development of this suicidal attitude of hopelessness and rage and that he was never taught right from wrong in his broken household.
    Add to that easy availability of powerful firearms, a constant barrage on TV, the News, books (like yours) , movies, etc… to murders, rapes, glamorized serial killers and other school shooters, graphic autopsies on every channel, sports heroes that brutalize dogs, rape women, abuse children in the showers, belittlement and low self-image at school, a gun obsessed mother, an absent father, etc to this mix and you wind up with 28 people dead in a horrible event that has shaken the entire country. I believe that the devaluation of life in this culture of horror movies and killers is directly responsible for the increase in the number of people who lose their minds and decide to take out another group of innocent people when they kill themselves. The media gives these people an outlet to vent their twisted rage to a much broader audience than before. Remember when you or I were pissed off about something silly as youngsters? We might steal the parent’s car and go for a joyride or go get some beer and just get drunk in defiance of our parents rule. Now, due to the violence culture, you aren’t really acting up unless you kill 20 or 30 people and then yourself.
    I would suggest to you and the others reading this post that the number or types of guns in society is almost irrelevant to stopping this situation from being repeated and that no government entity can legislate morality or do anything about the violence culture that we ourselves support today. The best way forward in my mind is two-fold:
    1) Immediately stop watching or allowing your family/close friends to watch anything in the media that is nothing more than constant bloody killings or that devalues life for no reason other than to sell tickets or video games. Find something else to do. I suggest outdoorsmanship or science.

    2) Put down the electronics and go out into your community and embrace and educate the very people that you are so fearful of now. You know… the ones who you think are dangerous to society or the ones that look or act different from you. Everyone wants to be liked and to feel important. When we rationalize the marginalizing and ignoring of the weakest in our community we are simply furthering that behavior in those around us. This furthers the idea of the haves and the have-nots in society and causes these class differences to breed a desperate underclass that has to murder, rob or steal just to survive. Mainly, because everyone around them has told them how useless they are and how they will never amount to anything because of their color or socio-economic standing. Yes, you may put yourself in more danger or even lose your life in this endeavor but if enough people start caring about others rather than protecting themselves from others, I believe that we could greatly reduce these violent attacks and crime in general.

    Thank you for reading.

    1. “Allow me to make an appeal to authority arguement for the purposes of accusing you of making an appeal to authority argument.”

      Followed by “ramble-ramble, ramble-ramble, BAN GUNS!” there, much shorter.

      Happy to help…

    2. ” I am a big, mean looking guy with tattoos, etc.. that doesn’t get a lot of grief from people.” Well, whoopedoo. I’m happy for you, dude. I’m a small-boned woman with a herniated disc in my back. If I move wrong, it puts me on the ground. You’re not the one with a one in four chance of being raped. You, as a big mean-looking guy with tattoos, are free to walk around unarmed and feel safe doing a neighborhood outreach to drug dealers and criminals whom, I’m sure, will fall all over themselves at your pacifist message of “love one another.”

      Why shouldn’t I get to feel as safe as you do just walking down the street?

      Oh, and I’m going to call bullshit on “having” to murder, steal, or rob to survive. Plenty of people grow up in awful circumstances and never do any of those things. The choices you make determine the life you lead, and people, no matter their circumstances, can choose to be decent human beings. I have the right to defend myself, with lethal force if necessary, against the ones who choose to attempt violence on my person.

      And I’d like you to explain to my 11-year-old child why his mommy shouldn’t get to shoot a rapist right in the face.

      1. wow, you equate school kids with drug dealers and criminals?
        Did you read what you posted?
        I hope you don’t speak that vile hatred around your kid for societies sake.
        Merry Christmas

      2. No, I read what YOU posted, and it sounded like you wanted to preach sweetness and light to drug dealers on the street, not kids in a classroom. I mean, you were the one who said “Yes, you may put yourself in more danger or even lose your life in this endeavor.” My bad for misunderstanding, I guess.

        Although “school kids” doesn’t preclude “drug dealers.” Just putting that out there.

        ALSO, I’m not the one saying that people HAVE to murder and rob because of their socioeconomic circumstances, you are. So perhaps you should be checking your own vile hatred and assumptions. Merry Christmas back.

      3. “And I’d like you to explain to my 11-year-old child why his mommy shouldn’t get to shoot a rapist right in the face.”

        Wild applause here.

    3. the people you are talking about were the kids who had learning problems and they used drugs to stop the problems the educators and medical drs agreed they could control the problem ,but the kids learn nothing then they grow up with no tools to deal with issues they face so they kill ,I think that has gone far enough .Just teach respect through fear let all know they will be stopped before they get the recognition they want and the problem will go away.

  283. You state, “Here’s the thing. Until this national conversation is willing to entertain allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons, then it isn’t a conversation at all, it is a lecture.” No, HERE’S THE THING: you gun lovers had your day in the sun, you lectured us while we were forced to listen and now you have nothing but classrooms of dead 6- and 7-year-olds to show for your efforts. You’re damn right it’s a lecture and it’s time for you to zip up and listen to the rest of us.

    1. Thank you for demonstrating the “tolerance” of the left (i.e. none to speak of).

      The thing is we, as a nation, _have_ been listening. You _got_ your background checks. You _got_ you “gun free zones.” You _got_ your waiting periods. You _got_ your restrictions on automatic weapons. You _got_ your prohibition of interstate transfers except via an FFL (which requires a background check.

      You got all that. Did nothing to curb violence.

      We, as people who support the right of effective self defense have been told constantly that “we need to compromise” when “compromise” was always “give the gun grabbers something they want while not getting anything in return.” We’ve had 78 years of “compromise” (counting from NFA ’34) but despite that we’re told “you need to compromise.” We’ve “compromised” to the tune of 20,000 gun laws on the books.

      We, as a nation, have listened. You’re promises have consistently failed of realization. But that doesn’t stop you from making more.

      And when the policies folk like you propose have consistently failed of their claimed results, but you keep proposing more of the same anyway, then one has to wonder if the claimed results are the real ones after all.

    2. The funny thing about this “conversation” of yours is that the only things you’re bring to the table are ideas that are a hundred years old and that have repeatedly failed every time they’ve been tried. If gun control advocates are really the “progressive” and “reality-based” thinkers they believe themselves to be, why is their mind closed to new ideas that have proven effective in small-scale experiments? Gun-free zones don’t work, they never have, yet your “solution” is to try to turn the entire world into a gun-free zone. That’s mighty “progressive” of you.

    3. See we don’t have to shut up just because you don’t like it. That along with my right to own a firearm (not a POS Bushmaster either) are guaranteed under the Constitution.

      HERES THE THING: People like you have enacted more and more legislation to restrict people from owning firearms. Now something YOU advocated for has caused the deaths 23 children.

  284. You are exhibiting the most confused thinking I have encountered on the subject of gun control. Have you been in a classroom in the past twenty years? Have you even heard of students overpowering their teachers on a regular basis? Have you ever had a teacher lose it and start screaming? Has a teacher ever hurt your child? Have you ever encountered a bitter school employee? Did you know there was an armed cop on duty at Columbine? Please lose your irrational love of guns as a solution. They are the problem, and fools like you who propose putting even more guns in schools are only prolonging the violence in our society. You may have a great background with violence, but you are so ignorant of reality in this day and age. I don’t know you personally, but you sound like the most insecure, frightened, lesser-endowed gun nut, Please examine your own motives for promoting gun violence.

    1. let’s take your load of crap, sorry… your comment, and look at it point by point.

      You comment that students overpower teachers, teachers lose it, hurt children, and are bitter. How did they get this way? and, honestly, does it have any relation to the topic at hand, other than to point out that allowing the leftists to run our educational system unchecked has been a complete distaster.

      The ‘armed guard’ at columbine, -RAN-. That’s right, he fled. instead of doing his duty, that feckless coward ran away.

      Cites..( http://extras.denverpost.com/news/col0419.htm )

      And while you berate someone for an ‘irrational love’ of an object (personally, I love old motorcycles.) you blame the same object for actions that are solely the fault of human beings! My spoon made me fat, indeed…

      oh look, it’s even got the obligatory ‘you have a tiny penis’ reference..

    2. Yes, there was an armed cop at Columbine. But he was pulled off his post inside the school by his dispatcher. When the shooting started he followed the then-current policy of containing the situation and waiting outside for support to arrive. By the time the police had gathered enough forces to go into the school, it was too late. Reviews of this standard operating procedure led to an overhaul of police response to “active shooter” situations which emphasize use of force as soon as is possible and confronting the shooter. It was the old policy of how to use officers that failed, not the police officer.

  285. I started reading this thinking it was an authoritative and different view on gun control. I don’t know much about guns or US gun law – so it seemed like a good idea to read it. Then I got the bit I do know about – international crime statistics – and it was such utter rubbish I had to doubt the rest.

    “Australia had a mass shooting and instituted a massive gun ban and confiscation (a program which would not work here, which I’ll get to, but let’s run with it anyway.). As was pointed out to me on Facebook, they haven’t had any mass shootings since. However, they fail to realize that they didn’t really have any mass shootings before either. ”

    “In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia” http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf

    “And violent crime is up in Australia. A cursory Google search will show articles about the increase in violent crime and theft, but then other articles pooh-pooing these stats as being insignificant and totally not related to the guns.

    So then we’ve got England, where they reacted swiftly after a mass shooting, banned and confiscated guns, and their violent crime has since skyrocketed. Their stats are far worse than Australia, and they are now one of the more dangerous countries to live in the EU. Once again, cursory Google search will show articles with the stats, and other articles saying that those rises like totally have nothing to do with regular folks no longer being able to defend themselves… Sensing a trend yet?”

    All crime, including violent crime, peaked in affluent countries about the turn of the century. The downturn happened somewhat earlier in the US than other countries but is well established elsewhere. US homicide rates continue to be many times the rate in other affluent countries (about 5 times the UK rate). I think you have been reading comics like the Daily Mail in the UK which jumped on a single report and mangled it mercilessly to try and get at the then Labour government. Turn to proper sources such as the Office of National Statistics and you will get a true picture.

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-march-2012/trends-in-crime–a-short-story.html#tab-How-do-trends-in-violent-crime-compare-with-other-countries-

    “And then we’ve got South Africa, which instituted some really hard core gun bans and some extremely strict controls, and their crime is now so high that it is basically either no longer tracked or simply not countable. But obviously, the totally unbiased news says that has absolutely nothing to do with people no longer being able to legally defend themselves.”

    South African crime is out of control. It is a sad commentary on that country that it may be wise to arm yourself. Does the USA want to get to that state?

    “Then you’ve got countries like Norway, with extremely strict gun control. Their gun control laws are simply incomprehensible to half of Americans. Not only that, they are an ethnically and socially homogenous, tiny population, well off country, without our gang violence or drug problems. Their gun control laws are draconian by our standards. They make Chicago look like Boise. Surely that level of gun control will stop school shootings! Except of course for 2011 when a maniac killed 77 and injured 242 people, a body count which is absurdly high compared to anything which has happened America.”

    It is of course absurd to base your case on one incident, however horrific. The fact remains that other affluent countries have far lower homicide rates than the USA. As it happens, Breivik obtained his weapons legally, having failed in other countries. So it looks like Norway’s gun control laws were not strict enough. Pretty much every other country’s laws are draconian compared to the USA.

    1. Why do you foreigners keep bringing up Australia and Britain? Aside from speaking english our countries are nothing alike. Our cultural diversity, ethnic demographics, and geography bear no resemblance to your culturally and ethnically homogenous welfare islands.

      “South African crime is out of control. It is a sad commentary on that country that it may be wise to arm yourself. Does the USA want to get to that state?”

      It’s wise to arm yourself no matter where you live.

      1. Not too bad – since gun control was introduced in 1920 overall crime in the UK has been lower and higher than the US at different times. Currently crime including violent crime is declining consistently from year to year. Homicide has remained consistently far lower (from the current one fifth to one ninth at other times). Firearms homicide has been of the order of 1 fortieth of the USA.

      2. And yet The violent crime rate in total was found by the UN to be one of the highest in the world.

        And Self-Defense has been criminalized there.

        I don’t think “Not to bad” means what you think it means.

      3. I had know idea they criminalized self defense. I know they have banned an ex US military guy from ever setting foot on their soil again because he developed a street usable self defense for dummies program that leaves your attackers very badly damaged. I also heard they closed down the gentleman’s stick defense clubs. The clubs that taught defense tactics with canes. I don’t have any way to verify these claims, but I find it interesting that others have heard of self-defense going out the window.

      4. Kristophr

        There are so many myths about Europe and the UK circulating among the right wing of the USA.

        In the UK you are allowed to use reasonable force for self-defense. This works fine for almost every situation – although just occasionally there are controversial cases where someone is charged with using unreasonable force e.g. shooting a teenage burglar in the back as they are running away.

        Which UN report you are referring to? Perhaps this one:

        http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/data.html

        The most important thing to note is the warning that international comparisons of crime rates are not to be trusted. Different countries define different crimes in different ways and have different processes for recording them. Even if you ignore this you will find that in 2011 the UK had a high rate compared to some other countries for some crimes but a low rate for others. We have a high rate of assault (particularly in Scotland for some reason!) but a low rate of rape and homicide. If you were to go back to over the decades you would find the picture keeps changing.

        What is clear is that the increase in crime that we saw in the UK in the 90s (and which is now reversing) was absolutely nothing to do with new gun control regulations. Private ownership of firearms has been negligible since the end of the second world war when crime rates were very low. The idea that the additional constraints following Dunblane caused an upsurge in violent crime is utter bullshit.

      5. What has caused the upswing in violent crime in Britain is your government’s decision to criminalize self-defense.

        This is incredibly reprehensible.

        No amount of utility can excuse this evil act.

      6. And from what I have read form libertarian groups in Britain, your supposedly low crime rate is simply a pack of lies by your own government to try to excuse this disgusting behavior.

        Get back to us when your own police stops refusing to take crime reports.

  286. I’m an American who has spent about half his life in Australia including the period when guns were effectively eliminated here.To add to the mass murders last week two retired academics from Curtin University in Perth were killed by their son with a sledge hammer. I am too retired from the same university and believe I knew the father very casually. I think you treat the evidence of crime increase here fairly – it is very difficult to make a case that the elimination of guns has resulted in higher crime rates. There were never that many in the first place and they were largely known to the police who took them seriously. I had a friend who had a falling out with his wife and the cops were there to get his registered .22 rifle in short order. Before the ban most Australian police didn’t carry guns, now most all do. And despite politically correct policing policies the Australian police remain determined to be effective. That said, to Australians the situation in America seems to defy common sense. For them gun control is the obvious, common sense answer. After all it worked for them. The 2nd amendment seems like an obsolete bit of insanity – not a founding principle of the country

    That Australian point of view coming from friends over Sandy Hook has sharpened my sense of what is wrong. I think you nail it – Instant fame from the media coupled with clearly labeled gun free zones full of innocents – mostly children. I would add this: We do not leave our gold bullion laying around in a field declare it a ‘theft free zone’, but we do put our children – a far more valuable asset I shouldn’t have to remind anyone – into buildings clearly labeled as having no effective defenses. We even do it to our highly trained soldiers – look at Ft Hood – a gun free zone can even defeat the US Army requiring a brave and straight shooting lady police officer to take down the glory hound. It is a massive policy mistake because it is tactically disastrous.

    Yes we need a conversation about guns in general and gun policy in particular. The sooner schools are known to be not necessarily gun free zones the sooner are kids will be significantly safer. am heartened by your experience helping those willing to step up to take the responsibility of carrying in the Utah schools.

    I think there is a deeper issue – that of the right to self defense which I would count an unalienable human right. Yet governments increasingly try to deny citizens the right to defend themselves going so far as to prosecute people who defend their homes in England for example. In Australia I am not supposed to use greater force than is used against me – try that at 3 AM in a home invasion situation at 70 years of age.

    Thanks for a great post,

  287. While I personify the whiny liberal city dwellers mentioned in the piece, I found this post to be extremely interesting and well thought out. I think you’re absolutely correct when you say that the knee jerk reactions to the Connecticut shootings are likely to only bring about window dressing legislation which makes politicians and voters feel something was done. I also think you’re correct when you say that the gun culture and gun ownership are now so ingrained in American culture that nothing short of truly draconian laws would make any significant impact.—and I further agree that this is not politically possible. Where I think the piece goes off the logical rails is with the claim that widespread gun ownership reduces crime and where it takes a trip to the local mental health hospital is with the claim that the reason we can’t ban guns all together is that there’d be a civil war against a core group of guns nuts numbering in the hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions.

    While it’s possible, as this piece does, to pick up isolated instances of efforts to reduce gun ownership in other countries being followed up by increases in crime rates, this falls into the classic statistical trap of linking cause and effect. There are lots of reasons why crime increases in a particular region so directly linking gun ownership with crime increases ignores all these other possibilities. Since we’re talking about the US all we have to look at violent crime rates. The rate of violent crime in the US is higher than virtually every other first world nation. So, if as the piece suggests, hundreds of thousand, perhaps even millions, of violent crimes are being prevented by lawful gun owners every year if we were to ban guns our violent crime rates would look even more like third world nations. In other words, given our crime rates and gun ownership rates, to believe that gun ownership prevents crime you have to believe that America without private gun ownership would have a crime rate more like Honduras than Norway. If you look at violent crime statistics by country, there is a clear inverse relationship between the level of civilization and the level of violent crime. The outlier is the United States and the only way you can believe that the wide availability of guns has nothing to do with it is if you think American are far more blood-thirsty than the citizens of all other civilized nations.

    As for the loony tunes claim that if there was a gun ban, hundreds of thousands of gun owners would take up arms against the Government (perhaps aided by members of the military who voted for Romney for reasons other than his hairdo) I would think a weapons expert like yourself would realize that tin foil hats are not bullet proof. You spend the entire piece speaking rationally about why we want good guys to have guns and we don’t want bad guys to have guns and then say that some portion of the good guys, in order to keep the guns they so love, would start shooting police, who I guess in the event of a gun ban would be instantly converted from good guys to bad guys? Are we also to believe that these cop-killers are the “well ordered militia” mentioned in the second amendment as the purpose of private gun ownership? It’s actually a shame that you wrapped up such a well reasoned and articulate essay with something so patently absurd that will make it easy to dismiss all of the good points you made. This exemplifies the “pry it from my cold dead fingers” attitude which makes reasonable discussion and possible comprise impossible.

    Is comprise possible? Is there any common ground between gun nuts like you and whiny liberals like me? Actually, I think there is. Reasonable people can agree that we’d like to reduce gun violence and that we’d like to reduce criminal access to guns. If you look at what Fredrick Bealfield did as the police commissioner in Baltimore, there might be an answer. Bealfield managed to dramatically reduce gun violence in Baltimore by vigorously enforcing gun laws. If you had a bag of weed cops would leave you alone, but if you had an illegal gun they took you in, booked you and put you on a list of gun violators. That list was distributed to all officers and the members of that list were loudly harassed. The result was that criminals thought twice about carrying a gun and gun violence was reduced dramatically. Simple and it follows the NRA mantra of enforcing the laws we have. Here’s the catch. For that to work you do have to be able to clearly tell the difference between legal gun owners and illegal ones and that means gun owners have to accept some level of registration. How about it gun guys?

    1. Anyone trying to take away my Constitutional rights is a bad guy.

      Registration leads to confiscation. If they know where the guns are, they can just come in and take them. So, no. I am a law-abiding citizen. It is none of the government’s business how many of what type of gun I have.

      Here’s another statistical trap for you: In places where concealed carry is suddenly made legal, violent crime rates go down. It works every time it’s tried. Because while (sane) criminals may not give a shit about the laws, they do care about not dying.

    2. You may not be aware of it, but gun registration doesn’t apply to criminals. Because it’s illegal for a criminal to be in possession of a gun, requiring him to register it is a violation of his 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. (See US v. Haynes.)

      That being so, I’ve yet to hear a cogent argument for what the benefit of gun registration is. Marginally, it could be used if a person with no criminal record legally owns a gun and then uses it in a crime and leaves it at the scene. In practical terms, that scenario is so rare as to be virtually non-existent.

      Canada went all-in for registration of both handguns and long guns. The administration of the system cost orders of magnitude more than projected and yielded no beneficial crime reduction effects. Its greatest effect was to produce a list for burglars so they’d know which homes to break into so they could steal the guns. The whole scheme was dumped a couple of years ago. The US had national registration of handguns AND ammunition after the Kennedy assassination. It was a complete waste of resources and was quickly rescinded.

    3. Murder rate per 100,000 (from the FBI UCR Tool):
      Baltimore 31.3
      Tuscon, AZ 9.8
      Nationwide 4.8

      I think Tuscon’s plan is working better than Baltimore’s. Baltimore has been trending down until this year. Rape numbers are trending up though.

      1. Comparing baltimore to Tuscon is absurd because of the precentage of the population in poverty and the size of gang violence.

    4. Police officers, like the military, are sworn to uphold the constitution,which includes the second amendment. Many would be included in those taking up arms, as you put it, to prevent confiscation. Ever read the declaration of independence? we celebrate every year the assertion by the founders of our nation that it is the right and duty of a group of people, when being denied certain rights by their governing body, to throw off such government. Im paraphrasing here btw. When there is no other recourse but for a violent response to tyranny, the right to bear arm is necessary to prevent an abuse of power. They only begin in the dec of ind by stating life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as those rights, but the constitution, and its amendments try to define a govt restricted, that it might not abuse its power, and define rights of the states and people that are also unalienable. unalienable= cannot be taken away. why should people be willing to fight to keep their guns? The founding fathers lists reasons in the dec of ind.

  288. You sir are exactly right on all of your points. I have been a firearm owner for more than 30 years. I am also a Democrat. I will not vote for a representative that is anti-2nd. I have many,many souther Democrat friends that agree with me. The anti’s forget that 42-47 of registered Democrats are firearm owners. You have my utmost respect and thanks for taking the time to write this article. I truly hope it does not fall on deaf ears. I would no longer feel safe in this country if firearms were out of the equation. Thanks.. You have the support of some very strong pro-2A Democrats. I am forwarding this to all of my gun buddies…

  289. Wow. Excellent article ! I am a retired Correctional Officer. Every inmate I discussed the issue of gun control with supported it. Quite simply, it made their “carrier path” easier.

  290. Imagine a world where we have 911 and 912. 911 Brings armed police officers to your door. 912 brings unarmed UK style cops to your door. How often would people call 912?

  291. This article is only relevant for people who already agree with your premise. Your obvious contempt for the rest of us destroys your credibility.

    I was hoping to learn something about gun control from an expert.

    Oh well.

    1. Oh, I’m so freaking sorry that the guy who’s been called a baby killer all week was less than polite to the other side.

      If you’d read the article instead of having a kneejerk reaction, then you WOULD learn something. Maybe. At this point, I have no faith that gun-grabbers can be taught.

      1. We all want the same thing. A safer world. I have no idea how to achieve that and I want to hear from both sides.

        But there is more to winning hearts and minds than telling people they’re idiots.

      2. So you took this: “people who mean well but are uninformed about gun laws and how guns actually work (who I don’t mind at all)” as a pejorative and stopped reading. Good to know you’re so open-minded.

        Or are you in the “willfully ignorant” or “obnoxiously stupid” camp?

        Good Dad, I am so freaking tired of people trotting out the “you were mean and thus your argument is invalid” trope at people who are tired of being BLAMED FOR A MASS KILLING even though they were an entire country away. Put on your big girl panties and deal with a little snark, you crybaby.

      3. I did read the entire article. I thought there were some good points. But if he’s trying to educate those of us who don’t already agree, he’s going about it the wrong way.

        My mind is not made up. I don’t think banning handguns is the answer. I do know that I don’t know much about guns and I WOULD LIKE TO LEARN MORE.

        But how can we have a national conversation about this when both sides are just flinging insults?

    2. Your obvious contempt for anything that bursts your little bubble destroys your credibility. Don’t let the doorknob hit you on the ass on the way out.

      Oh well.

    3. All I’m really trying to say is, this country is bitterly divided on this subject. You may be tired of the people who disagree with you, but we are never going to come to a point of understanding until people can settle down and talk calmly to each other.

      Are you trying to help your cause or hurt it?

      1. What I am tired of is being called a murderer and a baby killer and an extremist–over and over and over–and when I respond by calling someone an ignorant fool, being told that I’m the one being mean when THEY STARTED IT and are using far worse terms. No one tells the people calling ME names that they aren’t helping their cause–they are automatically assumed to be right and therefore it’s okay to call us gun-rights people every name in the book. I’m not the one who needs to calm down. The people having the knee-jerk “guns are bad and the NRA facilitates murder” crowd do.

        Because, you know what? Calling me a baby killer doesn’t particularly make me see the other side of the issue either. Do you want to persuade me, or bludgeon me?

      2. See, that’s the thing – I said nothing of the sort. You may find “baby murderer” and “NRA facilitates murder” in the words I wrote above, but I not write them.

        Never accused a gun owner of being complicit in any shooting – unless they were shooting the gun. I don’t own a gun, but I am not working to get them outlawed.

        I am honestly trying to find middle ground.

        1. Ah, but you see, I didn’t say you _did_ make those kind of accusations. I questioned whether you made the same kind of “tone it down” comments on the people who _do_ make those kinds of statements about us.

          Is it just us that you call to task for language or do you also ask the anti-RKBA for using far worse language about us to tone it down as well.

          After the Giffords shooting in AZ, all the left wing pundits were calling for “civility” and “an end to inflammatory rhetoric.” And while lip service was made to “both sides” all the criticism was labeled one way. Bring up examples of things far worse being said, and done, by those on the left (Chimpy McBushitler, hanging Bush in effigy, etc.) and, at best, get a half-hearted, “well, I mean both sides” but when it comes time to make actual criticism it’s always one way.

          The Left established the rules by their _actions_. They have no just complaint if we decide to play by them.

    4. How have you ever learned anything? Some of the people I’ve learned the most from didn’t attend touchy feely sensitivity school. What happened in school if you had a teacher with an attitude? Did you just give up and fail? Not everyone with something to teach is gonna sugarcoat everything so you feel like a special magic snowflake.

      1. What has weed and gay marriage have to do with this?

        I’m a libertarian leaning conservative atheist … I could care less if gays got married and smoked pot.

        Stereotype much?

  292. So now that there is a new tragedy the president wants to have a “national conversation on guns”. Here’s the thing. Until this national conversation is willing to entertain allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons, then it isn’t a conversation at all, it is a lecture.
    Here is the thing Mr. Correia, when you automatically assume that the other side to your argument constitutes a lecture and not a reasoned response to your suggestions; constructive dialogue is not possible and you have doomed the opportunity to change and get better as a failure. Perhaps this is your goal, but it seems counterproductive.
    No. Hear me out. The single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate, violent response. The vast majority of the time, as soon as a mass shooter meets serious resistance, it bursts their fantasy world bubble. Then they kill themselves or surrender. This has happened over and over again.
    “A” way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate and violent response. Another way to deal with a mass shooter is to make it as difficult as possible to have the mass shooting occur. The military in the 1940s recognized that they could prevent a nuclear war by stockpiling nuclear warheads in a show of force that resulted in the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. This led to a proliferation of arms that were never used, but stockpiled in numbers capable of obliterating the planet many times. That proliferation bankrupted entire nations and almost started nuclear wars. To this day we are still dealing with securing our nuclear weapons in foreign countries so as to prevent a rogue weapon.
    However, cops can’t be everywhere. There are at best only a couple hundred thousand on duty at any given time patrolling the entire country. Excellent response time is in the three-five minute range. We’ve seen what bad guys can do in three minutes, but sometimes it is far worse. They simply can’t teleport. So in some cases that means the bad guys can have ten, fifteen, even twenty minutes to do horrible things with nobody effectively fighting back.
    So if we can’t have cops there, what can we do?
    It is obvious that police response times are not always going to be ideal in a crisis situation. In fact shooters are likely to avoid police interaction so as to maximize the carnage they can affect. Do we sacrifice all freedom and become a police state with police presence everywhere at all times? Do we add police in strategic areas?

    Here is an idea: Can we maximize the response time by making it very difficult for a shooter to affect such carnage in the time the rest of us wait for a police officer to arrive? Can we make a rifle that is effective for hunting but that is incapable of shooting 1 round every second? Would a hunter or a home invader be so seriously deprived of freedom by only being able to shoot 1 round every 10 seconds? Does slowing the ability of rounds add time available for response teams to arrive and stop a mass shooting? What if the shooter only has 10 rounds available before he has to change clips?
    You see Mr. Correia these questions have reasonable answers and are not so far fetched as to render your thoughts as immutably true and a gun control advocates thoughts as immutably untrue.
    The teachers are there already. The school staff is there already. Their reaction time is measured in seconds, not minutes. They can serve as your immediate violent response. Best case scenario, they engage and stop the attacker, or it bursts his fantasy bubble and he commits suicide. Worst case scenario, the armed staff provides a distraction, and while he’s concentrating on killing them, he’s not killing more children.
    Teachers are paid to teach. Teachers are paid to be trained to teach. Teachers need to be teaching not running sentry patrols. A teacher who is keeping one eye out for armed madman is not by definition teaching our kids to the best of their ability. You want to have armed police in schools I am all for it. Teachers are not armed guards or police. They are teachers.

    Secondly, my wife is a teacher. She is 5’4”. A typical high school aged male is significantly bigger than her. If she is attacked or mistakenly believes she is attacked and her gun is taken what then? How are teachers who are supposed to be teaching supposed to know the difference between a rational person with a gun and an irrational person with a gun? Are we supposed to be teaching our kids to deal with the world from the point of a gun? You say that Concealed Carriers are to act as speed bumps to mass shooters. I agree that they can act as speed bumps. And I think as many speed bumps as possible is reasonable in situations like this. I will entertain having concealed weapons on teachers when you entertain attacking the issue from both sides so as to be as efficient and effective as possible.
    Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.
    Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people? Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.
    In Columbine CO an armed police officer exchanged gun fire with the 2 murderers after they had killed 2 students. They went on to kill 10 more. Your theory dies right then and there. Secondly your theory is susceptible to the basic argument I propose. You are 100% right an openly carried gun by every man, woman and child on the planet will invariably lead to a minimization of mass shootings. But then we are dealing with each other from the working end of a gun which is unsafe, unproductive and incredibly risky given how irrational and unreasonable humans are. This isn’t a reduction to the absurd it is the logical reality of your idea and the stated rationale of Wayne Lapierre, “the only way to stop bad guys with guns is more good guys with guns.”
    We could also deal with the issue by taking your suggestions and you taking mine which is to attack the issue from both sides. Reduce the number and capabilities of guns as a reasonable method of adding yet more speed bumps to the road of mass murders.
    The only people who obey No Guns signs are people who obey the law. People who obey the law aren’t going on rampages
    Every single legal gun owner is one discharged round away from being a criminal capable of taking the lives of 10s if not hundreds of people. Again your theory fails and perhaps we can attack the issue from both sides.
    There were four mass killing attempts this week. Only one made the news because it helped the agreed upon media narrative.
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/murdoch-wants-new-gun-laws-fox-news-not-so-much.html
    The only agreed upon media narrative is over at Fox. If you want to live in a fantasy liberal bias at the alphabet networks that is fine but don’t expect to be taken credibly. You could call the calls for gun control on the alphabet networks a narrative or it is possible they are rational and reasonable reactions to the travesties we see over and over again which all relate to the use of guns on non-combatant civilians.
    And here is the nail in the coffin for Gun Free Zones. Over the last fifty years, with only one single exception (Gabby Giffords), every single mass shooting event with more than four casualties has taken place in a place where guns were supposedly not allowed.
    Interesting thing about the Tucson tragedy, the very (liberal?) friendly gun laws in AZ didn’t prevent the tragedy. In fact there were several legal gun owners who were confused and couldn’t tell who the psychopath was and who the “good guys” were. Even the police were confused. Fortunately none of the “good guys” fired a round but do we really want to run that risk every minute of every day?
    That confusion is the problem. Confusion with a stick or a knife may kill some people. Confusion with a weapon capable of killing tens or hundreds is a whole different ball game. Again my point is made, we can attack this issue from both sides. Your view is not the only solution it is one possible solution.

    1. …and cooler heads prevailed in Tuscon. They usually do.

      Believe it or not, most CCW carriers are horrified at the thought of having to use their guns. You’re already running that risk every minute of every day, you just don’t know it. And surprise, blood is not flowing in the streets. I realize this messes with your paradigm, but the fact is that there are plenty of people walking around legally packing heat right now, and I for one am grateful to them.

    2. You forgot several points in argument: We all wear tinfoil hats, have small genitalia, hate children, hate women, racist, George Bush, muskets, rocks, no feelings, machineguns, racist, George Bush

    3. I want to point out something with your argument here, because it is directed at me, and others like me. I have been a CCW holder for 11 years. I have been around firearms my entire adult life, both at home and at work. My experience is not as extensive as Mr. Correia’s, but I have run in many of the same circles. And I am trained. Extensively. You might be suprised how carrying a loaded handgun around affects your sense of responsibility.

      You said “Every single legal gun owner is one discharged round away from being a criminal”. This is what got me. This is like me telling you that you are one or two drinks away from drunken vehicular homicide at any moment. Equally true, but does that mean you’re going to do it? There are thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of people just like me walking around out there every day NOT committing crimes. Maybe preventing a few. So are we all just beating the odds? Am I on the verge of going on a rampage at any moment? Are you on the verge of drinking a bottle of vodka and going for a joyride at any moment? A study of CHL holders in Texas found that they are 13 times less likely than the general population to commit ANY type of crime. Like Mr. Correia said, the few that know I carry very much want me with them if anything bad happens, regardless of their personal feelings on guns.

      Every time something terrible happens the finger gets pointed at US. Because people cannot distinguish between criminals and the law-abiding. New legislation affects people like me, because I follow the rules. Right now I cannot carry, because I am stationed in a state with extremely prohibitive concealed-carry laws. Baltimore, MD, heard of it? Would anyone care to speculate on the number of illegal guns in this city? This is the perfect example of one of the blue states he mentioned with horrible inner city crime. Since I can only carry firearms at work now, this drastically reduces my ability to defend myself, or intervene on someone else’s behalf since I am now MUCH less armed than the criminals here. Realize that any other laws that get passed, be it reduction in magazine size, or mandating that only single-shot weapons can be sold or whatever else you seem to suggest….will NOT affect the arms supply of the criminal population. This city is your proposed success story.

    4. So, in your scenario above your 5’4″ wife is given as unable to win a phyisical altercation with a violent student. The variable is whether she is armed or not. If not armed, student always can do whatever he wants to her (assault, rape, throw out window, smash head against floor). If armed there are 2 possibilities: #1 she successfully uses her weapon to dissuade or dissable the student, or #2 she is physically overwhelmed first with same results as unarmed above. So you would prefer the certainty that she would lose over the possibility she might win? Really? You don’t seem to care for your wife much.

  293. Larry Correia, your job is done. You need not answer any questions, you have already made things so much easier for people who share your views. We need merely link this and dare them to read it, dare them to think.

    Any questions that remain can be answered by someone else. You’ve saved 30,000 people or more great anguish, for we too know what you mean by your entire 1st paragraph. It is always the same, the same debate, every time.

    This one post answers most every question that can be fathomed for this debate and the next thousand to come.

  294. I don’t know if anyone else has pointed this out yet, but using the stats you provided by the CDC, there were 16,799 homicides in all, and 11,493 were firearm related deaths. That’s not 10%. That’s 68%.

    1. Oh, wait, you said 10k. That number is off, too. But, 68% is pretty significant. You simply can’t say ONLY 68% when it accounts to over half of those deaths. That’s like saying, out of car crashes, ONLY 68% were caused by drunk drivers.

      1. “That’s like saying, out of car crashes, ONLY 68% were caused by drunk drivers.”

        And your argument against that stat is to get rid of cars.

        I can’t seem to find the 10% quote against CDC numbers in Larry’s post – care to provide the quote?

      2. Found the reference – care to argue against what he actually wrote regarding rifles? Or failing that, the 10k murders (many of which are criminals killing other criminals) vs the 800k – 2.5M defensive uses/year?

  295. Thank you. Have a Wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (I WILL be asking people to read this and think about it. )

  296. @RicoSasso: A word to gun owners: When I see your fervor and angst about gun control, I’m moved to ask: Do you own your guns – or do your guns own you?

    1. If folk were arguing to put a government censor on your internet posts, how would you respond?

      If folk were arguing that the police should be allowed to search you or your home any time they wished, how would you respond?

      If folk were arguing that you had to pay, by law, to support a particular religion, how would you respond?

      If folk were arguing that you should be compelled to be a witness against yourself, how would you respond?

      If folk were arguing that you should be compelled to quarter soldiers in your home, how would you respond?

      If folk were arguing to just abolish trial by jury, just declare you “guilty” and lock you up, how would you respond?

      If folk were arguing that “death by slow torture” was the appropriate punishment for a traffic violation, how would you respond?

      Between those, I’ve touched on eight of the first Ten amendments to the US conversation. If there’s even _one_ whose violation or proposed violation would upset you, then you should understand why folk are equally upset about proposed (further) violation of the 2nd.

    2. My value system is who I am. Self defense rights are a big part of that, ergo guns. To ban guns is to ban self defense, to disrespect my life and that of my families. If it because of one’s moral stance that they are who they are, not things they own.

    1. Practicing medicine without a license?

      Got news for you: Just because somebody disagrees with your dearly held beliefs does _not_ make them “a psycho” and only a complete moron would believe so.

  297. Yes, isn’t it like they’re reading everything from the same illogical cue cards?

    YOU: Adults in schools should be allowed to arm themselves.

    THEM: Aaarrrgh! You want to GIVE EVERY TEACHER a gun in EVERY CLASSROOM!

    America clearly has too many people for whom a Louisville to the temple would only IMPROVE their IQs.

    Ironic, because one of the biggest failings in modern public schools is the ratio of administrators, professional and maintenance staff, support personnel, aides, and the like, to actual teachers. But no, it’s always “GIVING guns to TEACHERS in the CLASSROOMS.”

    Meanwhile, here in Arizona, you are technically a FEDERAL FELON if you merely drive down University Avenue in Tempe with a gun in your car, because that main street crosses through the ASU campus.

  298. You’re clearly a man who does his homework, so I think I should help you correct an inaccuracy in one of your statements. You mention Zoloft as an “anti-psychotic” medication that inhibits serotonin. Zoloft isn’t an anti-psychotic; it is an anti-depressant. Rather than inhibiting serotonin, it belongs to a class of medications that inhibit the body’s reabsorption of serotonin. This means that it makes more serotonin available to the brain, which in turn causes the user’s mood to be more balanced. (This is why they are called “serotonin re-uptake inhibitors”.) It is a long jump from anti-depressant to anti-psychotic.

  299. I’d love to know why gun owners are routinely disparaged as “nuts,” whereas people who collect baseball cards or Barbie dolls are not.

  300. I’m just tired. It’s not that I disagree with you; I actually agree with every point you make. I’m just tired and sad and sick at heart and wish we could mourn first and get into squabbles about guns later. As the token, well, what am I? I don’t own a gun, don’t shoot, hardly count as a gun enthusiast. As the token “person-who-doesn’t-think-guns-are-Satan-on earth-and-thinks-the-second-amendment-is-basically-a-good-idea” person in my group of mostly very conventionally liberal friends I see so many mindless anti-gun memes and am just… worn out. I understand – how I understand – the emotional gut level desire to somehow make guns just go away in the wake of a tragedy. This hope that if we just made the right law we could somehow force crazy people to use knives or rocks or their hands when they decide to go on a rampage is so understandable. It’s just not realistic. And I’m left being just so tired and sad and wishing I knew a way to keep horrible, crazy people from deciding to kill children to ensure their 15 minutes of fame.

    1. I’m sick of it as well. I’m sick of a lot of things but fatigue isn’t an excuse for not standing up for what is right. The pro-gun side didn’t start this fight. The left did within hours of the Colorado and Sandy Hook shootings. All most gun owners want is for people to look at things rationally instead of using Facebook memes and trendy soundbites to decide the fate of the Bill of Rights.
      People are going to go crazy and do terrible things. Banning publicity of such people might go towards curbing it a little but in the end bad things will still happen.

  301. As long as people defend their right to have high-power, rapid fire, high capacity weapons, they defend the right of maniacs to have these weapons. And the mass killings will continue, with or without the cops and armed guards.

    1. As long as people continue to argue for creating victim-disarmament zones, free-fire zones for criminals, then criminals will continue to take advantage of them to kill people in job lots and mass murders will continue.

      The first high-profile “school shooting” was the Texas Tower Sniper. He didn’t use any “high-power” (the .223 used in AR and similar rifles is actually fairly weak as rifle rounds go–don’t believe what the media tells you; check the ballistics for yourself), “high capacity”, rapid fire” (one round per trigger pull is not any more “rapid fire” than a Smith & Wesson revolver) weapons that scares the pants of media and anti-gun pundits. He used ordinary hunting rifles. (Excuse me, when the hoplophobes go after them, they call them “high-power sniper guns”.)

      The highest death toll school massacre in US history didn’t use guns at all. It used explosives.

      The Happy Land Fire, which killed 90 people, as the name would suggest didn’t use guns at all. It used fire.

      The largest mass murder in US history didn’t use guns. It used fertilizer and fuel oil.

      And even if guns somehow were the magic “death wands” that folk think, you really think you can keep them away from someone determined to cause harm? The US Army has a training manual on improvised weapons that includes firearms and explosives (yes, how to make both using “ordinary” materials one might obtain at the local hardware store is described, in detail, in the manual).

      It’s available online.

      I have it in PDF.

      The simplest repeating firearm to make (given current knowledge) is an open-block, auto-only (no select fire, no semi-auto mode) submachine gun. Some springs, some rod, some pipe in a couple of different sizes, and some sheet metal and scrap to make odds and ends, and an evening or two’s work.

      And even if you went all the way back to cap and ball revolvers (not Federally regulated _at_ _all_ BTW, as “antiques” or replicas thereof). Well, there’s nothing to keep from stuffing a half dozen to a dozen such revolvers in ones belt or hanging off bandoleers (covered by a jacket, perhaps, until one is ready to shoot. (While nowhere near as well known as Mr. Correia, I, too, am a writer and thinking through scenarios like this is part of what I do: “how could my character…”). “The Outlaw Josey Wales” has an awesome bit near the end where Josey (played by Clint Eastwood) draws revolver out of revolver (most “cap and ball”) from his clothing. The revolvers are empty and the “click, click, click…” change revolver “click, click, click…” change is very dramatic. (Note: I present this as an illustration, not “evidence.” There’s nothing stopping someone from carrying a bunch of “low capacity” firearms and using them one after the other.)

      Thus, no amount of disarming of innocent people will stop “bad guys” from getting the means to perform mass murder if that is their goal. The solution _must_ lie elsewhere.

    2. So if a ban on these weapons were instituted we would never have another mass killing?
      What was used in the worst school killing in US history?

  302. As a gun “nut” and parent of a 19 year old collage student I am amazed that she cannot buy a hand gun for self defense ( she has been shooting since she was 10) but can buy an AR-15 and 30 100 round clips. She goes to a school with 50% of the student are in ROCT but cannot have a gun on campus.

  303. I just wanted to say how much I agree with this. I’m a hardcore liberal, and I’m disappointed that our administration refuses to follow logical reasoning on this topic. Thank you.

  304. Several people commenting have used the phrase “anti-gun, pro-gun” and “the other side of the issue”, meaning also, “anti-gun”. These are inaccuracies.The implication inherent in the phrase anti-gun is, “I don’t like guns and think no one should be allowed to own them”. Why not apply a variation of the phrase the pro-abortion people use, “Opposed to guns, don’t own one? The position is not “anti-gun”, is it “I don’t want people to easily defend themselves with hand held weapons because I’m don’t like guns.” Are you unable to distinguish any differences in the persons holding the gun? Am I just the same as Adam Lanza as soon as I pick up my CZ? If so, why? Because he had a gun too? Several of the “notice a pattern here yet” commentors have led with, “You’ve upset me, therefore….”. Well, I am quite upset with the conflating of me with the Loughners and Lanzas of the world. They chose to murder innocent people. They chose to use guns. I choose to use guns. I choose to not murder innocent people. I choose to defend innocent people. Are you unable to distinguish an act of perfidy from an act of charity, simply because you see a hand, and a firearm in it? What’s the matter with you? Are those self identifying as ” I’m on the anti-gun side”, are also opposed to those who would defend the innocent. There are far more good people than evil people. Why would you want to increase the odds in favor of the evil people? Is this the syllogism: I don’t like guns, guns are the cause of bad things, therefore, no one should have them? I suspect that is the unconscious, emotional reasoning. However, what it really is is, I don’t like thus-and-such, therefore no one should have them, and now I feel better. Another phrase used here, over and over, is “gun violence”, usually fastened with the word, “prevent”. Are you unable to distinguish return gunfire aimed at a crazed Lanza killing six year olds with gunfire ‘from’ a crazed Lanza killing six year olds? Can you not tell the difference between acts of perfidy, and acts of charity, because both are ‘acts’? What the hell happened to your judgement and common sense?
    Finally, the question, should teachers (be allowed to) carry guns is incorrect. The question is, should teachers be left defenseless against evil? Well, yes or no, should they? Again, if your answer is yes, you are saying, because I don’t like guns, yes. And we’re crazy…?

  305. Another thing to thank Larry for here: The conversation has led to me making a number of responses which I thought enough of to post on FaceBook (with some occasional editing to make them “stand alone”).

    These posts have garnered me a number of “likes” and “shares” and even a few “friend requests” so I’ve benefited from participation in this discussion.

    So, thanks, Larry. It’s much appreciated.

  306. Well, hell.

    I guess I’m just going to have to plop some Monster Hunter International books on the top of my To-Be-Read pile.

    Thank you, Larry: a brilliant, concise fisking of the gun-control nonsense.

  307. HOW ABOUT RECRUITING RETIRED SENIOR CITIZENS,WHO ALREADYT HAVE CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS TO VOLUNTEER TO SECURE A SCHOOL. 0 COST TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. i’LL VOLUNTEER IN MY GRANDSONS SCHOOL TOMORROW IF ALLOWED AND YES i TARGET SHOOT TWICE A MONTH AND I AmGOOD SHOT AND COULD CERTAINLY ACT AS A DETERANT TO ANY SHOOTER.

    1. As a young, intelligent, uninformed visitor to our country, your arrogance in publicly attacking our citizens on gun ownership on public radio is a disgrace to CNN and the citizens of the United States. What you are too young to know is that in WW II, England, a gun free nation, pleaded with the citizens of our country to send them firearms with which to defend themselves. Our citizens sent tens of thousands of arms to England and as you know Germany was successfully defeated. Had this not occurred you would today be speaking German and not with a British accent. And I am sure in a situation of extreme emergency you would raize a white flag, and wet your pants.

  308. Hi Larry,
    This may have been covered already, but it would be fantastic if you could cite your sources for facts and statistics. I am working on creating a presentation for use by the Republican Liberty Caucus for presentation to various political groups, and making sure the information presented is critical to preserving our credibility. For example: the statistic of 2.5 persons killed when a shooter is stopped by a civilian. What is your source? I know this is not a peer reviewed journal, but it would be useful information for those of us who want to use your article as a resource for educating others.
    Cordially (and Merry Christmas!),
    jc

  309. If there were no cars there would be no car accidents or collision or misadventures. But they and other vehicles are are a useful tool in a modern society. We licence them, inspect them, track title/liens and take them (some MV infractions, DUIs in Canada).

    Hunting is still an activity I enjoy and one that I share with my now deceased grandfather, brothers and sons. We use single shot, hunting rifles. This year I fired one shot, one Mule Deer Buck for the larder, one Venison Loin Roast for the Christmas Dinner.

    I can not fathom any argument that supports the constitutional, legal, or moral “right” to the latest, best, most efficient personal weapons technology for killing humans and am shocked at the energy some iinvest in the “right to bear arms”. Such is a tragic waste of American intelligence and moral authority.

    1. I am a small-framed woman with a herniated disc in my back. One wrong move, on the wrong day, puts me on the ground. I don’t know what the stats are in Canada, but in the US a woman has a one in four chance of being raped. With my back the way it is, hand-to-hand self defense is not particularly an option.

      I cannot fathom any argument that supports me NOT carrying the most efficient personal weapons technology possible for defending myself. Sam Colt called his gun “The Great Equalizer.” And so it is. Now I have equal footing with a larger attacker who intends to do me harm.

      Why shouldn’t I? Or should I just lie back and think of England?

    2. So you are fine with women being unable to defend themselves against bigger stronger attackers? You are fine with weaker people being unable to defend themselves? Maybe they should just lie there and be raped or beaten or robbed or all three?

      People like you sicken me. You speak of moral authority and you don’t even understand what you say. May you never have to face someone who will do you harm because you obviously will just bend over and take the beating like a good little sheep.

    3. Perhaps you should use some of that “American intelligence” and do some research on the 2nd Amendment – you’ll find it’s *not* about hunting.

  310. This was a completely outstanding essay! You have pushed the right thoughts into so many minds and for that I thank you. Please keep up the great work!

  311. I read the whole essay before I even realized why I recognize you’re name. I have your first two Monster Hunter books on my bookshelf.
    Very good writing, both here and in novel form.

  312. Excellent article. It will take an open mind, logic and common sense vs. emotion for folks to really understand what you are trying to say. Shared this with my friends of FB and they agree — excellent. Have a great holiday.

  313. Thinking about why past situations where someone might need a “high capacity” quickly came up with not only the LA riots but also a riot 12 years ago in Seattle. A young man, Kris Kimes, was beaten to death by a mob of gang-bangers while the police watched. The officers had been ordered by their commander to not take any action (that chief is now Obama’s drug czar), so they just watched this brave young man be beaten to death by a number of attackers.

    Would a 10 round magazine been enough to deal with either breakdown in social order? I don’t think so.

  314. Ok Larry. I have done some thinking since our conversation of a couple of days ago, and you have actually gotten me to modify my position. I can now accept your argument that — however much in my gut I dislike it — there may be a role for concealed carry, and that it makes no sense to announce gun-free zones. Even though I expect that very few teachers will ever actually choose to be armed, maybe it doesn’t hurt to give them that right (given the desire on their part and proper training), and let potential school invaders know they might not have a free ride. However, I’m still having trouble understanding why at the same time certain types of extremely lethal weapons and magazines cannot be outlawed, along with a buyback program. I don’t know all the technicalities, but why not, for example, start with anything that can fire more than 10 rounds without reloading. Ok, so now you would probably argue that this creates a situation where only criminals would hold on to higher capacity weapons. But wouldn’t the possibility of encountering a teacher or school official with a 10-round capability still be quite a “speed bump”? Eventually, after a period of maybe several years, after it became clearer that most of the very high capacity weapons had disappeared from circulation, the legal limit could be lowered say from 10 rounds to 5 — the idea being eventually to get back to a state where only single-shot weapons are legal. Maybe this seems to you like just more pie-in-the-sky from an anti-gun-nut, but with gun makers free to create ever more technologically inventive, ever more destructive toys, with no curbs on their sales, the alternative seems to me to be a situation that is just spiralling out of control in the direction of more and more lethal guns everywhere, and this is what has got the public so alarmed in the wake of Sandy Hook and is causing them to act in ways that to people on your side of the political divide appear irrational. In game theory, it is a well recognized posibility that rational behavior by every individual player results in a result that is irrational for the group as a whole, and this seems to be exactly what is happening with guns in the USA. Maybe theidea that I have put forward is simplistic, but don’t we need to start thinking about how this “death spiral” can be reversed. Accepting its inevitability would seem to be the coward’s way out.

    1. No amount of gradualist legislation will make criminals and nutters disarm, or go to five round magazines.

      European criminals buy military weapons on the eastern European black market. Biker gangs in Sweden have actually used RPG-7 anti-tank rockets on each other.

      A total ban in the US will only result in an illegal arms trade from Mexico, as Mexican police and Army make vast profits smuggling military hardware into the US.

      Your arguments ignore a simple fact. Firearms are a 15th Century technology. You cannot un-invent them. Buying yourself a firearm is not “giving up”.

      It is merely facing reality.

    2. A magazine is a bent piece of metal, with a spring and two caps. It isn’t hard to make, I can make them in my garage with basic tools. There are also plastic magazines, which can be made by anyone with a 3D printer. Banning high-capacity magazines will do nothing except inconvenience the law-abiding citizen.
      It’s also not hard to quickly switch magazines. Watch a 3-gun contest sometime, observe and time the contestants switching weapons and reloading.
      As far as technologically inventive and more destructive goes, small arms is a mature industry, where innovation is mostly confined to better/cheaper methods of manufacture. One of the most popular pistol types is the 1911. It comes in different sizes, throwing different bullets, but the design is over one hundred years old. The revolver is even older. And yes, there are firearms one hundred years old that are still in use today, and are indistinguishable in lethality from something made last week.
      Shooting is physics and biology in action: applying force in newtons to specific body locations, and the location is much more important than how hard it is hit. Hmm, perhaps you didn’t know that. People have survived being shot multiple times with high powered rifles, and people have died from a single .22 derringer. It’s all in where the bullet goes. This is why training and practice are more important than the actual firearm used.
      Yes, your idea is simplistic, but I’m explaining in the hope that you are actually trying to think about the problem. We’ll see.

    3. yes, it is pie in the sky thinking. Just how many rounds were needed in LA when social order broke down during the riots? How many rounds should have been needed when social order broke down in Seattle during the Mardi Gras riots? WTO riots? How many rounds would be needed to distract and force killers to focus on defenders?

      Furthermore, your example of rational individual behavior is irrational for the group utterly ignores the hundreds of thousands of times a year someone defends themselves and/or others with a firearm. Creating a brutalized society where might cannot be counteracted will create more violence, murders, rapes, and assaults in order to avoid dealing with people who already kill to arm themselves.

    4. Well, you all have your own reasons for “shooting me down”, pardon the pun, but it is obvious where this is all headed. It would be nice if some of you people who seem to know a lot more about guns than I do would pitch in and try to imagine some wayof arriving at an alternate vision of the future, rather than accept the inevitability of a world even more awash in guns. Merry Christmas.

      1. A world where everyone has the means to defend themselves from violent criminals and insane government officials is the alternative future I strive for.

        Firearms are a feature, not a bug.

        1. And the folk who shot those firefighters should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Frankly, I think ending public hangings “pour encourager les autres” was a mistake.

          But let me ask you: how many firefighters are killed and injured fighting arson fires each year? Do you spend your time blaming the existence of substances like gasoline and kerosene that “make arson easier” or do you blame the people who commit the crime?

          The people who commit crimes are the ones responsible. Inanimate objects are not. People who do not commit the crimes are not.

          Blame the criminal, not the tool. It really is that simple.

      2. Why were those firemen disarmed?

        Don’t firemen deserve to able to exercise their basic human right of self-defense?

        The agency that forbade them to defend themselves should be ashamed.

      3. I’ve got an alternative. Many people, upon hearing about the dead firefighters for example, say blame the gun, blame the gun, blame the gun… I blame the guy that murdered his grandmother with a HAMMER, and I also blame the people who had the opportunity to give him the needle or life without parole and didn’t. My alternative is, stop releasing prisoners early because of over-crowded prisons, stop letting prisoners congregate and form gangs and learn from each other, stop plea-bargaining, and if someone does something so disgusting as killing a 92 year old lady, they can never repay their ‘debt to society’. You know he was convicted of manslaughter? As in, not-quite-murder? How do you not-quite-murder kill somebody with a hammer?

  315. This is the best and straight forward article ive read yet.. Or better yet the only article that ive been able to completely read without cussing and clicking the x. Im pro 2nd admendment and believe the only reason the word ban is even coming out of our governments mouth is they want more power over us and think we are just uninformed( 2nd admendment is for hunting or it was just for muskets back in the day)B.S.!!! Way i see it if a criminal comes for me or the government i want to be matched in firepower just as they are. Luckily for me i live in the state of virginia for the most part is pro gun. Our governer is pushing for armed personel in schools and police are at our schools now everyday in my county. Other than the two biggest loud mouths in the administration now ( pelosi and frankenstein<– yes i meant to spell that) they know what would insue if they tried to take our guns.. A few on there own self absorbed minds think it can be done.. Im hoping it never even comes to an awb ban considering they cant even decide on the fiscal cliff. Time will tell but i really enjoyed reading your article keep up the good work!!

  316. Hello I was reading your article and one of the arguments from a more pro-gun control angle is the one that was just passed in my home state of VA. Recently we re-instiuted a law that allowed for more then 1 gun to be purchased a month. This had been an issue back in the 1990s because guns purchased legally in VA where being traced to crimes in NYC so they limited the amount of guns one was able to buy over periods of time. However, the more conservative legislature in my state has changed that law to allow more guns to be purchased. Is it really necessary to allow so many weapons to be purchased at once or in a short period of time.

    1. Maybe they did it because the law had zero effect on crime in NYC? And that NYC crime is a NY problem, and not something Virginians should be punished for?

      Is it really necessary to allow politicians to infringe on a basic human right like self-defense?

      1. First of all the law was extremely effective the year after we established that law we went from 1st to 8th on the list of states used for illegal gun trafficking. Not only that but for law-abiding citizens they could request a wavier to buy more then one gun a month. Further how does this effect your basic right. Last I checked you do not need 2 guns to kill a person. A law abiding citizen should understand the concept that such a need to buy this many weapons is unnecessary much in the same way its unnecessary to buy two cars in 1 month.

        1. Gun collecting is unneccessary? Consumerism is unnecessary? Am I more of a threat with a collection of 100 or more guns than a gangbanger with a sharpened screwdriver? The one-gun-a-month plan is arrant nonsense, concocted by bureaucrats who are protected by armed bodyguards.

      2. Who are you to tell a law abiding person what he is allowed to spend his money on?

        If he wants to buy two cars, or two guns in a month, then why in the hell not?

        What has “need” got to do with anything? Why do you think you get to decide what “need” is?

        What kind of little socialist bastard are you, trying to dictate how people spend their hard earned money?

      3. “Who are you to tell a law abiding person what he is allowed to spend his money on?”

        When it can infringe upon my right to live then I have a voice in the matter. Considering how it does affect crime in that sense then last I checked the ability to reduce crime and make a safer america is more important then the ability to collect weapons. Furthermore there are ways where one can obtain a waiver to purchase a second gun

        “the one-gun-a-month plan is arrant nonsense, concocted by bureaucrats who are protected by armed bodyguards.”

        The one gun-a-month plan was a bipartisan effort by legislators who noticed a problem with crime and wanted to make a contribution to states.

        “Gun collecting is unnecessary”

        To be fair collecting as a whole is a bit unnecessary as its just wasteful spending where if one has extra money it could be used better for charity etc.

        1. “Considering how it does affect crime”

          Assumes facts not in evidence. Claiming it doesn’t make it so.

          “The one gun-a-month plan was a bipartisan effort by legislators who noticed a problem with crime and wanted to make a contribution to states.”

          Ah, the “We’ve got to do something</i?" argument. Doesn't make it right.

          "if one has extra money"

          One can do whatever one wants with it. Here's a hint: it's not your money. You don't get to say what someone should, could, or must (or must not) do with it.

          This is supposed to be a free country. That means people can do things with which you disagree.

      4. “Considering how it does affect crime”
        Assumes facts not in evidence. Claiming it doesn’t make it so.”
        Ah, the “We’ve got to do something</i?" argument. Doesn't make it right.

        Wether I claim it or not is irrelevant the fact that the law did have significant statistical affect is what matters. Furthermore, it is right because not only does it make it safer in general as it reduces crime but it makes it safer for law enforcement and I would hope that a gun owner would be willing to give up buying more then 1 gun a month to increase the safety of our police force.

        http://hamptonroads.com/2012/02/back-ugly-gunrunning-future

        http://www.thenewyorkworld.com/2012/08/01/virginia-remains-top-gun-source/

        Stats^

        "One can do whatever one wants with it. Here's a hint: it's not your money. You don't get to say what someone should, could, or must (or must not) do with it."

        No shit its not my money, does it make it wrong for me to suggest that they give it to charity?

        1. “Wether I claim it or not is irrelevant the fact that the law did have significant statistical affect is what matters”

          Sorry, but bullshit. At best your sources claim a change of sources And considering the small sample sizes given the total population of guns in illegal circulation, the term “too much stew from one oyster” comes to mind.

          The conclusions you want to draw are not justified by the data, however dear those conclusions may be to you.

          You might want to consider if the “availability” of guns from Virginia was high in New York was responsible for crime in New York then the “availability” of those guns in Virginia</i? was even higher (every gun that ended up in New York plus every gun that didn’t end up in New York). Why, then, isn’t crime in Virginia even higher if guns are responsible?

          Maybe the crime in New York derives from other sources and “getting guns from other states” is just a symptom.

          Now, here’s an exercise for the student:

          Go to the DOJ web site and get the stats for the four tracked violent crimes (rape, murder, robbery, aggravated assault). Next go to the Brady Campaign website and get their “Scorecard” for each State. This serves as a nice proxy for strength of gun laws as determined by an anti-gun organization (can be pretty sure of no biases in favor of gun ownership).

          Now take that data and perform an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA One Way–Excel has that as a data analysis tool to make it easy). Look for which of those violent crimes, if any, correlate at the 95% level with gun control. Then, for any that correlate at that level check how often firearms are used in commission of that class of crime. Note that that level of correlation just says you can distinguish the result from random variation, not that it’s an important factor, just that it’s one at all.

          Oh, I’ll save you the effort. I did exactly that. You see, in my day job I’m a scientist and one of the aspects of science is to check your assumptions. To test your hypotheses against the “real world.”

          Well the result was no “statistically significant” correlation in three of the four categories. The one that was correlated (barely) was rape but, again per the DOJ, firearms are rarely used in rape. It just serves to illustrate how unreliable such low correlations actually are.

          This demonstrates one thing: the effect of gun control on crime is utterly unimportant compared to other factors. This means you cannot reduce violent crime via gun control. When it comes to reducing crime gun control is a waste of time.

          What gun control can do is make the victims. A robbery stopped by an armed citizen is still listed as a robbery. A rapist with his balls blown off by an intended victim can still be charged with rape and end up in the statistics as “rape, 1”. The only one where “successful defense” changes things is “murder” might get downgraded to “aggravated assault”.(there is no “attempted murder” category in the DOJ stats but “aggravated assault” is an assault where there is a real chance of death or serious bodily injury so it would include attempted murder).

          When it comes to reducing violent crime in the US, either in aggregate or by category, gun control simply does not work.

  317. Hello Larry,

    I want to make a comment on some of the things that the media have mentioned, specifically Piers Morgan on CNN. He got on national TV and stated that in his country of England, where they’ve banned guns they haven’t had any mass shootings since the 80’s. While I may agree they haven’t had any mass shootings, my question is how many people have been killed in car bombings??? After reading several articles on the CNN and BBC websites, I’ve come to the conclusion that there have been at least 400 people killed in car bombs with the average of between 20-60 people killed each time.

    If Piers can stand up and say that we Americans should ban guns because they kill people, then I say that the UK should ban cars because they’ve been used as weapons and have killed people!!! Just my opinion.

    The part that really got me steamed was when he started describing the gun that was used and then went on his little rant. “These are machine guns, capable of killing a lot of people at once”. Uh, NO, you’re an idiot and have no idea what you are talking about. It wasn’t a machine gun. It’s statement’s like these that people take as fact by listening to someone else, then this get’s propagated to others because people don’t know how to check out the facts for themselves.

    Anyway, just wanted to throw out my .02 cents worth.

    Thanks,

    Donald

    1. Piers Morgan lied about the “no mass shootings since the 1980’s” but then again why is that surprising for someone who got sacked from their last job for faking photos that implicated British troops in the torture of prisoners.

      Dunblane, Scotland – Sixteen children and one adult killed. Shooter used two handguns. March 1996

      Hungerford, England – Sixteen killed. Shooter used two semi-auto rifles and a shotgun. August 1987

      Cumbria, England – Twelve killed and eleven injured. Shooter used 0.22 rifle and a shotgun. June 2010

      They have also had their share of mass killing with items such as incendiaries and bludgeons.

      http://www.murderuk.com/mass_murderers.html

      Doctor Bill

    2. Donald, my reply to Pierce Morgan: As a young, intelligent, uninformed visitor to our country, your arrogance in publicly attacking our citizens on gun ownership on public radio is a disgrace to CNN and the citizens of the United States. What you are too young to know is that in WW II, England, a gun free nation, pleaded with the citizens of our country to send them firearms with which to defend themselves. Our citizens sent tens of thousands of arms to England and as you know Germany was successfully defeated. Had this not occurred you would today be speaking German and not with a British accent. And I am sure in a situation of extreme emergency you would raize a white flag, and wet your pants.

      1. Gus,
        This is not the whole story; the US SOLD guns to Britain during WW2, it wasn’t an entirely altruistic act on your part. In other words, the US acted as an arms dealer, which it continues to do (as does Britain).

        1. In the early days of WW II, the U.S. government did sell guns to Great Britain. However, many private citizens donated thousands of their personal guns to help arm British civilians against an expected Nazi invasion. After the war, those guns were mostly dumped into the English Channel or used as makeshift rebar in the reconstruction of England’s cities.

  318. I would like to offer a sincere thank you for your article. This reinforces what I have been saying prior to the massacre in Conneticut, and is refreshing in light of the B.S. being spouted by the talking heads and morons in lame stream media.The very people espousing anti-second amendment rhetoric are the same folks enjoying the benefits of the same (e.g. sending kids to school with body guards or enjoying secret service protection). I hope more people inform themselves and intend to share this article. Merry Christmas.

  319. Larry: I am definitely on the “other side” of the gun culture divide that you mention, but I really appreciate your fact-based blog, which helps me understand a lot of info I don’t have about guns because I am not really interested in them. I never really thought about definitions like “assault weapon” and what the really means. I can imagine that a lot of gun laws get passed that are ineffective, which is not helpful. And I agree with you that guns are out there, and bad guys will use them, which is why we need well-trained local police officers to combat this when it happens – and you are spot on to identify them as heroes. But can you understand the other side, which tends to see in the rhetoric of your post the glorification of guns? I have a hard time seeing how this reduces violence. My fear in your vision for America is that public places become the “O.K. Corral”. I hear people say things like allowing armed citizens to stop shooters would help, such as in Aurora, CO, but I see an even bloodier shoot-out when I imagine that. The other point I would make is about your presupposition: it assumes that there always have been and always will be guns, and therefore we have to arm ourselves in protection from the “bad guys”. But don’t we create our own reality? I don’t think it’s utopian to imagine a future with fewer guns and less bloodshed. I bet if everyone really believed this were possible it would make a difference. The alternative is a fatalistic universe where violence is assumed and planned for. The Second Amendment was created to prevent a threat the framers perceived of foreign government taking away their liberty. Is that really the same today? From where I sit, there is a far worse threat of more blood shed by crazy people who have access to deadly weapons (like Adam Lanza) than in an invading army that needs a militia to fend it off. There has to be a better way to get a handle on this level of gun violence than what we’re doing now. Lastly, I hear from my NRA friends a lot about “bad guys with guns” and “good guys with guns.” I wonder, who gets to decide this? I would imagine that “bad guy” is another way of saying “someone who is not protecting my interests”, and “good guy” means something like: “me and the people I care about.” I’m sure there were a lot of people who thought the police force in Germany in 1933 were the “good guys”, but that turned out not to be the case. They were thugs (not at all like our police force). But do you see where this logic leads? The liberal mind sees every man for himself, walled up with his cache of guns to protect him, his family and his group. I can’t see how that “promotes the general welfare”. I realize most people you describe care about serving and “protecting innocents”, which I applaud, but preserving the right of the individual to own and use a weapon can’t be more important than protecting the common good. And the right of an individual not to be harmed by a deadly weapon is more important than anyone’s right to own and carry one. Debating this is fair game politically. Well, thanks for the post, anyway, it was well-written and I think you make some very important points for liberals like me to consider.

    1. “My fear in your vision for America is that public places become the ‘O.K. Corral’.”

      People keep predicting that. Every time extending the right to keep and bear arms to people and places that existing law did not permit the prediction of “shootouts over fender benders” or “barfights turn into gun fights” or “it will be like the Wild West” (which, in point of fact, wasn’t so “wild” as Hollywood, the media, and the anti-gun pundits would have you believe).

      These predictions keep not happening.

      How many times do they have to keep not happening before folk like you realize that the fears are groundless?

      “I bet if everyone really believed this were possible it would make a difference.”

      Any future that requires everyone to believe in it is “utopian.” It’s also totalitarian and completely contrary to the principles on which the US was founded.

      “The alternative is a fatalistic universe where violence is assumed and planned for.”

      Here’s the thing: if there weren’t violent people there would be no reason to ban guns or restrict them in any way because nobody would “misuse” them.

      The whole argument for banning guns is to keep them out of the hands of violent people. It’s a failed argument because the genie won’t go back into the bottle. The violent will always retain the means of violence.

      Find some magic way to eliminate violent people and there would be no need to ban guns. Fail to eliminate violent people and you leave the weaker members of society to fall victim to them _unless_ you have some means, such as guns, to “level the playing field.”

      “The liberal mind sees every man for himself, walled up with his cache of guns to protect him, his family and his group.”

      And liberals call us nuts? Sheesh.

      Put bluntly, that’s not how it’s worked . . . ever. It’s a pure fantasy created by “the liberal mind” and if that’s how “the liberal mind” thinks then so much the worse for “the liberal mind.”

  320. Sir I just wanted to take the time and say thank you for this. I love learning about different guns, taking them apart and cleaning them and just generally learning how they work. My two best friends are the same way. So thank you for taking the time to write this so that I could learn something new and to have my thoughts put into words. It gives me hope that there are others out there who think along the same lines I do. When in the future I have conversations about these thing I will defiantly be pointing people towards this article because you explained thing better than I could without lots of time to gather my thoughts and prepare. So once again thank you.

  321. He makes some very good points for the first 2/3 of the article, and despite my liberal mindset I think he’s right: things like limiting magazine size and disallowing teachers with guns do in fact make limiting mass casualties harder. Despite the apparent roughness of intending teachers to be “speed bumps,” nationwide policy has to play numbers games, especially with law enforcement. Protecting the largest number of people with the least cost is important. Also, buying higher powered firearms for the police and locking them up is stupid.

    Two points, however: as he mentions himself, mass shootings are the minority of gun deaths. A large majority of deaths are one-on-one and many are also accidental (family members, etc). That’s worth remembering, either way.

    Secondly, and this is the most important thing: this guy makes a terrible logical mistake in linking the outlaw of gun sales to the increase in violent crime. Violent crime has been growing steadily virtually everywhere in the world, regardless of gun laws. As far as I know, violent crimes in the UK and Australia have not grown at a greater rate than any of the countries where guns are legal… but you can bet the number of gun deaths is down. We all learned our freshmen year at college that correlation does not prove causation.

    I see no good evidence that complete bans would have any extreme negative effect on violent crime rates, and in fact I offer you an example: The Republic Georgia, where I live now, 10 years ago had countless shootings (literally there aren’t reliable numbers). They fired AKs in the air for drunk fun, and mob bosses had more power than the government. Starting in 2003, guns became very very illegal and were confiscated. Now Tbilisi is LITERALLY the safest capital city in Europe, with fewer crimes and violent crimes than any other (My company has done the last several rounds of criminology and victimization surveys here).

    My point is not that it was the abolition of guns, that was only a small part of an exhaustive and impressive transformation that also included very severe punishment for most crimes. My point is that the evidence that violent crime goes up with bans is inconsistent and anything but conclusive.

    Furthermore, the idea that gun ownership limits the power of the government is not well supported either. Despite the favorite examples of the communist sphere, many countries where gun ownership is widespread (many middle eastern and north african countries) have had despotic and controlling governments for decades. Say what you want about Norway’s policies, but their government belongs to its people.

    Not that it matters for us Americans, because he’s right in one sad fact: the rhetoric has become so venomous and threatening that any attempt at confiscation would likely end with dead police and gun-owners all over the country.

    There are many other social problems that would have a greater effect on violent crime. It’s just a shame that very few pro-gun folks are willing to discuss the programs necessary, and that pro-control folks are so concentrated on “doing something” without thought to the “something’s” actual effectiveness.

    Oh well, it was a good read in any case!

    1. “As far as I know, violent crimes in the UK and Australia have not grown at a greater rate than any of the countries where guns are legal… but you can bet the number of gun deaths is down. We all learned our freshmen year at college that correlation does not prove causation.”

      But where did you learn that “gun deaths” are a special kind of death that should be assigned their own category? You appear to be a reasonable individual judging from the rest of your post, but when I see people talk about “gun deaths” as though they are somehow special, I have to ask how they have reached such a conclusion, because it escapes me.
      Personally, I begin categorizing deaths this way: murder, and not murder. The second has no bearing in this discussion. The first can be further subdivided, and those subdivisions can be then divided again, but guess what? None of those subdivisions consist of “manner of death” or “weapon used” but rather divisions involving intent and circumstance. Because, you know, “murder” is something done to a human being by another human being. The tool(s) and/or methods used are irrelevant.

    2. “I see no good evidence that complete bans would have any extreme negative effect on violent crime rates,”

      Washington, DC – guns banned. Violent crime rate: 1130.27 per 100k
      Chicago, IL – guns banned. Violent crime rate: 1044.97 per 100k

      US National – 40+ states allowing some form of concealed carry.
      Violent crime rate: 386.3 per 100k

      UK – guns banned. Violent crime rate: 3844.92 per 100k

    3. Frank-a-go-go: You are confusing cause and effect.

      Disarmament is a needed first step to tyranny. Disarmament by itself does not cause tyranny.

      Banning guns did not end crime in the Georgian Republic. Enforcing rule of law did.

  322. Larry, I have to thank you for saving me an awful lot of work. See, I’m an unlikely combination, possessing both a gunsmithing degree from the Colorado School of Trades and a diagnosis of Aspergers syndrome, which means I’ve been answering a lot of questions recently.
    I also live in Seattle, so between my real life and online life I’d already been arguing with people about guns for most of my adult life, most of whom were/are painfully ignorant on the subject. I decided to quit stalling and finally embark on my long threatened project to construct a master debunking of all common gun control myths, which would be a long and boring process of cutting and pasting old posts and such together, but I figured it would save time in the long run. I was literally in the process of compiling all of my online writings on the subject along with the numerous studies and articles I’d used to support them, when I came across your posting.
    Really, to say I’m blown away is an understatement, it’s so rare to see a piece that’s both well written and so technically detailed, and I’m a brutal critic of these things.
    I know it’s been said already, but it’s as if you somehow read my mind and put everything I’ve been trying to say over the years into one epic argument, with the firearms credentials to back them up. So, now my tedious condensing of years worth of writing has been replaced by a simple link, so again, thank you for saving what little of my social life there was left to rescue.

    1. So maybe you could redirect that energy toward something clear and concise about Aspergers? I don’t mean to put this on you, but you were gathering the energies to expend in a project like this already, and you are in a unique position to really help out on the other major issue here, which is a ramping up of idiocity in respect to people with Asbergers as the modern boogeyman.

      Just a thought. If you do decide to write it, please link it and let us all know! I will help spread it around as much as I am with Larry’s work.

  323. If the basic assumption of one’s argument is that the object in question is the problem rather than the individual behavior of the ‘evildoer’, the conclusion reached will be false, invalid, wrong. Objects do not and cannot have intention, moral agency or consciousness. The problem is human free will. We are free to choose actions, both right and wrong. By God’s grace, there are more good people than bad. Accordingly, there are two questions to ask. How can evil actions be prevented? How can evil actions underway be stopped? (If, at this point, one has already decided that a particular object itself is evil, then one is, by default, allowing particular evils to flourish. Even though said object in the hands of good men can be used to stop particular evils, to exclude it from use consents to evil. Note that I will suggest a garden hose and not a .22 rifle be used on dogs rummaging through the tomato beds, and BB guns rather than .45’s be used on after dark,garage spray-painting graffiti vandals. There is such a thing as judgement.) Preventing evil cannot be done with tolerance and moral relativity. The best examples of somethings which were, are, and will always be wrong, despite anyone’s opinion otherwise, are slavery and rape. (What, for instance, is the pro-choice argument for slavery? Opposed to slavery, don’t own one…? Whiskey, tango, foxtrot.) Moral education is the best preventative of evil behavior. We know, of course, that it doesn’t always take, and know the names of various monsters throughout history. (Is Mao Tse Tung in Heaven…if not, where is he? And now that I’ve raised the subject, there either is, or is not, an accounting at the end of this mortal life for our behavior in this mortal life. One may, of course, assert the negative, that everything just blinks our. However, is that a bet you’d want to lose?) Once underway, the task is no longer preventing, but stopping particular evils. Why didn’t the parents of Herod’s slaughter of the innocents stop the slaughter? Why didn’t they call the police…? How could that have been stopped, “RIGHT NOW!”,…? Who was Herod sending to commit murder? The Mexican Zetas? Tutsis? Mobs of LA rioters? The Klan? Could anything besides righteous force have stopped this evil use of force? Name-calling? UN writs? Finger pointing? Restraining orders? Moral pronouncements about the evil of spears and swords? How about twenty men with slings and stones? Twenty with bows and arrows? The Old Testament Judith with a 12 gauge semi-auto Bennelli ? (Or is it morally wrong to arm Old Testament women with anything besides single shot capability?) While everyone has the moral authority to denounce evil acts, no one has the authority to announce that their own private moral decision of the superiority of defenselessness must be applied universally. (“Melt them all down!”) Perfection is not an option in this mortal life. There are difficult choices, bad choices and worse choices. Yes, innocent people get killed by evil men with guns. Evil is in the heart, not in the shootin’ iron. An evil man with a gun cannot be stopped by huddling in a closet, no matter how far away the closet. It is not a defensive position if one has no means of defense. Who here who “is opposed to guns” will call 911 in a home invasion, tell the police to “Hurry! There are three of them!! I’m in the closet upstairs with my two children. Yes, they have guns, they’ve shot my husband and our dog!!! Oh, and please tell the officers to leave their guns at the station. That would just be “introducing more guns into the situation”.

  324. You lost it at the part when you started comparing other countries. The part on South Africa is just complete and utter rubbish. The part about Norway is so absurd I’m surprised you didn’t see how stupid it would make the article look.

    You started off well, but then…uh….shot yourself in the foot.

    1. Ah, what an excellent rebuttal! You have proven….proven….that is to say, you have shown….well, nothing really. Links and a concise argument showing why you think what you think would have helped, but I’m not surprised you were a little distracted.
      Because that’s your foot that’s bleeding. Maybe you didn’t notice because you’ve got it shoved in your mouth.

  325. Thank you very much. I teach a “Thinking Critically” course at a community college, and this post contains multiple (literally!) textbook examples of argumentation and pre-emption. I just might make analysis of it part of the midterm exam. (There are many places where you really should link to sources, however.)

    1. Utah. From the article:

      In fact, my state laws allow for somebody with a concealed weapons permit to carry a gun in a school right now. Yes. Utah has armed teachers. We have for several years now.

  326. Larry, good summary. One thing you did not memtion is that the Military Leaders of Japan agreed, because a large majority of them had been educated in or spent extensive time in the USA, that they could not effective invade this country because “…every one there is armed and would fight to defend their country…” or words to that effect. DaveP

    1. “A rifle behind every blade of grass” is the quote I see most often. See also Switzerland. 3rd highest rate of gun ownership in the world. Many of those are actual “Assault Rifles” not imitation. Citizens are given the option to purchase their duty weapons when they leave active service. Their own government admits the numbers are low because firearms registration is recent thing. Their crime rate is around .4 per 100,000

      1. Those Swiss will go to great lengths to protect their awesome chocolate, America should go to at least the same lenghts to protect our children.

  327. The problem is, if there are more guns in the world, the odds are that there will be more guns within reach of the mentally ill. That is the key issue, and it is the issue that the author has carefully ignored.

    1. Those who want an atrocity will find the way to do so. In China a madman cut up 22 schoolkids with a knife. Oklahoma City used fertilizer and diesel. Crazy finds a way.

      For those who think nobody needs “assault weapons”, phrase used despite 95% of the public not knowing what it means, please tell that to those defending themselves in the aftermath of Katrina, Andrew and during the Rodney King Riots. All were situations with mob violence and the government leaving citizens to their own defenses. If you want to make a case of government protecting us then it would help if they didn’t constantly abandon us.

  328. Thanks for a great article. Like you pointed out, the anti crowd will not listen to logic, but I hope the uninformed, on the fence crowd will read and understand. I truly hope out elected representatives will listen to logic and reason, but I’m afraid all they listen to are re-election votes.
    Keep up the good work!
    Navy vet, navy rifle and pistol team shooter, hunter, sportsman and life NRA member.

  329. I have also heard the “the founding fathers couldn’t have envisioned ‘assault rifles'” as well. Leaving aside the whole question of whether or not the illustrious founding fathers could also have foreseen offset presses and electromagnetic transmission, I reply that the founders of this country had their own “assault weapons” to deal with and they didn’t discriminate against them.

    As most of those posting here know, the standard long arm during the revolutionary war was a smooth bore musket. These had an accuracy range of roughly fifty yards on a good day. However, though in very limited use, rifled muskets were also employed by sharpshooters on both sides of the conflict. With an accuracy range of five hundred yards or more, a man holding one of these firearms could get off a number of deadly shots before the regular troops got close enough to return fire. It was a decided advantage but every time I have read the second amendment I see no exclusion of “rifled muskets”.

    While this line of argument doesn’t do anything for the politically or pathologically motivated, it does give those possessed of rational thought patterns a moment’s pause.

    Doctor Bill

    1. One of the folk attending the Constitutional Convention was Benjamin Frankin. Among other things he was a prolific inventor and scientist. Does anyone seriously believe that _he_ didn’t consider the possibility that technology would not continue to advance and that part of that would include weaponry becoming more effective?

      If they’d wanted to limit arms to the technology of the time, I think they would have said so.

      1. Highly unlikely, the founding fathers had enough issues as it was trying to compromise over issues of their day (politicians don’t change) the ability to consider the future advances of technology would likely have been an afterthought especially concerning more pressing issues.

        1. You’ve never actually read anything written by the Founding Father’s have you? They were quite capable of thinking ahead. (And, in fact, actually wrote about concerns about the long term effects of some of the compromises they made at the time.)

          And, as I said, given that one of them was Benjamin Freaking Franklin, who had _already_ been directly responsible for several technological innovations of his own, the idea that they never considered the possibility of technical advance is fatuous nonsense.

      2. That is not the issue, of course they would consider future technological advances, however there is only so much thought that they gave to this because of other more pressing matter. Further tactics where used that would push the problem to another generation or that where pushed forward to be dealt with at another time (Slavery).

        1. Doesn’t matter how much thought they gave it. If they meant “muskets” they would have said “muskets.”

          Did you know that law dictionaries of the time actually defined the term “arms”? A good many of the folk at the Constitutional Convention were lawyers. Do you think they would not have known the legal definition of arms? BTW, do _you_ know the legal definition of arms at the time the Constitution was written?*

          Oh, and James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution” was alive when the revolver was invented and came into use. I’m sure you can find examples of him decrying these “rapid-fire, high-capacity, assault revolvers” that can fire half a dozen bullets in as many seconds, and small enough that a person can carry several of them giving one person the firepower of an entire company of musketmen. No? He never said anything like that? Maybe because “arms” meant exactly what they meant in law dictionaries of the time.

          Much is made of “a well-regulated militia” yet the idea that “the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” somehow means the government is granting itself the “right” to arm its own troops is of very recent vintage. Try finding such arguments being made anytime before the 20th century. The right of the people” means exactly the same thing in the 2nd as it does in the Preamble, article 1 (choosing of Representative), The 1st Amendment (peaceable assembly), the 4th, the 9th, the 10th, and the 17th.

          But still, it’s entirely possible that situations that the founders “never envisioned” have and can arise and our government needs to adapt to deal with them. But, perhaps you are unaware that the founders did envision that need and put in a process where changes could be made. It’s called the amendment process. The bar for amendment is high: 2/3 of the House of Representatives, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of State Legislatures. That’s a feature, not a bug. The Constitution is not to be changed on the whim of the moment by some small majority of the moment but only when an _overwhelming_ majority decides such change is good and proper.

          So if you want to change the meaning of “arms” in the Constitution, or the meaning of “people” then amend. the. Constitution.

          Oh, that legal definition of “arms” in the late 18th century? It was “a weapon of offense or armor of defense.” That’s it. Any “weapon of offense” or any “armor of defense” counts as arms. The folk who wrote the Constitution knew that meaning. They would have used that definition in arguing cases in court. And that’s the word they chose for the 2nd. Not “muskets”, not “flintlocks”, not even “firearms”, simply “arms”–“a weapon of offense or armor of defense.”

  330. Larry – I totally agree with you!!! Great post with information that will have the lefty cretins cry foul but they precisely need the truth. We need more of your type of informed polemic. The paragraph on the idiocy of the “gun free zone” federal regulation is the best.

    Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!!!

  331. Holy crap. Came to your page a few days ago, saw this article, thought “Huh, aside from the usual conflation of ‘every liberal = gun banner,’ that’s a really good summary of the facts surrounding the debate.” Then I clicked away. Today I come back and there’s OVER 1500 FREAKING COMMENTS. Well done Larry.

  332. If I want to know how to clean a gun I would come to you for advice, as you seem like an expert. However, if I want to determine the direction of social policy I seek the advice of experts on social policy not gun cleaning.

    If you have ever had to answer the WHY’s from a preschooler here is how it might go.

    Why did the children in Sandy Hook die?
    They died because somebody was angry and brought a gun into the school and shot them.
    Questioning stops here the SOLUTION is obvious…. prevent bad guys from bringing guns into the school by putting good guys with guns in the school.

    But if we listen to the wisdom of the preschooler and continue to answer the why’s here is what it might look like….

    Why did the children in Sandy Hook die?
    They died because somebody brought a gun into the school and shot them.
    But WHY did he bring a gun into the school?
    Because he was angry and had access to guns.
    But WHY did he have guns?
    Because his mother had them in her home and he took them.
    But WHY did she have guns in her house?
    Because she was afraid.
    But WHY was she afraid?
    Because she did not feel safe.
    But why didn’t she feel safe?
    Because all the other people with guns made her afraid.
    But why do all the other people have guns?

    …you can take this as far as you want. The solution with this type of questioning of course will be quite different and get at the root cause of the issue.

    You can choose to believe that the issue is gun control and take sides for and against but the reality is the issues behind mass shootings and killings are MUCH MUCH bigger than that.

    1. “Because other people with guns made her afraid.”

      Assumes facts not in evidence.
      – Perhaps it was the idea of a mob with bricks, sticks, and stones that made her afraid (See Los Angeles riots or Katrina aftermath).
      – Perhaps it was the idea of someone bigger and stronger than she was intending her harm that made her afraid. (You don’t think that’s a legitimate fear for a woman?)
      – Perhaps it was folk getting a mad on about her because she’s “different” in some way. (Because, nobody would ever, oh, call for the deaths of people based on their having different religious, political, or other beliefs. Oh, wait, a Democrat party official–not just some joe on the street–did just that, calling for the death of NRA members.)
      – Perhaps it was the idea of a major storm coming through cutting off power and keeping the authorities from being able to respond to her needs for an extended period leaving her on her own. I mean, that’s never happened, right? Oh, wait.
      – Maybe she’s afraid of people who have guns _illegally_, who get them from _illegal_ sources, that wouldn’t be stopped by _any_ gun ban that _anybody_ could pass. (People keep pointing out the “low gun crime” in select nations with strict gun laws but 1) the rates were almost invariably low _before_ the gun laws were put into place and 2) in no case is it _no_ gun crime. Even Japan (mentioned uptopic) has _some_ gun crime.)

      So, no, your attempted argument fails.

      1. So then … I guess he would be OK with the active killer’s mother being disarmed, and dying with no chance to defend herself from her son, who was going to kill her for trying to have her committed for being a violent nutter?

        How many more folks is he willing to throw to the wolves to avoid having to ever hear about an icky gun in a mere citizen’s hands?

        This guy is a standard grade hopolophobe.

        He is willing to see me and my family die in order to preserve the illusion of his own safety.

    2. Beverley, you forgot to address this part:

      “Because he was angry and had access to guns.”

      But WHY was he angry?

      Because the chemicals in his brain weren’t in balance and we don’t know how to make them balance. (explaining mental illness to a pre-schooler ain’t easy)

      1. “Because the chemicals in his brain weren’t in balance and we don’t know how to make them balance. (explaining mental illness to a pre-schooler ain’t easy)”

        BUT Why don’t we know how to make them in balance?

        Because we are not interested in putting money into research to understand this problem, because the taxpayers will not support increased taxation or universal health care to help with this.

        OR because our society likes to think that his problems are his own and we do not have to support any kind of public funding to figure this out or to support people like him who have a mental illness….

        No it is not easy to explain things to a preschooler but the questions need to be asked…

        The evidence shows us that most people with mental illness are not dangerous at all. So do we brand all mentally ill people as dangerous?? There are many, many more killers among the sane than among those who are not mentally competent. And there are many, many more angry people among the sane than among the insane.

        “Assumes facts not in evidence.”

        I didn’t I know I was in court and being held to the standard of a legal argument.. this is an internet discussion.

        I was in fact engaged in an hypothetical dialogue with a preschooler.
        Honestly go ahead and finish each question – or even ask different ones – any way you like;
        but as long as you go past the first few questions….the answer will never be to try to promote safety with more guns.

        “So, no, your attempted argument fails.”

        The only argument I was attempting is that in order to understand the situation you have to dig deeper and drill down through all of the social determinants that led to this tragic situation and all the others like it that continue to occur .

        Are you suggesting that my suggestion to engage in deeper, broader, and more critical thought processes to determine root causes is a flawed argument?

        1. “I didn’t I know I was in court and being held to the standard of a legal argument.. this is an internet discussion.”

          Does not mean you get to just make up shit without being called on it because that’s what you did,

          That’s what “hypothetical” means: you made it up. You made up a particular “explanation” that fit a particular agenda.

          And I called you on it.

          “Are you suggesting that my suggestion to engage in deeper, broader, and more critical thought processes to determine root causes is a flawed argument?”

          But you didn’t do more than pay “lip service” to that. Instead you picked a certain argument to illustrate, one that was hardly “deeper”, certainly not “broader” and was only “critical” of a particular aspect: “Because other people with guns made her afraid.”

          Seriously, that trite little bit is what you call “deeper, broader, more critical”?

          “The evidence shows us that most people with mental illness are not dangerous at all.”

          And the evidence shows that the vast, vast majority of gun owners are not dangerous at all either. Yet that doesn’t stop gun owners from being put under the microscope every time somebody commits a horrendous crime. The crime doesn’t even have to be with _guns_ for “more gun control” to be brought up as the “answer.”

  333. Did you ever consider that unlike yourself, some people are actually Christians (or Buddhist, etc.)? The propagation of violence is pagan way of thinking. Funny when the same people claim that they are the protectors of Christianity. It is surprising that you actually celebrate Christmas.

    1. I would say that is one of the stupidest statements I’ve heard on the subject, but, well, the competition for that is quite fierce.

      At the Last Supper, in giving instruction to the Apostles, Christ said: “If any of you lack a sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.”

      Apparently it was more important to be armed than to be clothed.

      Christ himself found it appropriate, in the right circumstances, to flip out, and start beating people with a whip he made himself.

      And the history of Christianity, pretty much any form of it, is hardly one of pacifism. Of course, the claim is “that isn’t true Christianity” but they are following the same Bible you are and they come to different conclusions. To make that claim would simply be to use the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

      Your argument comes down to “I don’t like it, therefore you shouldn’t do it.”

    2. Seriously, Mike?
      Nice. (note the sarcasm)
      Did you ever consider that there are parents out there who, no matter their chosen religion, would fight to the death if the lives of their children were threatened?? I find it hard to believe that any loving parent would stand by chanting some peace-loving mantra while scumbag shooter is filling their child’s body with lead.
      You may want to rethink your stupid comment and come back when you have some sense.

    3. Gun owners don’t propagate violence. Lawful gun owners stop violence from propagating.

      Buddhists and Christians are allowed to commit violence in defense of the innocent and themselves.

      Larry isn’t advocating for every man and woman in this country be armed. He (like most rational adults) wants to be able to defend himself if needed.

    4. Oh, BTW, I’m not a Christian. You wouldn’t be trying to use force of law to impose your Christian beliefs on me in violation of the Establishment of Religion clause would you?

      Larry, OTOH, is (by the definition established by Simon, called Peter, the Apostle when he declared “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God”).

    5. Completely agree that this is one of the stupidest statements I’ve heard … not only on the gun control subject, but also in regard to paganism. I find your willingness to lay blame at the feet of those you clearly know nothing about telling. Too many people have a lack of desire to educate themselves and you are clearly in that camp. To be quite frank, one who refuses to think/discuss with calm logic preferring instead to toss out insults is nothing more than a bully. Go be a troll somewhere else.

    6. I was going to refute this but I see I’ve been beaten to the punch so to speak. Those who replied did far better than I ever could. I would be interested to see how you respond to their counter points.

    7. I’m an atheist but I like Christmas:
      – Peace on Earth
      – Good will towards men, women, children, friends, neighbors, etc.
      – Giving gifts to those that are important to you with no thought of receiving anything in return

      What’s not to like?

      Most of the translations I’ve read state “Thou shalt not murder”; that’s killing with malice aforethought. That does not preclude murder in defense of self or others.

  334. An Open Letter To Michael Moore And The Liberal Folks At MSNBC

    After hearing the latest round of hoopla from you-all regarding gun control following the recent shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin (and now the latest shooting in CT.) I feel compelled to comment on some of your beliefs and misconceptions because I am one of you…sort of.

    First my bona fides. I am a sixty-two year old grandfather of two and a small business owner. I have been a supporter of liberal and progressive causes since the 1960s – The peace and freedom movement, anti war, environmental (before the first earth day), racial and social equality, women’s liberation, pro-choice, boycott grapes, save the whales, organic…you name it! I have been a registered nonpartisan since 1972 but I have never voted for a republican and I pay no attention to the bozos at Fox News! But, I am also an ardent 2nd Amendment rights advocate and, as incongruous as it may seem, I am a pistol pack’n pacifist.

    I think that the work you do with regard to politics and social issues, for the most part, has some merit but when it comes to issues about guns you know not about what you speak. I find you extremely ill-informed and way off base when it comes to any discussion about private ownership of firearms in this country and how it affects all of our safety. I understand that guns are not for everyone, especially the gentle and the genteel in our society, but it’s time to get out of your rarefied, gated and guarded intellectual community and mingle with the masses. Here’s why:

    • Gun sales in this country are up and they will continue to increase. Guns are flying off the shelves at gun stores and the purchasers are not just those you would see at a Tea Party rally. When I go to a gun show, a gun store or the shooting range I see people of all socioeconomic, ethnic and racial flavors, both men and women, young and old and many are white collar professionals not just working class types. In fact the stereotypical petulant old white guy is in the minority, at least here in California. Oh yeah, and guns are just plain fun to shoot. Once a person try’s it they’re usually hooked. Shooting is a wildly popular hobby and sport. There are dozens of different venues for every type of enthusiast from beginners to professionals and that doesn’t even begin to cover the tradition of hunting in this country because there are many shooters who do not hunt at all.
    • We live in uncertain and even dangerous times. People are becoming increasingly aware that they, not the government or local law enforcement, are responsible for their own safety. The police have a mandate to enforce the laws and apprehend criminals, not to protect us. If the latter were the case then why isn’t a cop car parked in front of my house 24/7? People are starting to realize that they have a god given right to self preservation and that they can only depend on themselves to enforce that right. This is not about the NRA controlling a bunch of redneck congressmen. This is about average people and their legitimate concern for their own safety and independence! It is becoming increasing obvious that either a man made or natural disaster could strike us at any time leaving a void of authority in it’s wake making it necessary for people to band together to keep order. One does not keep order in such a situation by saying please to the bad guys. I suggest that you watch George Carlin’s 2006 HBO routine Life Is Worth Loosing where he explains what will happen when the lights go out.
    • Government is not to be trusted. This is becoming an accepted reality in this country of ours because for at least the last fifty years our government officials have lied to us more often than not. You would not trust an individual who treated you in this manner so why should you expect a different reaction to a government that lies on a continual basis? Many people in this country have a legitimate fear of tyranny from within and not just the folks on the extreme right in the Taliban wing of the Republican Party. They see the whittling away of gun ownership rights as a first step toward totalitarianism. The DHS has ordered one billion, four hundred million rounds of hollow point ammunition. What’s that all about? Right here in North America we share a two thousand mile border on the South with one of the most corrupt and violence riddled countries in the world. A country that also has a total ban on private gun ownership and therefore self protection. Why? Preservation of power and control by an elite oligarchy at the expense of the peons. Yet our own government shows little concern about what is happening just a stones throw away on our southern border. Why? Because leaning on the Mexican Government to take care of their mess would be bad for business (not to mention hypocritical). As Thomas Jefferson said – “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.”
    • The assault rifle/ magazine capacity arguments are fallacious. No one in this country can own a fully automatic assault rifle without a special federal license. The civilian versions of the AR15 and the AK47 are sporting rifles that look like the military weapons but mechanically/functionally are no different than any other semiautomatic rifle. Banning a rifle with unusual ergonomics that simply looks “bad” is ridiculous and makes the proponents of such a ban appear even more ridiculous. Magazine capacity in a firearm has almost nothing to do with the amount of destruction that can be cause by a determined shooter. It is pure mythology. An empty ten round magazine can be changed out in two seconds in most pistols and rifles. A lot of people, especially those in the news media business, seem to get hysterical about an individual possessing 6000 rounds of ammunition. I’m here to tell you that having that much ammunition is quite common for a typical enthusiast and serious target shooters can go through that much in a couple of months. If a disturbed person is hell bent on causing headline grabbing mayhem it would not even take 50 rounds. That’s only one box of cartridges!
    • Uniformity of the gun laws in this country is nonexistent. The gun laws and regulations in this country are a jumbled up mess. They vary from state to state. There is essentially no continuity with regards to who can buy a gun, how/when and from/to whom it can be transferred privately. If there were basic and fair national registration regulations, administered by an agency we could trust, with a clear and effective system for background checks, there would be little anyone could complain about, except perhaps the egomaniacal Mr. Bloomberg and the folks at the NRA!
    • Arguing about the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment is a nonstarter. If the founders had wanted the citizenry to be unarmed, or only armed with antiquated or obsolete weapons or only one weapon, they would have stated as much…somewhere. They did not, and for good reason. If any of them could be here, right now, and look around the world at all of the failed governments and totalitarian regimes that prohibit gun ownership, would any of them say – yes, we should be emulating those countries? They would not! I am, however, quite sure they would have much deeper concerns about what we have done with their creation. It is interesting to note that the mentality of what we call the “right” and the “left” has not changed since the beginning of human political thought and interaction. People have a funny way of using selective awareness in ignoring that fact whether they consider themselves conservative or liberal. What both sides also tend to ignore during 2A arguments is that the Constitution was/is not a conservative document and that the opponents of its creation were not liberals! What a lot of liberals in particular tend to ignore is that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not possible without self reliance which includes the ability to defend oneself!
    • We have a mental health crisis in this country not a gun crisis. Sadly, humans will always be killing themselves and/or others by what ever means possible whether it be with knives, claw hammers, ropes, automobiles, booze or guns. There are bad people and there are sick people and it is impossible to disarm them all. We cannot legislate sanity, or virtue. Look at all the sociopaths in congress, and they can be removed every 2 or 6 years – theoretically. What’s worse, crazy people with guns or crazy people writing laws? We have legal institutions and methods to deal with the bad guys. Time to start working on a system to deal with the dysfunctional, disenfranchised, and mentally ill in this country that will provide some hope for the hopeless. If we provided as much protection for the weak, the sick, and the helpless as we do for the corporations in this country we’d be a hell of a lot closer to being able to have a conversation about what it means to be civilized.

    So there you have it. I have offended both those on the extreme left as well as those on the extreme right. I feel pretty good about that! You want to fight the good fight against ignorance in this country? Try starting with a little honesty…if your bosses will allow it.

    J. L.
    San Diego, Ca.

    1. You, sir, are awesome. Thank you for that.

      (Any chance we could pitch the ‘Taliban’ in the Republican party against the ‘Bolsheviks’ in the Democrat party, and thereby cancel out both in a sort of mutually beneficial social algebra? Worth thinking over, even if only for entertainment purposes)

  335. Well Done Larry. I have found a new favorite site to go to. I have also found a new author to support.

    My blood pressure goes up 20-30 points everytime I hear a MSM commentator, suffering from the ID 10 T syndrome, spout off that the AR15 was only a killing machine. You touched on my thoughts here. OK then we need to have the AR, Mini 14, Sig, etc removed from every LE office in the country. “Why no we can’t do that”, “Why not?” “They need those to defend the community” “So now they are’nt just killing machines? They are tools of defense?” “Well yes, in the right hands” “Well I choose my hands as the right hands” “But only the police and military should have them” “Well let’s choose a country as an example of how that works. I choose Mexico. Buena suerte con eso.”

    Thank you also for touching on the gun culture response to a confiscation plan. My hopes in this would be that the governors of the states would refuse to give local, county and state assistance to the federals in a confiscatory scheme. If I have to make the hard decision, I certainly would not want to face neighbors and friends. Let’s see how the Feds set up the logistics for this. They can’t even respond properly to a bad storm.

      1. K,
        Not embarrassed in the least. I was just trying to frame the discussion in their terms to disarm them. Of course sometimes to defend one needs to kill and would want the most efficient tool available. Therefore the SA with the full capacity magazine.

        I’m not wearing rose colored glasses about what I would have to do.

        Good points on follow up on the method of warrent and confiscation. We need to explore all the possible ways “they” would do it.
        H

    1. Oh, and if they mandate confiscation, they will simply tell people to turn them in at local police stations, and get a written receipt.

      They won’t even try to do a door to door.

      They will just compile credit card histories to profile gun owners, and if you get stopped in traffic or otherwise end up in custody, they will get a warrant, and turn your property inside out.

      No Alamos, and the gun seizures will happen slowly, and with lots of bad publicity for those caught in the grinder.

  336. Thanks Larry for putting all the arguments in one place. I have been making these same points here to my liberal friends on Facebook since once again the “never let a crisis go to waste” crowd has pushed for gun control. But all your points make no difference to the gun banners. The fact that we had an “assault weapon” ban for 10 years that had zero effect on crime, makes no difference. The fact the gun as gun ownership has gone up for the last 30 years, crime has gone down makes no difference. The fact that since WWII every mass shooting (except Giffords in Tucson, where the gunman was so nuts that he had to force medicated to stand trial) has been in a gun free zone makes no difference. There is a fundamental difference between those who take responsibility for their family and their own self defense and those that want the government to have that responsibility. And unfortunately, I don’t believe the twain shall ever meet.

  337. Just one simple correction: the Clackamas Mall shooting in Oregon was NOT in a mall where it was ok to carry. The shooter killed two before killing himself, period. This is how it was reported until AFTER the Sandy Hook shooting.

  338. Larry,
    Thank you for one of the best articles I have ever read that covers all of the components (fallacies) of the gun control proponents. There were many instances where I found myself thinking “how well you put into words the beliefs that I have held for many years”.
    God bless you, Merry Christmas.
    Craig

  339. Larry; the reason anti-gun proponents clamor for such laws is because comparatively speaking, to the rest of the wealthy nations in the world we are an outlier in terms of gun ownership violence deaths etc. To basically sum up my points ill post some links here that have statistics on the issue.
    http://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/gun_violence/resources/the_u_s_compared_to_other_nations.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/us-guns-statistics-outlier_n_2331892.html

    1. Abner: Huff Post is the most liberally – biased media outlet ever! Their reporting is so far left it’s beyond balanced. No one can trust their figures. My advise to you : better for you to check FBI stats on that….

      1. Abner is a classic concern troll.

        He is just so concerned that us cousin humping redneck retard gun owners are making ourselves look bad, that he is going to teach us all how to be good little liberals like him.

        He is a victim-disarmament bigot, trying to recruit people with his bullshit.

      2. Doc Bill,

        Thanks for being more reasonable and respectable in your response to my post;

        “Interestingly enough, the statistics from police bureaus show that our rate of firearms homicide per 100,000 population is nowhere near the top of that unenviable pile.”

        Yea I think we are in the 20s or 30s however the problem with that is that most of the countries that are ahead of us and a few behind us would be considered third world or developing nations

        “Harvard found no indications that banning firearms would have any significant helpful effect on the homicide and suicide rate.”

        I never mentioned anything about banning weapons all I want is a discussion about gun control one that has been lacking though throughout the blog though is illegal gun control such as arms trafficking or gang violence.

        1. “most of the countries that are ahead of us and a few behind us would be considered third world or developing nations”

          Why would that matter? Unless, perhaps, something other than guns is a more important driver of violence.

      3. Why would that matter? Unless, perhaps, something other than guns is a more important driver of violence.

        That matters b/c their police force would not be as effective as the our own; illegal weaponry being more readily available and the fact socio-economic conditions would lead for more instances of crime and violence as a whole.

    2. There is a lot of gun violence in the US. Most of it is self-defense violence against criminals.

      This is a good thing, not a bad thing.

      1. First of all, thats a bad thing because its an issue that people should have such a need to defend themselves in that case, second I can imagine that gang violence and other related crime may have more of a contribution then self defense.

        1. “thats a bad thing because its an issue that people should have such a need to defend themselves in that case”

          While the need to defend oneself from criminals is a bad thing, so stipulated, the majority of violent crime is not committed with firearms. Thus, even if guns magically disappeared and none of the crimes that would have been committed using firearms would be committed using something else, the need for self defense would still be there. Just like crime, including violent crime, happened before firearms were ever invented.

          Given that need would continue, having the ability to defend oneself against a larger, stronger, and more violent (the criminals have choice of victims and, not being entirely stupid, will choose those they perceive as smaller, weaker, and meeker) is a good thing.

          Even if one magically made all guns disappear the need for effective self defense would not go away; Only the ability.

          “I can imagine that gang violence and other related crime may have more of a contribution then self defense.”

          In the words of a wise man, “I don’t know. I can imagine quite a bit.” But leave that aside. Let’s assume it’s true. That is all the more reason why the ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens is not a threat. Criminals killing criminals? Well, think of it as evolution in action. And the “gangs” are not getting guns from legal outlets. Thus, restricting legal purchases or ownership has no effect on them. Considering other illegal contraband that gangs deal in, how do you expect any kind of “gun control” to reduce their access to guns? Prohibition II hasn’t exactly reduced their access to drugs.

          Also, pointing at “gang violence” undercuts attempts to point at other nations and their gun laws. Unless you can show they have the same kind of gang violence problem then you’ve already got a reason for different violent crime rates.

      2. David,

        I do not think guns should be banned though I understand how you assume I would think that. In regards to “Thus, restricting legal purchases or ownership has no effect on them” while I do agree for the most part to citizens having access to weaponry in this case the major argument would be when gun trafficking is the case (I know your arguing with me on some other post but here is something more general), when such weapons that are bought legally will end up being used by someone through a crime. Statistics from my part.

        http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
        According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from –
        a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
        a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
        family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

        Considering other illegal contraband that gangs deal in, how do you expect any kind of “gun control” to reduce their access to guns?

        If you consider drug and gang violence to be a major contributor to illegal weapons and activities one such method would be legalizing certain drugs, I am going to stop there as this article makes the argument quite clearly and efficiently.

        http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/11/legalising-marijuana

    3. Interestingly enough, the statistics from police bureaus show that our rate of firearms homicide per 100,000 population is nowhere near the top of that unenviable pile.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

      Also a rather exhaustive study at Harvard found no indications that banning firearms would have any significant helpful effect on the homicide and suicide rate.

      http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

      Likewise, the British found out that after banning guns in the wake of the Dunblane shootings, the gun crime and homicide rate went up.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1450338/Firearms-offences-more-than-double-since-Dunblane.html

      Of course these are FACTS and for virtually all of those opposed to the free exercise of our civil rights that makes them absolutely meaningless.

  340. Larry, Great article. That was the single best, complete explanation of the situation. I am a medically retired school police officer. I would like to posit one more idea, that I didn’t see mentioned. Police officers and retired police officers have available, what is called an H.R. 218/S.1132, or LEOSA certificate, allowing them to carry in all 50 states and D.C., but it specifies the same as so many of the other CCW laws, that these officers cannot carry their weapons, on a school campus, at any time, while off-duty. I think this law should be amended, to allow off-duty, or retired cops to carry, when they are at school, for whatever reason. As I understand it, many simply ignore that part of the law, and will still have their weapon with them, when they have to pick up their kids, or visit a teacher, or some other legit reason for being on campus. Expanding LEOSA, to allow cops and retirees, to carry, probably won’t change much, but it would give them the security of knowing they will not be prosecuted, for doing that which they are likely to be doing, anyway.

  341. Reblogged this on Cognitive Consonance and commented:
    I have to share this with you. This is the best written, most concise, full-on assault against gun control and Leftist logic that I have ever seen. If you think it’s inappropriate to be posting this on Christmas Eve, think about the fact that crime doesn’t take a holiday, and neither should your personal protection. Merry Christmas!

  342. Gun owner, former competitor rifle/pistol, retired soldier, retired teacher.
    I thought of whether I wanted to carry a pistol when this subject was being discussed in Texas. At that time I had a concealed-carry permit.
    I thought it was a stupid idea. I haven’t changed my opinion. I was there to TEACH, not be a security guard.
    I considered it silly to load me and the other teachers down with a dozen extra jobs. We were highly educated professionals who were doing what any high-school graduate could do. And meantime, measures of how effective we were compared to foreigners were tanking. Still are. And expecting us to be ready to respond to a classroom emergency that required an armed response…is there anyone who thinks this would encourage teaching or learning?
    I also considered what would be likely in a gunfight in a classroom. Those walls aren’t bulletproof. Any bullet that went astray would be likely to go into another classroom.
    I also knew a lot of teachers. I think I’m probably the only one I knew, with one possible exception, who could make a judgment about whether to use a pistol in a classroom setting. I would know enough to NOT use the pistol (a .380 in any urban setting, including a school) except in very unusual circumstances. In an emergency when it appeared that I would be forced to do so by circumstances, I would have; but only in such a situation.
    I thought about what would happen if several people were armed. Very likely you’d see bullets passing near you because most people panic. Ditto in a movie theater. Fairly dark, gunshots coming from several places; which one is the bad guy? Or are there more than one? And are the rest like you, armed citizens, or are they ALL possibly terrorists?
    The bottom line for me is that there are simply too many high-caliber semiauto weapons out there. And laws mean nothing; today a convicted violent felon used a gun to ambush firefighters and shot several, killing two of them. And then he suicided.
    That bottom line is it. We’re killing our own people. We can’t permit this to go on. I’d begin with banning semiauto weapons, except for pistols, and limit magazines to say 8 rounds.
    It’s not a solution, but a place to start.

    1. So, you ban semi-automatic weapons and mags of more than 8 rounds, and they somehow magically fly off the street and disappear. But since you haven’t banned semi-auto handguns, the bad guys simply get .45s and learn to quickly swap out the mags.

      How is this even a place to start? It’s a tourniquet on the left leg when the femoral artery of the right leg’s been severed–worse than useless.

      According to a comment above, there were several armed people at the Tucson shooting. None of them fired a shot for fear of hitting bystanders. The guy in the Clackamas Mall shooting faced the same situation. I think that cooler heads generally prevail, even in a panic situation. But, you know, if you don’t trust your fellow teachers, I guess I shouldn’t trust them either. And no one’s talking about forcing teachers to carry; it’s strictly voluntary. Maybe you didn’t want to, but I’m sure there are teachers who are willing. Why hamstring them?

      1. Sounds more like the supposed ex-military, ex-competitor is projecting his failings onto the rest of the teaching community.

  343. If it’s any consolation, Larry, the arguments that pro-gun people made, patiently, year after year, eventually brought me around from being raised an anti-gun zealot in a blue-dog, hard-radical-leftist Democrat family, to being the 100% opposite today. It took several years and a conversion to libertarianism, but it was the constant exposure to the ideas of unfettered gun rights that eventually convinced me to reverse my own position on gun control.

    Of course, now I’m feeling the same frustration trying to explain it to my former ideological brethren.

    Like all conflict between 1) The State and 2) our rights, it just takes time.

    Rest assured you are not alone on this quest.

    And thanks for a great article.

  344. @ David Burkhead “Why would that matter? Unless, perhaps, something other than guns is a more important driver of violence.”

    About time somebody noticed that. And by the way, I always thought it was sort of smug and snooty to say that crime rates in other countries didn’t count because they were “not in the same economic class as us”. What? That sort of statement could definitely be taken the wrong way.

    1. It’s been stated by me and others in this thread. I’ll do it once more for the reading-impaired: Culture is king.

      The armed rural countryside is loaded with guns and has a homicide rate of .2 per hundred thousand. The rural culture emphasizes self defense, not offence. The US rate is due to a culture that glorifies violence and killing in the inner cities (which have strict gun control, disarming the citizen and making them the prey of the criminal). An easy way to learn culture is to listen to the culture’s music. Listen to some country western, then play some rap.

      Finally, I don’t care about politically correct and taking statements the wrong way. Try some honesty instead.

      1. My point exactly. There are plenty of second and third world countries where the population has a merry old time doing each other in with every edged and blunt weapon they can find. Then when we try to make some comparison about the violent crime rate we are told by those who are bent on taking away our civil liberties that such comparisons are not valid because “those are not industrialized nations” or some other such rubbish.

  345. I have to agree with the person that wrote this.

    I have studied this subject off and on for most of my life.

    The places with the lowest gun crime rates also have the highest amount of Jane and John Doe’s that own and are trained in the proper use of guns…

  346. This is truly awesome reading! It should be a required read for all members of congress and anyone else who wants to throw in their two cents worth of opinion about our second amendment rights. Keep up the good work and God bless America!

  347. Larry, I want to thank you for a well informed and knowledgeable explanation, even if it is a bit on the biased side (as you yourself mentioned a time or two). Not only have you tipped me from the fence to strongly in favor of STRONGLY supporting 2A, but I will be contacting my local representatives and requesting CCW for teachers. I myself, actually suggested the same concept to my best friend in our conversations about the CT shooting, though I certainly had nowhere near your understanding of why nothing else would work, or how to present it appropriately. I’m actually weighing more thoroughly the concept of getting a CCW for myself as well, although I know I have a bit of work to do to get to that point. Again thank you.

  348. I found your article to provide a useful insight into the psyche of the US gun lobby. In particular it confirmed that tighter gun laws in the USA are extremely unlikely. However, your assertions regarding the increased safety of citizens where liberal gun laws apply needs to be challenged. I have listed the firearms related death rates (deaths per 100,000 population) for the countries you listed below. The format is:
    Country/ Total firearms related deaths/ Homicides/ Suicides/ Accidental/ Undetermined/ Year
    USA/ 10.2/ 3.7/ 6.1/ 0.2/ 0.1/ 2009
    United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland)/ 0.25/ 0.04/ 0.17/ 0.01/ 0.02/ 2011
    Norway/ 1.78/ 0.04/ 1.72/ 0.02/ NA/ 2010
    Australia/ 1.05/ 0.09/ 0.79/ 0.02/ 0.15/ 2008
    South Africa/ 9.41/ NA/ NA/ NA/ NA/ 2012
    Canada/ 4.78/ 0.76/ 3.72/ 0.22/ NA/ 1992
    Assuming nothing else has changed, the aberration of Anders Behring Breivik’s rampage in Norway in 2011 increases their figures to:
    Norway/ 3.3/ 1.56/ 1.72/ 0.02/ NA
    On the basis of these figures, the USA has, when considering firearms homicides, the honour of being the deadliest place to live in the developed world, with Canada achieving a distant second place as a result of its high suicide rate. Maybe your gun control laws do need some revision. I am sure the Founding Fathers did not intend their 2nd amendment to achieve this accolade!

    1. Robin, how are mental health issues dealt with in the countries you cited above? I don’t know and that’s the reason I asked. This will will be my next research project.

      I agree with your statement about the Founding Fathers but you should consider a few things, such as how the village idiot/sociopath was dealt with at the time, were they allowed to interact with the general population on a daily basis? I suspect not, in fact I suspect very few survived their trip to the creek with their head held under water for ten minutes.

      In 1975 O’Connor v. Donaldson released thousands if not millions of mentally ill patients into the general population and those patients have never looked back. It would be interesting to see the “violence” statistics graphed from 1965 to 1985 in this case. I would have to look to someone else rather than yourself for this information as you don’t seem to have access to all the figures, why would you pull South Africa data from 2012 while the latest Canadian data is twenty years old?

    2. Robin,
      The main reason for firearms among US citizens other than hunting and target shooting is for self defense, so you can’t just look at firearm related deaths and make a fair and honest comparison. A homicide is a homicide and the instrument of how it was committed is irrelevant, the victims still ended up dead. I’m sure the homicide victims that you left out because they weren’t murdered by a firearm would take exception at your biased approach to their murder. This is kind of sick but personally if I’m going to be murdered I’d much rather be murdered with firearm then say a knife, baseball bat, strangulation, beat to death with a hammer, hacked up by a machete etc… the list goes on and it’s not a pretty picture, murder never is.

      The whole purposed of the statistics was to show that there is a direct correlation on the amount of homicides vs gun ownership by private citizens. Even though we have one of the highest percentage of guns per citizen we are not at the top of the homicide chart and for obvious reasons this doesn’t fit into the anti-gun philosophy. The fact is that countries with strict gun control laws have a higher murder rate per 100,000 then we do. Below is a link to a Harvard study on the same subject. It’s a good read and it’s non biased, they just present the statistics without making assumptions.

      http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

      Tell me since calling 911 is the equivalent of hope and a prayer, if your home is ever invaded what will be your method of self preservation against an armed intruder? Nothing against our police force because they can’t camp out next to every citizen and a confrontation with an armed intruder will be over long before the police get there.

    3. And you’re still counting only “gun deaths”, like it’s some ultra-horrible super-special soul-shattering thing to be killed by a gun as opposed to a knife, or a club, or a hurled hardcover copy of “Peace and Pacifism”.

      If you have to say “when considering firearms homicides” or “when comparing gun deaths” or any such thing, you have removed yourself from any reasonable debate because you either 1)have no understanding of comparative statistics, or 2)are knowingly spreading propaganda.
      It’s possible that there is a third option, but since it is 3)you have not actually thought about anything you are saying, it doesn’t help much in the credibility and reasonable debate department.

      Please go and work on that. Come back when you can engage in real conversation about what we as a society should and should not do in regards to personal defense, mass murders, protecting our children and the children of others, etc., without the involvement of fudge numbers. We’ll be here.

    4. In answer to some of the points raised by my comments.

      The data I provided was the latest I could find.

      I know very little about mental health issues. As far as I am aware, no free country locks up its citizens until they have committed an offence or they can be shown to be a risk to themselves or others.

      The second option is the most difficult because many people with serious mental health problems manage to live a relatively normal life, sometimes with a reliance on medication. In the UK, the mental health act requires two doctors plus a mental health social worker to agree that someone should be ‘sectioned’ (ie locked up) under mental health legislation and this is then reviewed regularly.

      The statistics for general homicide suggest that the USA has a particular problem with firearms. The proportion of homicides due to firearms are:

      USA – 66.9% (2009)
      Canada – 32% (2009)
      Norway – 8.1 (2007 latest data)
      South Africa – 45% (2007 latest data)
      UK – 6.3% (2009)
      Australia – 11.5% (2009)

      Data from the UNODC.

      Many countries have higher homicide rates than the USA, but the USA has the highest rate of any of the established western democracies.

      As far as a home invasion by an armed intruder is concerned, it’s so unlikely that even considering what my response would be is pointless.

      1. “Many countries have higher homicide rates than the USA, but the USA has the highest rate of any of the established western democracies.”

        Why is this an issue? Unless something _other_ than the legal availability of guns has a direct bearing on these homicide rates.

        And if that’s the case, what makes you think that these other factor magically stop affecting rates once you get to your cherry-picked data set?

        “As far as a home invasion by an armed intruder is concerned, it’s so unlikely that even considering what my response would be is pointless.”

        And the likelihood of any particular student or school facing a “school shooting” is equally low. So why are folk trying to use that to drive public policy?

        “School shootings” just seem common because every time one happens the media coverage is vocal and extensive. Home invasions, OTOH, barely make local coverage, if that, and the DOJ does not break them out in a separate category to show up in national statistics.

        So how can you say they are so unlikely? If a mere 1% of the 3,683,750 robberies of 2009 (latest year for which I happen to have figures) were of an occupied dwelling with the tenants/homeowners present at the time (“home invasion” by definition) that would still be 36,853 home invasions nationwide. How many school shootings were there in that time frame? Make it one in a thousand and it’s still nearly 4000 nationwide in a single year. The number of home invasions that have made local news in Indianapolis, compared with the robbery statistics, suggest that the correct value is probably somewhere between those two. So between 4 and 40 thousand home invasions in a year on the one hand in 2009. On the other we had 11 deaths from shooting in schools in 2009.

        So if home invasion is so unlikely as to not merit considering a response, why is a response being _demanded_ from gun owners who aren’t guilty of anything?

      2. On re-reading, this section was a bit unclear:

        “So how can you say they are so unlikely? If a mere 1% of the 3,683,750 robberies of 2009 (latest year for which I happen to have figures) were of an occupied dwelling with the tenants/homeowners present at the time (“home invasion” by definition) that would still be 36,853 home invasions nationwide. How many school shootings were there in that time frame? Make it one in a thousand and it’s still nearly 4000 nationwide in a single year. The number of home invasions that have made local news in Indianapolis, compared with the robbery statistics, suggest that the correct value is probably somewhere between those two. So between 4 and 40 thousand home invasions in a year on the one hand in 2009. On the other we had 11 deaths from shooting in schools in 2009.”

        In 2009 (a year for which I happen to have figures) there were 3,683,750 robberies.
        If 1% of those were home invasions (robbery of a dwelling where the tenant or homeowner is present during the robbery) that’s nearly 40,000 in that year alone nationwide.
        If 0.1% were home invasions it’s still nearly 4,000
        Experience with local Indianapolis news on reports of home invasions in comparison with robbery statistics suggest that the correct number is somewhere between those two.

        In the 2009-10 school year there were a total of 11 deaths from shootings in schools. (http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/school_violence09-10.html)

        Conclusion: a homeowner being the victim of a home invasion is much more likely than a child being the victim of a school shooting.

        Question: that being the case: if the former is so unlikely as to not merit considering the response (or not merit being appropriately armed) then why is the latter, far more unlikely, being used to demand response from legal gun owners?

      3. Since different parts of the United States have different levels of gun control, and different levels of legal firearms availability, you must segregate some of these numbers in order to make a valid comparison.
        That means that any gun deaths in cities where guns are banned, like NYC, Chicago, and DC need to be removed from the statistics. Also, any suicides or justifiable homicides need to be removed.

        Another way would be to compare two cities in the USA where the gun control laws are very different. Let’s compare a city where almost nobody can legally own a gun to a city where almost everyone has to.

        Kennesaw GA has not had a single murder since adopting a law that says that every home must have a gun in it, over 25 years ago. Since Kennesaw’s population is just over 29 thousand, that’s a murder rate of 0 per 29k.
        Meanwhile, Chicago had over 500 murders in 2012, with a population of 2707k.
        Since Chicago has a population 93 times greater than Kennesaw, Kennesaw should have had at least 5 murders this year just to keep up – and by the gun control argument, the murder rate in Kennesaw, where everyone is armed, should be much higher. Instead, Kennesaw – where everyone is armed – had zero murders, while Chicago – where only criminals are armed, had 500 murders.
        If Kennesaw had even one murder, then the rate of murder in the gun control paradise of Chicago would be 500% higher. Since Kennesaw had no murders, we could claim that the murder rate in Chicago is a billion percent higher, but that would just be manipulating statistics in a disingenuous manner – as is the practice of including murders in gun control paradises like Chicago and DC in the statistics you use to attempt to justify disarming more citizens.

        Let’s look at other places where most (if not all) of the people are armed and compare their crime statistics to those of places where citizens are disarmed. In Switzerland citizens are required to keep actual Assault rifles – fully automatic military weapons that most Americans could never own – in their homes. Yet Switzerland has a very low murder rate (0.7 per 100,000). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

        Compare that to the District of Columbia, where it is virtually impossible for a citizen to legally own a firearm, and the intentional homicide rate has been between 24 and 46.4 per 100,000 for the past decade.

        We can also compare states that are very similar in many ways, but that have very different gun laws, In Texas, where anything goes, the murder rate has been between 5.4 and 6.4 for the past decade (5.9 average), while in uber-restrictive California, the rate has been between 5.3 and 6.8 for the same time period (6.3 average).

      4. Wow Joseph Baptist!

        Thanks for letting me know about Kennesaw GA, Pop. 29,780! Differences sure can be useful for developing understanding. (That’s why it’s great to live in a country so diverse as the great US of A!)

        Kennesaw sure seems to have less murder than Chicago. So, we might argue that Chicago is under-armed! But wait! What you said about a murder rate of zero is just plain false! YOU EXAGGERATED!
        See:
        http://www.city-data.com/city/Kennesaw-Georgia.html
        It also appears that there is a substantial crime rate in that gun-toting utopia.

        BUT WAIT! After learning just now about Kennesaw, It dawns on me that my town is very much like Kennesaw, with a population of 24,630 people! And we have a murder rate just as low: Like Kennesaw, we actually do have a murder… like every other year… maybe. This is actually a topic of conversation in the whole state. But here we can’t point to guns being forced into the homes, as in Kennesaw, as the cause of our safety! Here, very few of us own guns. So, go figure! How is it that we are so safe? We surely don’t have many Police! And our other crime stats are same ballpark or less than Kennesaw.

        I guess that TOTALLY DEFLATES anybody’s assumption about how having more guns everywhere, like in Kennesaw, is unquestionably the answer toward the goal of safe living. Q.E.D. (remember geography class?)

        Sorry.

        1. Chris you unwittlingly validated the argument of pro gun advocates here that it is people that kill people and not the guns that kill people since the only differing factor between your argument with John is people. Thank you. Where is your town by the way? I know some criminals who would like to visit you now that they know your town is totally unarmed and un Policed. But the, you don’t can’t know for sure that your town is unarmed can you? Because I am sure you did not search every home in town to in order to make the statements you did. Your rebuttal to John is filled with holes, just as your family may be when criminals get around to your neighborhood. All because you are afraid of a piece of metal and plastic.

          Sorry

  349. Larry, Thank you for writing this article. I posted it to Facebook, because I’ve seen many people who have reacted with shock at NRA’s suggestion that teachers be armed. I hope this fact and logic-filled article will inject some sense into their heads. BTW, at my son’s high school in Huntsville, AL, there is a cop posted in the lobby. However, he is quite vulnerable in that position, and would simply be the first victim. The teachers need to be allowed to be armed.

    1. I appreciate that posting “a” security guard is a step in the right direction, but as you said, he would become the first target. What about other entrances/exits where the “one” security guard is not stationed? Do you now need multiple security guards? No, the answer in my mind is having the teacher, staff, etc. who volunteer to do so with a concealed weapon. A shooter would never know who is going to have one and will use it immediately against him. You have now sufficiently hardened a soft target, such that a shooter will look elsewhere to wreak havoc!

  350. All very good points for sure, but I think that you glossed over the most important part of the discussion. I think Suzanne Hupp expressed it very well when she addressed a group of our esteemed “elected” officials http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71YpogEUCDI.
    The main purpose of the second amendment is so that we can protect ourselves from the government. If you ask me (they will ask Wolf Blitzer or Matt Lauer first) this right to bear arms against the government is more important today than ever before.

  351. Mr. Correia; I am a self-described liberal who sleeps with a loaded pistol on the bedside table at night. As someone who is both left-leaning in his politics and a part of the American gun culture THANK YOU for this post. I have joined the many others who have shared it on Facebook and have actively urged my friends on both sides to read it. Have a great Christmas

  352. And on behalf of the ofthe Staff and Managment of the “Strap-On Bar and Grill” (Montana’s Hottest Lesbian Drinking and Dancing Club….
    We wish you a Merry Christmas

  353. Hi: As I fall somewhere in between Facebook Meme and real world qualified in other areas that you discussed ( US Army Verteran-Military Police, and target & hunting practicioner.) I would like to commend you for an insightful, hard hitting profile of gun laws and ownership. I tend to say what’s on my mind immediately , and then look to see how many I got to listen to me or those that I’ve ticked off entirely. It’s in my DNA, and that’s that. I am a gun owner in Western New York, who is listening intently to the pulse of the people / media- on quite a few issues concerning our right to keep and bear arms. In light of the recent events in the news lately, the media is full steam ahead on banning virtually everything. Here is an example of WHY this bugs me to my core. I am also a practicing martial artist who shares a heritage of black belts with my two boys. NYS, in it’s “omnipotentce” , says that most ANCIENT Karate weapons , barring a long staff among a few others, is ILLEGAL, under “deadly weapons” laws on our books. Anything sold with the name “ninja” is a deadly weapon. This list includes but is not limited to : Nunchaku, kamas, throwing stars, throwing knives and axes, (in the latter , REGULAR knives and axes CAN be sold.) I offer this as a firsthand account of what goofy legislation can do to one person who has a committed hobby or self interest. As this is a very liberal BLUE state, overwhelmingly, I need to move I guess. In closing though, I don’t believe I can contest the need for armed & willing teachers , as it’s a no-brainer. You raise some compelling ideas and are to be commended, not shunned, Sir. Best regards, Tom Prescott

  354. I really didn’t have the four days available to read all of this but it is right out of the NRA playbook…let me guess Larry, you’re an NRA Lifetime Member, a Republican and a died-in-the-wool gun guy who is hell bent on overwhelming anyone who dare take exception to anything you have to say…close?
    I too have written about guns and cops…true stories, not pulp fiction, have been a cop, have shot at folks for a living and had them shoot back. Many of the talking points brought to light in the first ten pages, are on target, but there is a valid counterpoint to each. Simply put, more guns is not the answer and the NRA along with anyone drinking their flavor of Kool Aid will give you all the reasons why they are right and the rest of the world; wrong.
    My guess is the NRA will win this immediate battle and reasonable people around the world will continue shaking their heads in disbelief. Why was there billions spent to keep Obama out of office?…to maintain a conservative point of view in the ranks of the Supreme Court; that’s why. When the next few appointments take the vote south, the doors will be opened to lawsuits against the NRA and the gun manufacturers and that’s when the house of cards will tumble.
    How about itsy bitsy guns for the little tykes? is that is the cards too?

  355. Small minded thinking, in my opinion, and as I had mentioned, I think this is a stereotypical male approach to problem solving. It’s quite possible that this is a solution on a small scale. But it’s a solution that perpetuates the problem: a culture of violence rather than a civilization of love. Do you want to solve the problem of murders or the fact that as a culture we feel violence is necessary? Are we content being willing to become killers? Again, why don’t we deal this at the difficult level of personal, human love, confronting mental illness – which the author admits to total ignorance on, and this is extremely significant – dealing with children who are neglected/abused young, fatherlessness, faithlessness and the myriad of other things that leave people open to despair, deception and in some cases, violent behavior? No, we would rather respond with the easy “solution” of guns. It may possibly prevent deaths, but at what cost? Will it not just perpetuate greater suspicion, fear, violence? There are worse things than death.

    1. I’m sorry, but could you please explain to me, in what world you envision an actual reasonable person feeling that at no time, ever, is violence necessary?
      This stipulates that “reasonable person” means, among other things, a person who will not merely sit watching innocents perish around them.

      I’m just pointing this out, because I wonder if you have conflated “feeling violence is necessary” with “wants to kill stuff”. Just because I will engage in violence if I feel that the lives of my family is threatened, or the lives of my friends, or the lives of complete strangers in a corner store, or, yes, even my own life, does not mean I walk around hoping for a chance to murder someone. Actually, I very much hope that I never find myself in such a situation, ever. But if I do, I do not want to be at the mercy of those who instigate violence, nor do I want to watch anyone else be at their mercy either. I have decided that, faced with watching people be hurt or die and being unable to prevent it, or preventing their deaths by causing the death of the one attacking them, I choose the latter. Killing someone is not something I want to do. If I have to shoot and kill someone, it will affect me for the rest of my life, no doubt. I may puke right after firing, I don’t know.(I hope not). But compared to how I would feel after having thought about this, rejected a violent response solution, and then watching people die while helpless? No comparison. No thank you.

      So I ask the question of you. You apparently give this thought. You apparently have rejected availing yourself of the means of violent response. What will you feel if people you love are killed, or even complete strangers, while you watch helplessly, having forgone any method of protecting them? Can your sanity survive that?

      Another question: if you are against the proliferation of guns and “gun violence”, how can you stand by and not speak out against the political/media circus about banning/controlling guns that happens every time a tragedy like this occurs, seeing as how that, more than anything else, has been the primary motivating factor in getting people to stock up on weaponry? I don’t intend this as a rhetorical question.

    2. You cannot respond to violence with “love”. When you are responsible for the lives of our children (a school, for ex.) and a repetition of Newton starts taking place, turning the other cheek (i.e., after the madman has killed a dozen children, offer another dozen to him/her).
      Detractors of arming our schools (on a voluntary basis) are pompously saying, “We are trying to reduce guns and you are proposing more guns?” Well, YES. We want to reduce mis-use or abuse of GUNS so when a bad guy with a gun (or guns) shows up, we want to have the only defense possible, more GOOD guns to offset or defend against BAD guns.
      When in danger, YOU call 911, the police. Will you tell the 911 dispatcher, “Please make sure that the police you send are NOT carrying guns.I hate guns.”?

    3. You ask: ” Are we content being willing to become killers?”

      And I ask: “Are you content being willing to become a victim?

      Because, I’ll tell you this much. As a woman, I’m sure as hell not. Therefore, your argument about this being a “stereotypical male solution” is invalid.

    4. Your willingness to make us all defenseless victims of crime while coddling criminals is utterly disgusting, Alisha.

    5. And your assertion that women should make themselves victims in order to avoid “stereotypical male thinking” is even more disgusting.

  356. I appreciate your considered argument but I would suggest that the assertion that you’re qualified to give an opinion because of your experience with guns is false logic – like saying that only those with a penis are qualified to comment on rape.

    Also, having trained, experienced, armed guards at Columbine and at other mass shootings didn’t prevent them.

    I accept that ‘guns don’t kill people; people kill people’, but easily accessible guns certainly make it easier.

      1. The NY Daily News story says MULTIPLE TIMES that Gardner was NOT at Columbine at the start of the massacre, so without a retraction, that indicates disgusting revisionist history on the part of anyone who claims otherwise, whether that’s Gawker, or YOU, 2012nancy.

        “Sheriff’s deputy Neil Gardner was stationed at Columbine High, but wasn’t there when gunmen began their attack in 1999.”

        “Neil Gardner, who was stationed at the school but was not there when gunmen attacked…”

        “Gardner rushed back to the school after Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold began the gruesome rampage…”

        “If you’re going to put a police officer in a school, make sure his focus stays on the school,” he [Gardner] said.

        Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/columbine-armed-guards-schools-students-safe-article-1.1225796#ixzz2J7NRCFaL

    1. Wow! – the bloody media must have missed that fact about armed guards at Columbine! Aren’t they useless?

      In all the coverage I followed on that event I never saw a mention.

    2. Nancy, I’m sorry, but you are, at best, cognitively dissonant when you claim that education, training, and experience with firearms is somehow “false logic” (your words). When I have needed advice on home repair, I went to a building contractor, not a butcher; when I needed medical advice, I went to a physician, not a baker, You would have me ignore a firearms instructor in favor of a candlestick maker? I don’t think so.

      (And neither do the courts – I commend to your attention Federal Rule of Evidence 702: ” A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” Larry’s preface giving his credentials is his answer to (a); the rest of his essay is the answer to (b), (c), and (d). I can tell you from my experience in Forensic Science that Larry has sufficient credentials under FRE 702 to be admitted as an expert witness – you have not presented similar credentials in rebuttal, and so, are disqualified from offering an opinion as an expert – that you “feel very strongly” will not do.)

      Worse, you devolve into the disingenuous and inflammatory when you use the phrase, “stereotypical male response”, then go on to draw the almost libellous parallel of claiming that possession of relevant expertise is somehow “like saying that only those with a penis are qualified to comment on rape.” Honestly, that’s utterly mindless, and I daresay hateful and anthrophobic, to boot. First, an accident of biology by the writer has absolutely nothing to do with the article material relevance to the issue at hand (I would start my rebuttal by referring you to Kathy Jackson at http://corneredcat.com ).. Second, you yourself are perpetuating the stereotype in the form of “male = villain” – nonsense, as witnessed by the number of men who have fought, both metaphorically and physically, to protect and empower women (and died, both metaphorically via ostracism and physically via assault). When you use such hateful rhetoric, you disgrace them. And me. And yourself.

      Do better.

      You err once again when you cite the poor performance of the deputy at Columbine.You ignore the sterling performance of the off-duty police officers at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, VA; the vice-principal of the school at Pearl, Mississippi; the off-duty, outside-his-jurisdiction cop at Trolley Square Mall in SLC, Utah; the ex-cop parishioner at New Life Church at Colorado Springs CO; and (most recently) the private citizen at Clackamas Towne Square mall, in Clackamas County, OR (summaries for all available at Wikipedia.org). I don’t know if you mean to, but you’re offering a rhetorical trick, here, in that you demand a perfect solution to replace your own, even when your own proposed solution is demonstrably ineffective. False standard of proof, Nancy – All we “gun nuts” need to demonstrate is that our proposal of “volunteer armed and trained teachers” is a better Plan Omega (“Plan Omega” being defined as “The absolute last resort when everything else we have done has failed or is bypassed);

      I agree to an extent: the best course of action would involve our doing better. Better Layered Planning includes: to detect and intervene with mental health services with disturbed persons;the dissimenation of our security measures; interdict with passive (such as locks, metal detectors, and other measures) and active (agressively-patrolling security, actively-engaged teachers and counselors, as opposed to those living monuments to Pournelle’s Law who are just going through the motions)… When Plan Alpha fails, Plan Beta fails, Plan Gamma fails, Plan Delta, et cetera… Larry and I, as well as many others, suggest a Plan Omega that will have a better outcome than simply hiding under our desks. Do you have a bettrer alternative than ours?

      You don’t provide it in your dissonant, and disingenuous post above.- perhaps you refine your answer in “Reply” comments below? If you do, I will respond via the reply button below. If you do not, I reserve the right to respond to your comments elsewhere.

      1. Mike,
        I’m sorry you misunderstood me; I tried to say that it was false logic to equate having experience of guns with being qualified to comment on social policy. I used a penis/rape analogy to try to explain what I meant; i.e. that experience of the weapon does not qualify one to comment on the crime, more than any other member of society.

        We need a ‘bigger picture’ approach. To develop one of your own analogies, if I want advice on diet or nutrition I wouldn’t go to a butcher, however good and well qualified, as s/he would have a vested interest in persuading me to eat more meat.

        I’m sure that a court might call Larry to be an expert witness on guns and their use, but, unless I’m doing him an injustice, I don’t think he’d be called as an expert witness on mass shootings, gun control or the links between mental ill-health and crime.

        I did not say ‘stereotypical male response’ anywhere. Nor do I recognise the rest of your comment as relating to my post at all. Maybe you’re mistaking me for another poster?

    3. Your url is showing it’s bias. But that’s ok, let’s go with what it says and ignore stuff like “he wasn’t there” or “he ran away” because you’re doing it anyway.

      So we have a school campus, and one security guard, openly armed. Let’s go ahead and assume this guard is serious, eagle eyed, and perpetually vigilant, despite the fact that, statistically, he can work this job his entire life and never face an armed assailant.

      Ok, I’ve given you all of that for the sake of this exercise. Now, assume your job title is Federal Campus Safety analyst, and you have been asked to do a complete analysis and tactical assessment of Columbine HS. A major part of the report you will turn in will be framed from the perspective of a hypothetical armed assailant, where you will detail how such a person might choose to infiltrate the school and cause maximum carnage. You must be ruthless in your assessment of weaknesses and ways to exploit them, because if you are not, then the report will be soft and weaknesses will not be hardened and kids might die.

      Go.

      1. That’s true, the URL does show a bias, but I did look at a number of on-line reports on Columbine and they all seemed biased in one way or the other. I chose one that suited me – mea culpa – that tends to be what most people do. It seems to me that there’s very little in the way of reports, which are easily accessible, that seek to take a balanced view and actually present the historical, political and policy context with possible solutions, backed up by substantial evidence.

        I’m not going to write your report for you because, even if I was willing to spend the neccessary time on it, I don’t think it would serve any useful purpose in this forum. One area I would be interested in exploring though is, how would the risk assessment aspect of the report differ if the school was in a another country, and why should that be the case?

  357. This is one of the best, if not the best articles on gun control. My elected reps will be given your article. Many thanks.

  358. “Once the confiscations [of guns were to] turn violent, then it would push many otherwise peaceful people over the edge.”
    This is exactly what happened on the state level at the start of the Civil War. When Lincoln announced his plan to raise an army to bring South Carolina to heel, states that had previously shied from secession came to see Lincoln as a threat to themselves as well as to South Carolina, and responded by joining the seceding states. The result was what we all know.

  359. Thank you for the informative read. We can never have enough good, common sense & thought provoking intell when knee jerk responses that threaten our safety seem to be the norm.

  360. Thank you!
    I’ve been a gun owner since I was old enough to own them. I’ve also been in the military for 17 years and maintained handgun quals for 12 of those years. Your blog was spot on AND gave me a quiver of better ways to defend my views when questioned.
    Happy New Year!
    – CJ

  361. This might already be in the comments, but the Gabby Giffords shooting was across the street, and <1000 feet away from a high school, so it was most definitely in the Federal Gun Free School Zone. Anyone carrying without a permit there (in accordance with AZ state law dubbed "Constitutional Carry") was a mala prohibita, criminal.

  362. I don’t agree with everything here, but I just want to say thank you for posting such a thoughtful and respectful discourse on this subject! It really made me think about a lot of my views, and you clearly know what you’re talking about. I wish politicians and the general public would converse more often in such a way; it would solve a lot of the problems with the excessive divisiveness of our political system. What a breath of fresh air!

  363. Well done Larry. One point I haven’t seen anyone making is that Al Qaeda lone wolves must surely be looking at these school shootings and realizing what an easy target they represent. Gun Free Zones are the perfect place for a single terrorist to kill a lot of people. Lone wolves like Maj. Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood are nearly impossible to counter with intelligence because they are never in contact anyone else. IMHO this is a strong argument for CCW trained and armed school staff.

  364. I would not dream of arguing a single point made here, since I agree entirely! Congratulations for a superb article which covers almost every possible base in the argument over gun-ownership!

    Here in South Africa where I live, we have never had more than about 2.5 million registered gun-owners (all guns have for decades had to be registered/licenced to their owner) and perhaps 4-5 million legally owned guns.

    Whilst this was a simple process with no cost attached under laws prior to 2004, a new law drafted by our Communist-inspired government has in effect imposed licencing requirements almost the same (more costly though!) as your National Firearms Act of 1934 – but the law totally prohibits any thought of automatic weapons and so any weapon other than those types from pistols to rifles and shotguns – re. the latter it is apparently very hard to get a licence for any semi-auto shotgun although pump-action is allowed!

    Ownership of multiple weapons up to a limit of IIRC four or so, is not outlawed but is strictly controlled. A purpose (self-defence.sport etc) must be stated and is attached to each weapon and that weapon may be used only for that purpose. This means that if a ‘bird-shooting’ shotgun is used for SD then one can be prosecuted for this ‘transgression’ – how stupid is this? For Self-Defence only one weapon is permitted.

    It is not ‘stupid’ of course but merely one of the planks in the UN global disarmament campaign-led legislation which aims to remove all guns in civilian hands – this goal has even been clearly stated by various government people!

    More than that the (centralised) issuing authority has the power to turn down applications without reasons being stated – unbelievable? Believe it, they do this all the time!

    There is much, much more but you get the picture I am sure – do not let this picture become your American picture!

    Get ready for your major and hard fight against these people and good luck with it! – I do believe there are seriously threatening ulterior and hidden motives, going way beyond the claimed need to stop children being murdered by lunatics who should have been institutionalised before they could do their evil deeds!

    1. Stewart, as long as there are people like you in South Africa, there is hope for that beleaguered country. Good on ya!

  365. Great piece Larry. The only one item I found missing was why sometimes very smart people are not persuaded by the logic of using force against force. Whenever this is suggested, the anti-gunners always argue that they are afraid it won’t work. In truth, what many of them are afraid of is that it will work. What they are afraid of is that armed citizens will shoot and kill the perpetrators before they have had a fair trial and a chance for compassionate rehabilitation. You have to press very hard to find this out since they are aware of just how nuts this is but won’t admit it.

    The other thing is trying to convince the anti gunners that there are real evil people in the world. A lot of time is wasted in arguments trying to convince them of this. Truth is, they think that a very large percentage of people are evil, not the small fraction that most rational people think. Just look what happened when it was suggested that airline pilots be armed. The anti gunners didn’t want “wild west cowboys” [pilots] “shooting up the place”. Of course that’s ridiculous, we all put out lives in the pilot’s hands every time we fly and they could easily snuff out a few hundred lives with one press of a button if they desired. Now the proposal is to arm teachers but they don’t want that since probably lots of teachers are “wild west cowboys” who will probably start blasting whenever they have a bad hair day. Furthermore, even if they do only shoot would be assassins, they will be snuffing out the lives of poor misunderstood innocents like Kliebold, Loufner, and Adam Lanza.

    My suggestion before starting any conversation with an anti gunner is to establish some basics which will prevent a lot of useless arguments: (1) if killers come after our kids, we’re going to have to shoot to kill them, ok?, and (2) gun permit holders are people you can trust not to shoot your kids. If you can’t get agreement on these two items, you probably should save your breath– you are dealing with someone who isn’t rational.

    1. Dave, your last paragraph above is so logical, so reasonable, that it will be immediately resisted by Antis’s emotions and the usual faulty arguments.
      For the antis would rather see a woman raped (and then killed) than have her armed and (at least try to) resist an assailant by using an (evil) gun.

      1. Yep, you’ve got our (monolithic) (strawman) side down in this utterly clear-cut debate between precisely two distinct sides. I will take being raped and murdered EVERY SINGLE TIME. Thank you for being such a reasonable and logical person yourself.

  366. I know this will probably be lost in the wall of comments, but I want to open up the Mental Health Issues bit for discussion. We cannot discuss the issue of violence without discussing mental health. You did touch on it a few times in your essay here, many mass murderers are being treated for psychiatric disorders. Contrary to popular belief, schizophrenia is not the most common diagnosis (although it is an easy to believe headline due to negative, and false, opinions about schizophrenics in the media)- treatment for schizophrenics usually leaves them quite, quite addled. They are in no condition to even attempt a mass shooting. The common diagnosis among most shooters is either a severe case of a mixture of a social functioning disorder (Jared Loughner had Asperger’s syndrome, many serial killers are narcissists, and the VT shooter demonstrated severe social phobia symptoms), drug dependency (Often marijuana or alcohol. On their own they are comparatively harmless but they can synergize with psychiatric medications to severely exacerbate symptoms, particularly anxiety and depression symptoms, while negating medical benefits),underachievement (Jared Loughner dropped out of college twice), and repeated social failure (the VT shooter was known to be friendless). The mixture of a social anxiety disorder that has been exacerbated by drug abuse into an individual that has been frustrated in his attempts to succeed in both academics or social life is the recipe for disaster here. They are lashing out at a system that has failed them and which they perceive to be an enemy. I agree with your solution to mitigate damage when an episode occurs, but the solution to prevent further violence is better schooling. People who succeed in school and have a plan for life have something to live and work for- this is known to be a key component to a psychologically healthy individual. People who do well academically have healthier relationships and are far less likely to use drugs or engage in other criminal behavior. Happy, healthy, successful people do not shoot up schools. That shootings are so prevalent in the USA is a symptom of a greater problem: a system that fails, sometimes catastrophically, at raising functional members of society.

    1. Spot on, Jack. This quote I found sums it up pretty well:

      “So another mass-murder conducted by a product of government schools, in a government school, under the government-recommended/mandated care of a government-employed/licensed shrink, on government-approved and government-promoted mind-altering drugs, in a government-mandated weapon-free zone, protected by a government agency the government claims ‘serves and protects’ (though it is incapable of doing so). Clearly the problem is guns.”

  367. I came here by way of Uncle Timmy’s Rag. Thanks for the very good read. Even with as good an article as this is, I have little hope that minds can be set straight on either side of this debate. Far to often, especially with heated topics such as this, logic and reason often take a back seat to emotion and values (as stated, this goes for both sides). Needless to say, to help peretuate the spread of logic and reason, I will be sharing this link on my Facebook.

  368. Thanks for a great article.

    For those who are worried that a teacher might go crazy and start shooting up the school: What, exactly, is preventing them from doing that now? Why would a psychopathic teacher be any more inclined to obey the law than any of the pathetically evil SOB’s who have committed these heinous crimes?

    We have several retired and reserve military/police teaching at our school who would be more than willing and capable of providing this added security that I would imagine only a few of the civilian teachers would be motivated to bring their own weapons. Those few would get the requisite training. (And, of course, it is their RIGHT to do so.)

    Instead of posting a “Free Killing Zone” sign, we could post “This facility protected by armed Marshals”

  369. This was really one of the best laid out arguments for gun rights that I have ever seen laid out. Thank you for this. My dad was in law enforcement for years, as were two of my uncles and my grandfather, and they have made some of these points time and time again. And for the people who don’t like the idea of teachers carrying, if you can’t trust an educator with a gun, you may as well quit your job and homeschool your kids. The truth is this, we trust our children’s lives and futures of these people everyday. If that isn’t trust, I don’t know what is.

  370. You are TOTALLY WRONG. Conn. Does have a concealed weapon program – like Texas & Az. The problem is the zero tolerance on school property which also takes place in Az. —GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE SOUNDING OFF.

    1. Connecticut has a MAY issue CCW program. If the local politicians like you, you can have a special permit. If you are a mere citizen, no CCW for you.

      It does not have a required issue program like AZ or TX.

      GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE SOUNDING OFF, retard.

  371. LARRY,

    I congratulate you on your lucid, thorough, opinion commentary on gun control. I will further belabor my “anti” friends on the subject, but this time with your far superior presentation.

    Do you have any idea how many lefties have responded positively–possibly even to questioning their own anti-gun stances? Have you found a way to crack their blind-and-deaf shell of sound-byte-irrationality that I haven’t been able to find? When I try to start a rational discussion on it, I’m met with cheap debate-techniques that contribute absolutely nothing to a legit discussion, unable to get ’em beyond that simple-minded point. …Any suggestions would be appreciated, though I know you’re burned out on all this.

    Regardless, a huge THANK YOU! ..for your opinion!

    Sincerely,

    Noel M. Blankenship, Retired professor, Kent St. University
    Kent, Ohio 44240

  372. Larry, I’ve been talking to my CCW instructor and fellow students, as well as adding to the data on firearms/crime/gun control I’ve collected over the years, and I’ve got to say, your essay encapsulated my knowledge and experience almost completely. While I’m comforted that I am not in fact howling alone at the moon, I’m a little dismayed at a possible psychic link with a guy I didn’t know about until yesterday when a friend forwarded this link. Thank you for this well reasoned, polite, comprehensive essay, that will continue to fall on the deaf ears of the gun control crowd. They don’t know, they believe, and as you correctly observed in your opening paragraphs, they can’t be reasoned with, because reason would poke holes in their (defective) world view. One of mankind’s flaws is trying to explain THE world by extrapolating the perception of OUR world. This only works for liberals if the world behaves just like Greenwich Village, which of course it does not. But the ignorant moderates out there (there have to be a few left) might be swayed by reason, and for that I thank you. Now, get out of my head.

  373. This is THE most intelligent, informative mass of realistic, factual info that I have seen yet – however not surprised since I grew up with firearms since the age of 14, and have been shooting and hunting over 40 yrs and never would think of hurting an innocent person. I do agree tho that ALL American’s should have the ‘Right To Own And Bear Arms’ and defend ourselves, homes, loved ones and co-workers, etc. THE best defense is a good offense – period! Have more people carrying concealed weapons and you have the perfect deterrent against crime. Simple fact. And any firearm that resembles a M-16 isn’t responsible for killing nor crime.

  374. Thanks for posting this. I’m going to save a copy for me as on Thursday (12-27) I’ll be going through a CCW class. In fact, while I’ve fired shotguns and rifles, the latter when I was in the Army and Air Guard, I’ve never fired a pistol. Something the instructor said would not be a problem as he won’t have to worry about bad habits. The uproar that’s going on is showing me how these pandering politicians don’t care one fig about the public’s right to defend themselves. In fact a friend and I had a hot argument over this. And she got really hot when I mentioned the 2nd Amendment wasn’t about hunting. Then she switched to magazine size and later informed me that her information came from both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Two publications I have little regard for and she knows. By the way, we’re both in journalism. Thanks again for your insightful look into this issue.

  375. There is no greater monster, no greater evildoer, than the one who murders young children. We cannot bring the Sandy Hook victims back to life, but we can work to ensure that something like this never happens again by a combination of armed teachers, armed security personnel, and armed citizen volunteers.

    1. You are exactly right. Again we are hearing a drumbeat to ban guns of one form or another. Come, let us reason together. Switzerland issues every household a rifle! Every Swiss citizen is considered responsible for defense of the nation. Their Government Trains every adult they issue a rifle. Switzerland has the LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD !!! CLEARLY GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. Instead we should be talking about why so many of our young people are willing to kill innocent men, women, and children. WE have a MENTAL ILLNESS AND MORALITY PROBLEM in this nation. THAT is an issue that we should ALL AGREE to do something about.

      Let us pray for the families who have lost their greatest blessings, their children and loved ones, let us grieve as a nation for the senseless loss, then let’s get to work on the REAL problem we face.

  376. Larry, these may be abit late to add, but here are some comments from the Australian press. You may also like to know that the third item listed is about a mother who objects to toy guns and wants to start a “buy-back” of all toy firearms.
    The 4th posting seems to vindicate you and others wanting teachers to “conceal carry” (not sure if i have the right terminology there).

    http://www.news.com.au/national/us-gun-owners-show-off-their-christmas-toys/story-fndo4eg9-1226543962179

    http://www.news.com.au/world/guns-in-america-an-interactive-look-at-the-shocking-facts/story-fndir2ev-1226539874646

    http://www.news.com.au/news/mum-gives-toy-guns-the-bullet/story-fnepjsb4-1226542639785

    http://www.news.com.au/world/utah-teachers-to-attend-concealed-gun-training-after-connecticut/story-fndir2ev-1226544026635

  377. Larry,
    Thanks for getting everything all in one place. I can’t imagine what an effort it was to say all these things for the n+1 time as I know how tired I get writing the same paragraph or two about “assault weapons” the difference between a clip and a magazine, and the irrevelance of magazine capacity relative to increased danger in a weapon, etc.

    I only have one minor issue and that’s about the “barrel shroud”. I may be wrong, but isn’t that the upper hand guard on the M-14/M1A? It wasn’t metal, but fiberglass as I remember. On the M-16 or AR-15 wasn’t it ABS, or some other high impact plastic which not only protected ones hand from a hot barrel, but also protected the fragile gas tube?

    Be advised that wasn’t a criticism, but merely a minor technical poing and in no way diminishes my appreciation for your Herculean effort.

  378. Excuse the typo in the last sentence, “minor technical poing” was obviously meant to read, “minor technical point”.

  379. Writing as an Englishman, and therefore banned from possessing any firearm in the country of my birth, and incidentally where only bad guys and the police carry weaponry, I can honestly state that I have read few expositions on the ‘whys and wherefores” of being able to go about your daily business legally armed. I used to carry a revolver when living overseas in South Africa, and used it three times.

    The first time I fired my weapon, I fired to deter, to frighten a man whom I reckoned was going to either rob or kill me. I was severely censured by a senior policeman because I did not kill or wound the suspect. Why? Because he lived to maybe rob or kill someone else.

    The second time I fired my gun in anger was after I was disturbed from sleep by a thief who was attempting to force my porch sliding door. I fired as he jumped over a high wall at the back of the property. I reckon I hit him because the police found bloodstains on the concrete path the other side of the wall. Again I received instructions from a police sergeant, but the advice was mainly around how to aim and fire successfully at a moving target.

    The third time I fired was to kill a very large and angry dog which was between me and the road. He went down with a single bullet between his eyes, and the only thing I felt was relief that all that practice had paid off.

    But my point in commenting upon your excellent post was simply to state that your viewpoint should be required reading at all the conversations and councils which discuss the tragic shootings in Connecticut. I state ‘should’, because, like many, many others; I ain’t holding my breath!

  380. Well, you’ve convinced me that draconian gun control is not the way to go. I wish everybody was able to present an argument so eloquently and with only the facts.

  381. Excellent article, thank you. Wish I had read it prior to a recent trip when I encountered many foreigners raving about “America’s love affair with guns”. Also, as a CT resident, I am (not) surprised to find out that CT has strict gun control laws – something not mentioned by the press (doh!) or that the mother was trying to have her son committed. Lastly, if you have time, please post your reference sites for the statistics. I’d like to be able to quote your source material. Thank you.

  382. Thank you. Thank you for caring and thank you for taking the time to explain. I had some preconceived misinformation all ideas that have been clarified. Thank you and God bless Wish I could take a class from you….come to Kansas!!

  383. Larry as much as i’m not against totally banning weapons some of the ‘facts’ you state here are just wrong. Some weapons deserve to be banned for the public good. When was the last time you carried a concealed m4 under your jacket?

    There have been a few mass shooting that have happened in weapon allowed zones the officer shooting where 4 officers were gunned down comes to mind as an additional one.

    Also in the knife stabbing you bring up can you tell us how many deaths there were?

    1. The mistake in your first statement is to believe that all defensive gun use is from concealment. Rifles and shotguns are very effective in home defense scenarios, and criminal uses are very rare.

      Using Sen. Feinstein’s numbers, there have been 450 violent crimes perpetrated (after Aurora, but before Newtown) using semi-automatic rifles (or “assault rifles” to use her preferred, more ambiguous, inflammatory term) since the sunset of the AWB in 2004. That works out to about 60/year, out of 436,000 crimes per year involving a gun of any kind (handgun, rifle or shotgun). So semi-automatic rifles are being demonized out of all proportion to their actual involvement in crime, to no small degree because the ignorant think they are scary.

      Semi-automatic rifles are also used successfully for home defense. The problem is that unlike the relatively rare mass shootings, home defense statistics are collected much more sporadically. Estimates of self-defense gun uses in the U.S. range from 100,000 (U.S. Census) to 2.5 million (private, anonymous surveys) per year. For defensive uses to out-number criminal uses, the percentage of defensive rifle uses would have to be 4.4x the percentage of criminal uses. I don’t think this is an irrational assumption because as you pointed out, rifles aren’t easily concealable. Suicidal sociopaths notwithstanding, most criminals go out of their way to not be noticed, especially by law enforcement. That is one reason criminal use of rifles is so low. Home defenders on the other hand, have no such qualms about being noticed with their rifles. A rifle is overwhelmingly superior for defense when concealment and portability aren’t major issues, and so I find it very plausible that home defense rifle uses far outnumber criminal uses every year. I apologize for the approximations, but lacking any direct collection of the data, I’m left to try to deduce it from the numbers that are available.

      I’m not familiar with the officer-involved shooting you mention, so I’ll reserve comment until I know more.

      As far as stabbings vs. fatal stabbings, this does bring up the point of crime in the UK, which has a lower murder rate than the U.S. (though still high by European standards), but a higher violent crime rate than the U.S. or the rest of Europe. For gun-control advocates I presume that is good news, provided they aren’t among those raped, stabbed, mugged and/or beaten. The idea that violent crime is okay as long as it’s not fatal doesn’t really make sense to me, nor do I suspect it makes sense to the majority of those victimized.

      Feinstein’s numbers via AP
      Other statistics via http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
      UK crime rates via http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

  384. I respect a lot of what he says, but it can be simplified to: Gun lovers want their guns and only use Amendment 2 and “self defense” as punchlines to justify ownership. Why not be honest? Just say “I fucking love guns!!” and most people will understand much more clearly. The rest is noise, and other than the statistics and fun facts this article lost all substance the first time I saw “liberal” and “pacifist”. Labeling your audience is presumptive and destroys your credibility. You want to get through to people? Stick with facts and philosophy and lose the labels. Because I don’t fit neatly under a label or into a category, it’s more difficult to convince me (and others like me)…of anything. Truly great writing gets through to multiple audiences, not just those with the same bias, and never mind the browbeating. One more thing: It’s not about gun control at all. It’s much bigger than that, and once we gets past statistics and broad assumptions, we might see that.

    1. “Why not be honest? Just say “I fucking love guns!!” and most people will understand much more clearly. The rest is noise, and other than the statistics and fun facts this article lost all substance the first time I saw “liberal” and “pacifist”. Labeling your audience is presumptive and destroys your credibility.”

      Did you intend to be hypocritical, or did you really not notice this while you were typing? I do agree though that labeling your audience can be presumptive.

      I don’t love guns. I love my wife and my family. I have owned a handgun since 1993, in large part because I was tired of the buffoonery foisted on me by USAFE leadership, which led to me flying combat patrols with a .38 revolver carried in a holster modified for an M-9 Beretta (“…they’re coming in any day now”). After dropping the revolver on the ramp while picking up the aircraft maintenance forms (the M-9 is bigger in the grip than the .38) I decided that when I got back to the Tactical Air Forces I’d take it upon myself to have a better equipment option. FWIW a Glock 20 won’t fit in an M-9 holster, either (though a Glock 29 will).

      I started carrying 2 1/2 years ago, when I needed something to keep me occupied while my wife was stationed in Baghdad. I took a local CCW course with an attitude similar to yours, that most gun owners just love shooting, and rationalize reasons to justify owning. I don’t know about you, but I was raised on the east coast, and blame that cauldron of liberalism for my misshapen formative years. To paraphrase Jake Johannsen “It took a long time for me to realize that we were free to go”. I thought I knew everything about violence and guns that I needed to, and that I was the only one with the answers, and the only one responsible enough to carry as a civilian. My fellow citizens were too irresponsible and unskilled to be trusted with guns. Unlike you however, I took the CCW class and learned a few things. Instruction from professionals is usually a good idea. Violent crime in America is relatively rare, ratings grabs by the media to the contrary. Guns are already out there, and will be for the foreseeable future. Criminals don’t care about laws (by definition). What they care about is compliance, and guns really help with that. So does disparity of force in general. As a 5’9″ skinny middle-aged guy, should I find myself the target of criminal violence (armed or unarmed) without being armed myself, my options are limited. Martial arts, mace and tasers all have pretty severe limitations (though they’re all still better than denial).

      In my perfect world, all CCW carriers would be trained to Marine Scout-Sniper levels of proficiency and responsibility. In the gun-controllers perfect world, guns (and the knowledge of how to make them) would be magically transported off the Earth. Both are fantasies though, condemned to the land of mass-less pulleys and frictionless surfaces. If you set the standards impossibly high for most folks, you’ll disarm many who would otherwise have been perfectly capable of defending themselves, and turn a few otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals when they break the law for their own protection. In this world, the one we actually live in, violent crime is rare, but it happens. When it happens to me, I want to be able to defend myself and those around me with action more effective than cowering and hoping the shooter passes me by. The worst way to show up to a gunfight is without a gun, the second worst way to show up is with almost enough ammunition. As for my fellow citizens, I learned that I am not top of the heap when it comes to firearms knowledge and proficiency (though with continual training, I’m a lot closer to the top than I was).

      Does it still seem to you that I’m treating the subject of self defense and the 2nd Amendment as a “punchlines” to justify my gun ownership?

  385. When a newspaper has no regard for the 2nd amendment, or our right to privacy, perhaps we should not support the newspaper by purchasing it, or buying products from the papers advertisers.

  386. Larry, A friend shared your post with me. I now have your siteas a Favorite. Have had of these same thoughts. Just never seen them all put together in such a manor, WELL SAID and right on – Thank and keep up the good work.

  387. Larry,
    Excellent essay. I will need to re-read once or twice more to digest all of it. Came across this through Highroad Forum.
    Well done!

    1. If no teachers are armed then all the children could be killed (during the m.i.n.u.t.e.s. it will take the police to arrive.
      If one teacher is armed, the children chances have jumped from zero to “n”
      If two teachers (or school staff) are armed, the children’s chances of survival have doubled.
      If three teachers, you can see…………..

      All of this is under the premise that no one is forced to be armed and that armed “educators” have the necessary training.

  388. “The teachers are there already. The school staff is there already. Their reaction time is measured in seconds, not minutes. They can serve as your immediate violent response. Best case scenario, they engage and stop the attacker, or it bursts his fantasy bubble and he commits suicide. Worst case scenario, the armed staff provides a distraction, and while he’s concentrating on killing them, he’s not killing more children.

    But teachers aren’t as trained as police officers! True, yet totally irrelevant. The teacher doesn’t need to be a SWAT cop or Navy SEAL. They need to be speed bumps.”

    I’m bemused that you are so cavalier with the lives of other people and propose that they, instead of being simply educators (the job they signed up for) volunteer to also become armed bodyguards and potential target practice for spree killers.

    I just can’t get my head around that kind of logic. These are peoples’ lives you are talking about and you are proposing a scenario that at worst leaves them as ‘speed bumps’? Really? The loss of a child’s life is terrible, but the loss of any life is terrible. Teachers shouldn’t have to deal with this and shouldn’t have to even think of such things as this.

    If those supporting such a proposal are so committed maybe they could volunteer to patrol potential areas of risk themselves? I forever hear those that don’t want their rights to own guns infringed upon talking about ‘responsibility’. Well how about putting their own lives in the firing line for what they believe, and taking that responsibility instead of these passing the buck proposals?

    1. Fine! I am a former Infantry Staff Sergeant who is certified as an NRA and AZ Firearms Instructor. I practice with a variety of firearms every week, and I will happily volunteer at least one day per week to serve as an armed guardian for a school in my community. I’m sure there are many, many more with at least my qualifications who would be willing to serve, at no cost, in their communities.

    2. What’s so cavalier about it? A lot of parents trust that the people teaching their children not only care about their education but also about their charges’ safety. With some minor exceptions, this usually turns out to be the case. Believe it or not, quite a few teachers do care that much about their students, you know.

    3. Um…as we just saw, they’re ALREADY “potential target practice for spree killers.” The question is whether they have the choice to be able to shoot back.

      Apparently, you’re unable to get your head around ANY kind of logic. 😕

  389. A very well written article with an abundance of indisputable facts – with one glaring exception. Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is not only incorrect, it’s completely irresponsible. The amendment is a single sentence that is very clear and it doesn’t say or even remotely imply that the right to bare arms is for the purpose of protecting yourself from a tyrannical government. There are way too many nut bags out there that define a tyrannical government as the one that just won the popular vote.

    1. You don’t see too many of those “nutbags” attempting to overthrow the government, though, do you? And sorry, the Anonymous group doesn’t count.

      The historical context of the Second Amendment would prove you wrong, actually

    2. “…being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE…” Seems pretty clear to me that it’s about protecting yourself from a tyrannical anything. If the 2nd were about hunting or sporting purposes we’d have amendments guaranteeing football, baseball and gardening, but we don’t. And being popular has no bearing on tyranny; WWII and the Cold War were fought against extremely tyrannical, and oftentimes extremely popular, foreign governments. The current and former administrations have their share of abuses of the rule of law, so please don’t lump legitimate supporters of the 2nd Amendment with conspiracists and paranoids.

  390. I will say that you are very well spoken, but that doesn’t mean that you are correct. I am a college educated educator and the majority of my peers pretty vehemently disagree with all of your arguments, especially the ones concerning no gun zones, which a school should certainly be. In your argument, you conveniently left out many statistics regarding guns. Despite what happened in Sandy Hook, a school is still the safest place that a child can be. If you introduce a gun into a school the chance that someone, student or faculty will be killed increases dramatically. Arming teachers is a knee jerk reaction that would make people feel better in the short run, until a student somehow gets a hold of a teachers gun and we have another tragedy on our hands. The states that you mentioned that already allow concealed carry in schools have some of the highest rates of gun related deaths in the country.

    You mentioned the attack that happened in China. What you failed to mention was that no one was killed in that attack. If the assailant had had a gun, then you can be almost certain that those 22 people would have been killed.

      1. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for teachers. Most self-described “educators,” however, are assholes.

    1. “The majority of my peers.”

      I’m sure as a college educated educator, you are aware of the concept of sample selection bias.

      “If you introduce a gun into a school the chances that someone, student of faculty, will be killed increases dramatically.”

      If that’s true you should be able to find a dramatic increase in the number of people being shot in Utah schools which have been doing exactly what Larry has proposed for _years_. Oh, wait, Wikipedia lists _one_ shooting in a Utah school, a high school student who committed suicide: went home, got a gun, went back to school, then shot himself.

      Seems your assertion of this increase in chances doesn’t hold up when examined in light of actual evidence.

      “no one was killed in that [China knife] attack.”

      As Larry mentioned elsewhere the China attack was mentioned because of coincidence of time with Sandy Hook. He could as easily have picked up the Osaka school massacre (8 killed, 15 injured) or the Akihabara massacre (seven dead, 8 injured) or the British builder who killed six people with a knife, or . . .

      While Sandy Hook was particularly horrific the average from a “mass shooting” using as a definition where four or more killed by a shooter as part of a single event is between six and seven killed per event. That makes those knife massacres entirely comparable.

      http://coldservings.livejournal.com/45845.html (My data on mass shootings.)

      The difference between a fatal knife attack and a non-fatal one is a bit of anatomical knowledge (or simple luck). The ratio of killed vs. wounded in knife attacks and gun attacks is similar. And, as we have shown, the number killed can be quite similar to that of a “mass shooting.”

  391. Gun Control is rooted in a failed liberal utopian philosophy known as “The greater good for the greatest number.”
    Translation : In order to achieve societal bliss, SOME people must be sacrificed.
    Did I get that right?

  392. This is the most well written, well thought out article on gun control I have ever read. I have been saying some of the same things you alluded to, just not to as big of an audience. You made me inquire to getting my CCL. THANKS!

  393. For the liberal crowd: “if” you do succeed in getting rid of guns, could you then try to outlaw bad parenting? That however would probably be too judgmental eh? Or as hard to define as an assault weapon.

  394. As an Oregon NRA Firearms Instructor and a Utah Instructor, I am sharing this blog post with EVERYONE that I come in contact with. It’s eloquent and perfectly stated…and will be a great teaching tool for me.
    Thank you so very, very much.

  395. Very well written and appreciated. Honestly, I’ve read a lot on possible gun reform and been a fence sitter for a while and your points ring true as they are from personal experience. I’d like to just take this time to thank you for writing this up and I will do my best to distribute it to others.

  396. Thank you Mr. Correia for a well written article. I learned a good bit I didn’t know about guns in general and gun control. I appreciate the time you took to educate those of us who don’t know much about guns and how to use them. I will pass this on and try to get the conversation going among my friends…how do we really deal with guns in a society like ours. You have given me a lot to think about. I only wish I lived close enough to take one of your classes.

  397. “A good friend of mine (who happens to be a very reasonable democrat) was very hung up on this, sure that he would be able to take advantage of the time in which it took for the bad guy to reload his gun”

    I certainly commend your good friend for his courage and willingness,
    but must admit I am baffled as to why those who beleive the solution is to provide a citizen vigilante “a few seconds” to confront an armed killer AFTER he has unloaded his weapon, oppose allowing such a citizen to arm himself to contront the shooter with equal firepower, hopefully BEFORE he is able to fire all rounds?

  398. Don’t know if you’ll ever see this, but I had to compliment you on an outstanding essay. You have distilled these issues to their essence. It will be shared by me (among thousands of others) with both friends and foes of the Second Amendment.

    P.S. – I very much enjoyed Monster Hunter International.

  399. I just sent the following to my US House representative:

    Representative McKinley,

    As one of your represented constituents, I respectfully encourage you to vote against any legislation proposed by California Senator Diane Feinstein or others which would seek to impose further limitations upon American citizens and their second amendment protected right to bear arms.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,

    Kelly R. Martin

  400. Thank you for the support. What you have written has been the best way I have ever herd anyone explaine this topic. Can you run for president. I am tired of being call a extremist because I love the sport of shooting like others like golfing. I love hearing people say this is the best country to live in, a free country, but in the same sentience say they wish for a all out ban on guns. So I always respond that if I needed to I could kill a criminal with a golf club so should we ban the sport of golfing. They get pissed off and say its not the same. But it is the same we live in a free country so if you ban the shooting sports why can’t we ban all sports. People are so good at forgetting the guns and blood forged our nation and it is our duty as Americans to defined or nation and government from itself as well as from other country’s. one day the USA will fall history always repeats its self, but it is going to be one hell of a fight, because of our armed public. So as I read all the Internet posts on this topic I like to thank the people who are in a higher position then me that go out of there way to make shore our 2ed admendment rights don’t get trampled. I to have been through a lot of tranning with the DHS and have seen what is going to happen and it is not pretty. So once agin thank you you are a true patriot.

  401. My biggest fear is the rather, for lack of a better term, glib assumption that there are enough guns and gun owners to make disarmament of the population impossible. In particular is the ten percent of ten percent, that is the 800,000 die gun owners who will really resist and fight back.

    But. Obama is marinated in two cultures that hold that your ability to live is only at a sufferance. Those cultures–Islam and Marxism. By Islamic lights Obama is a Muslim by virtue of his father being Muslim. Further, he spent the first ten years of his life raised as a Muslim in a Muslim country. Ever notice how the result of the Arab spring seems to hand whole countries into the hands of the Islamistists?

    When, Obama finally made it back to the USA, assuming he was born here in the first place, (Show me a birth certificate and a water tight chain of custody) he got to live in a family of red-diaper commies above and beyond his mom.

    So, what we have is a man in tune with two totalitarian ideologies that think nothing of killing their opponents. And, given that some 100 millions souls have died in the hands of the governments of Red China and the USSR, is killing 800,000 die hard gun owners that big a task?

    1. Gene your comment is right on. Also, now we have drones authorized to be used over many U.S. citie,s keeping an eye on the population. Drones approved for Police use are supposedly not yet authorized to be armed, although there are a few jurisdictions athorized to use gas and shotgun type armament. The U.S. military is not supposed to use it’s powers against the American people, but it has no problem using it’s technology against us under the guise of ‘National Security’. Not a big reach to believe that those drones can be armed with missles and fire on people (U.S. citiizens) who try to defend themselves from an out of control government with their own legal guns.Video cameras on the drones can patch live feeds directly to the Whitehouse war room bunkers.

      If you look at Obama’s Czar list you will see a ‘social media’ czar. He (and his staff…. wasting millions of dollars) are tasked with constantly monitoring all social media. Anyone or anything that is trending, or that might look troublesome for the President, can be deat with premeptively. If nothing else, a file is kept on any individual who says anything on any media against the President for later use. Plus there is an 800 number and an email address directly to the Whitehouse where partisan leftist party members can report another citizen to the Obama regime.

      Also, in all police departments across the U.S. since 9/11 you will see a liasion officer or team from the federal government. Many law enforcement agencies cross train with other departments, which is a good thing, but the hidden intention is that the fed’s have internal knowledge of all policing activities in all cities across America and at any moment can trump local P.D. with their national authority, to take out troublesome people (such as gun owners) at will. They are really there as eyes and ears for the fed’s in washington who want to curtail our freedom’s. Under the broad umbrella of Home Land Security the federal government can do whatever it wants to U.S. citizens whenever it wants to.

      As a retired cop I can tell you it is one thing to own a gun, and quite a different thing to actually fire that gun at another human being. I also am troubled for my fellow officers who may soon have to decide if they will fire upon their own neighbors (and brothers and sisters) at the instructions of the federal government, or not. Sounds like another time in American history when brother had to fight against brother. With today’s technology the fed’s know exactly where all registered guns are, what your home looks like and have contigency plans to confiscate those guns already in place. But with our very competent black op’s and swat teams they can be in your home, take you, your family and your guns away, before anyone even knows it. Somebody will file a missing person report but you will never be found because the people tasked with finding you are the same ones who took you out.

      This is not conspiracy or paranoia on my part. This is present day reality. This is what you get when you continue to vote for (once good) Democrat politicians, who have proudly said they would rather be called socialists than liberals, and who have a progressive agenda to hand all our resources and freedoms over to a central political authority. How do we fight against this? Those of us who see what is going on need to get politically involved and interact with our low information neighbors to open their eyes and vote differently. We still have a chance to save this country from becoming a dictatorship through discussion and the ballot box. But if our talk fails I am afraid that America’s future will look a lot like Syria and the Arab spring countries with many lives being lost, and Reagan’s ‘Light on the hill’ being permanently extinguished.

  402. Larry, I’m anti-guns; but not the radical kind that wants all guns to be taken away. This article or blog helped me understand how hard finding the middle ground I was dreaming off is. Naive to say the least! Thanks for opening my eyes! and helped me understand many things that were not clear for me, and that I wrongly accepted as true.

    BTW. I own NO guns, and probably never will, they scared me! I don’t feel the need for them. I have never hurt even they littlest being (well, maybe a mosquito here and there..) almost cry when I see a road kill rabbit or dear. I respect life! I cried for all the kids in Newton. I have two boys that are my life, and I talked to them almost daily about respect for others. I respect the law because I believe in the law as the way to keep life in a society full of people possible, period! My motto: “yes, I have rights, but they end where the rights of other end”. i.e. Having the right to park my car next to the sidewalk, can’t be more important than allowing others to be able to go through (I usually think of the consequences of my actions on others’ lives and activities, before I act). I think I am on the good side! am I not?

    Sorry, if it sounds like bragging! not my intention. So, why am I telling you this then?

    Well, you refer to bad guys as people who: “have been on Zoloft or some serotonin inhibitor through their formative years, and their decision making process is often flawed”. I have been on Zoloft for 5-6 years, for chronic anxiety and depression likely caused by my Multiple Sclerosis, Yes, MS, an illness that damages your nerves and gradually disables people! I also take other medications for other symptoms like not been able to speak well, or having difficulties concentrating. My decision making process has not been affected by Zoloft, it has been restored by Zoloft. My abilities to enjoy life, and be with my kids and play with them, and work, and share life with my friend and neighbors, has been restored, and maintained by Zoloft, while my immune system continues to try to bring me down. So, I was deeply hurt reading that basically being on medication for a cognitive, or emotional problem, might be connected with being a potential nut able to do crazy things against others. I hope people don’t start thinking that. That really scared me, and believe I am scared enough already with all this mess.

    1. I was curious about your comment that you are scared of guns. I have heard this before and I am honestly curious about it. I work with things on a regular basis that I have a great deal of respect for and use great caution in their use (such as hydrofluoric acid) but I honestly can say I am not “scared” of them. Ergo, I have interest in why people are scared of inanimate objects.

      1. Problem is, it’s not those things one deals with daily that causes fear. It’s the lack of knowledge about, or experience with, that brings about the fear.

        I worked retail many (many) years ago and was on the receiving end of a couple of robberies. I was very uncomfortable (some would say scared) around handguns … just being shown a revolver at the police station sent me into a really bad state. I knew that any discomfort or fear I had was irrational but chose to ignore it and refused to let hubby keep any of his guns at home (not even in the garage) when we got married.

        Logic eventually overrode my anxieties when the LA riots were going on. I realized that if there were a problem at that time, LE was too damn busy with the ne’er-do-wells and I essentially had no way to protect myself or my daughter. I asked hubby to retrieve his guns and to take both myself and our daughter to the range to learn to shoot asap. Since his .44 was a bit much for me we found a .357 for me (though I usually shoot .38s with it) and I eventually also purchased a 12 gauge to have on hand when he isn’t home. I wanted the “intimidation factor” the pump has if I need to answer the door alone, late at night.

      2. I think is not the guns, is what they represent.

        I fight everyday to live! with my health issues, work, two kids, a house, a husband, and no family around. Guns represent dead!

        1. Ahh. A fundamental difference in the way we look at life. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not talking about you living with MS. That is a heck of a thing to deal with and not let it drag you into an emotional black hole. I’m talking about firearms. I think the difference is simply our view of what firearms represent. The memories I have associated with them are things like my father teaching me to shoot a 0.22 rifle in the back yard of my parent’s house or the camaraderie and friendship I have experienced while participating in my shooting sports. It might be different if I had actually carried a firearm in combat but I have not. I have gone through a good deal of training but all my opponents have been paper or steel and none of them have shot back.

          I don’t mean to trivialize firearms by any stretch of the imagination. Owning and possibly carrying one is a grave responsibility but I do believe that they are tools. To paraphrase an overused film quote, they are no better nor worse than the man who uses them. I have known individuals who went through the licensing process to actually own a machine gun and never felt the slightest concern being around them because I knew and trusted the person. The weapon they had in their hands, whether it was a firearm or an axe, was of much less importance.

      3. Well, as I said, I hope I am not forced one day to carry a gun myself (forced by necessity I mean), and hope one day my kids can live and feel safe without having to carry a gun everywhere they go.

        But I admit, my friends with guns are responsible people and I trust them 100%. And I am really more inclined now NOT to fight for more gun control. I understand now many things, I didn’t understand before!!! I won’t help you guys either 😉

        I will instead continue to campaign for better education, and for people to understand than manners and respect for others can also help make this world a safer place. (Changing topics just a little bit, just bear with me for a second). I am seeing a tendency of parents that don’t see that when they cut in line, drive in the opposite lane, make unsafe u-turns in front of the school, among other crazy things, just to drop their kids off at school fast, or when they park in the fire lane for 15 minutes while they come pick them up from after school, or worse to get ice cream at the store across the street, or when they simply don’t turn around to see if the door they are leaving behind is not hitting the nose of the person walking behind them, is not only disrespectful of others (let’s just say that’s not that important for a second), but is teaching their kids that they are more important than anything else and anybody else, and that whatever they need or want or feel justifies anything, even BREAKING THE LAW!!!

        Maybe, I am naive and idealist, but a kid that is treated with respect, tolerance, and understanding, is not bullied, and is helped when he or she is struggling is a kid less likely to go in a murder rampage when he/she get a chance. And a kid that is taught that he/she is not the only person in the world, and that laws, and discipline do not exist to annoy but to put some order in that world full of people, is probably a kid less likely to kill a bunch of people when he get a chance. I’ll concentrate my efforts on that.

        1. You know, my objective is never to get someone to become part of “the gun culture” and join me at the shooting range (though plinking steel targets with a 0.22 is hard to beat). I want to get folks to understand some small part of my opinions and realize that the “problem with guns” really is not a problem with guns, it is a problem with society. The huge number of children that are raised in broken families or just without proper parenting with good, strong, mother and father figures in their life might have more than a little to do with lots of the things that are wrong today than the prevalence of some hunk of metal. And most people don’t say it often enough so thank you very much for helping me keep our discussion at least on a very civil level. Don’t worry about being an idealist. Somebody has to set the goals to reach for.

        2. You want the same thing that we pro gun people want. What remains to be seen though through the autopsy is if the shooter had an undiagnosed brain abnormality that contributed to this tragedy. No matter how nice we teach kids to be to one another there are still people with physical abnormalities in their brains that can’t be easily determined or guarded against.

        3. Yasmin, I think you’ve hit on a valid point. While most likely not a factor in the Sandy Hook shooting, we as a country have been cultivating a narcissistic populace for a generation or more. At the risk of using a politically charged word, too many of us feel “entitled”. Entitled to do as we please, without responsibility or accountability, whether that is to drive like our convenience is more important than others’ safety, demand wages out of all proportion to the value of our skills and duties, or in general display the absolute arrogance which declares that our own ignorant wants and beliefs trump any semblance of reality. The anonymity of the digital age probably hasn’t helped foster a sense of responsibility, either.

          Keep doing what you’re doing, and know that while you can’t haul the entire load yourself, you’re part of the solution and not part of the problem. And that you are not alone.

    2. And don’t get me wrong, please! I don’t mean all people who like, or own a gun for one reason or another are murderers. I have very very good friends who have guns, and defend the 2nd amendment, and I understand them up to a certain point. All I am saying is I don’t feel comfortable with the idea. I hope I am not forced one day to carry one, just to be able to go around, and I wish my kids can grow up and feel safe one day, without having to carry a gun everywhere they go.

      1. Guns represent dead? I’m a single mother, and a fairly small woman at that. Guns represent SAFETY to me, so long as I have the gun. They are what equalizes my strength to a man’s.

        Do you not hang around men very much? Do you not realize how strong men – even weak men, even small men – in comparison to a woman?

        All you’re doing is setting yourself up to be a victim. Especially with the MS. Easy pickings to a criminal.

      2. Hi Lailah,

        About 90-95% of my coworkers are guys (and I am not exaggerating) so that makes no difference on MY personal opinion about guns. I don’t feel like I need one at this point, and I am grateful for that. I was just saying how I feel towards guns, or maybe imagining how I would feel having a gun in my hands.

        Sincerely, I can see your point, and I don’t criticize you at all for having a gun, if that makes you feel safe. I wish you didn’t have to have one to have that sense of safety, but that has nothing to do with you. It is how it is. I am learning a lot on these discussions.

        In my mind, we need to change how we act, and how we treat others, in order to one day achieve that world where we can all feel safe without having a gun in our pocket. I am clear that won’t happen overnight, should it ever happen.

  403. I don’t know the answer to the gun debate in America. I do know that the outcome of weapons that can shoot lots of bullets in a short period of time is devastating in the wrong hands. I don’t understand why people seem to be concentrating on schools like they are the only potential location for mass shootings (they obviously have not been) and that they seem to think if we just arm teachers, problem solved. I feel sure if schools become more difficult to target, someone bent on mass murder will find other places where large numbers of vulnerable innocents are readily available – are we going to arm nurses? High school kids working in movie theaters? Chuck E. Cheese’s employees…? Maybe the mentally deranged will find it an even more exciting challenge, like a real live video game, if they have to maneuver through armed opponents…

    Gun violence affects everyone, whether they own one or not. If people are to continue to own guns, it is only fair that the gun owner be held morally and financially responsible for them. I saw a post on Facebook (made sense to me) that supported requiring the same regulations for gun ownership as those for car ownership: title and tag at each point of sale, mandatory gun training, mandatory written and practical testing, health requirements, renewals and inspections at intervals, and liability insurance! Lives are beyond price to say the least, but think of the monetary costs on top of losing their precious loved ones that the families and community of Newtown have to face. The cost also comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers to repair the horror and damages to Sandy Hook Elementary School. The mother was the legal gun owner, but how did the son get her weapons? Were they not secured properly? And why would someone have these highly destructive kinds of guns in their house in the first place, knowing they had a mentally unstable person living there?! In my opinion, anyone owning a gun should be held responsible for keeping the guns out of the wrong hands and for any injuries/costs caused by that gun. Period.

    I would like to bring to your attention your incorrect statement about Australia not having had previous mass shootings before the one in 1996 which spurred their sweeping gun reform (which was admirably supported by 90% of their population). They actually had 11 in the decade prior to the one in 1996, which was the worst in their history and as you correctly stated, their last…There are also other statistics showing how many areas of crime and suicide in Australia have been drastically reduced in the years since, if you would like to review the information in these articles: http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html and http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf

    I respect your experience and expertise. I see merit in your rationales based on a society saturated with and determined to keep guns. But I am saddened that the answer in America seems to be more guns which = a premeditated willingness to kill, and the feeling of justification in doing so based on the 2nd Amendment. Surely, the 6th Commandment trumps the 2nd Amendment. Even those without religious affiliation must find value in the sanctity of life or our society is doomed. But this is a violent world filled with ingeniously lethal weapons of man’s design, so as I said in the beginning of this post…I don’t know the answer, but I am sincerely looking for one.

    1. “More guns = a premeditated willingness to kill.” Well, yes. Explain to me why I should not act in self-defense if my life is threatened. The Sixth Commandment is “you shall do no murder.” I’m pretty sure that self-defense is not “murder.” It’s self-defense, even if the other guy dies.

      Chicago is a bastion of gun control. They just clocked their 500th murder on the year. It has been demonstrated over and over again that where concealed-carry laws are enacted, violent crime rates go down. I would rather have it and never need it than need it and not have it. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. You conveniently leave out all the times a gun is used defensively against bad guys, instead choosing to concentrate on all the times they’re used BY bad guys–which is a very skewed perspective. Disarming law-abiding people will do absolutely nothing to stop bad people from getting guns illegally. Again, look at Chicago.

      Apparently the gun confiscators would rather a small-framed woman with a bad back have no means of self-defense at all instead of being able to carry one of those eeeeevil GUNS, though. I guess I should cultivate a loud scream.

      1. It is true that self defense is not considered a breach of “Thou shalt not kill” – (King James version). But it seems to me that merely stockpiling weapons to be ready to kill if needed is not the true meaning of this Commandment.

      2. Julie, they would rather see women like us dead, raped, robbed or beaten before we discharge our weapons in self defense. I’d much rather have a stockpile of guns handy and never need them than need them desperately and not have them. I am a single mother, so my family’s safety falls squarely on my shoulders.

        1. I don’t understand this comment as a response to my post? My point is gun owner accountability if guns are to continue to be a part of the rights of private citizens. But, what would actually make me happy would be if no one would have or need guns (especially bad guys).

          Sadly it is statistically more likely that your children will be injured or killed by your own firearms than you needing to use it for self defense

          1. “Sadly it is statistically more likely that your children will be injured or killed by your own firearms than you needing to use it for self defense”

            Sorry, but that turns out not to be the case. That “factoid” was the result of a widely reported, and pretty thoroughly discredited study by Kellerman. Among other things “your children” (or “your family” or some other variation thereof) got conflated with “victim known to the killer.” However, a drug deal gone bad involves people known to each other. A woman shooting an abusive ex involves parties known to each other. And so on.

            The lowest estimate of firearms used in self defense is far more than the number of homicides total, let alone homicides with firearms. The “consensus” number (the range where most studies tend to end up) put’s the likelihood far higher than of being a victim.

            The numbers for this have been posted several times here.

            Look at it another way: there is about one violent felony as tracked by the DOJ (murder, robbery, rape, and aggravated assault) per 200 people in the US every year. That means that the odds of being the victim of such a crime are one in two hundred for an “average” person. Or, put another way, that’s a one in two hundred chance (at a minimum–it doesn’t include crimes that have multiple victims or bystanders who might act in defense of someone else) chance of being in a situation where one might use a firearm for self defense.

            The odds of accidentally or on purpose shooting a family member are a lot longer than that despite what Kellerman would have you believe.

            The claim of “more dangerous to a family member” is, quite simply, wrong.

      3. Well, why don’t you leave that between me and God, hm?

        Besides, shooting can be a hobby just like any other. Just because I enjoy plinking at targets doesn’t mean I’m going to start blowing apart my fellow man. Would rather not do, honestly, and the idea that I might NEED to, some day, gives me the screaming horrors.

        Or are you going to go after bows and arrows next? After all, they’re killing machines as well, right?

        1. It is not my place to sit in judgment of you and I apologize if you took it that way. I do feel the 10 Commandments are a foundation that makes us worthy people, so it is important to think about whether our actions are truly reflecting those values. If not, we need to find a better way. I personally do not think we are presently doing all we can to make the US a better and safer place. I am hoping for the best for us all. Tragedies like Sandy Hook and the other mass shootings are intolerable and do not reflect a healthy, caring society.

          I am not going after anything except a solution. I do not think you can take guns away from anyone who does not see the value in a society without them. It will only make more criminals because people will still want them.

          As long as people insist on owning guns, I think they should be willing to be held accountable for them. One possible way to increase accountability is for gun owners to be held responsible for any harm or damage caused by their firearms, even if they are stolen. It is up to the owner of such dangerous possessions to insure they are safely secured. High dollar liability insurance should be a requirement and if the gun owner is killed with their own firearm and further damage is incurred by others from that firearm, their estate should go to repayment of damages. They also should be charged as an accessory if their firearm is used to commit a murder. This would not ban guns, but it would make people a lot more mindful of their responsibilities to us all in choosing the right of gun ownership.

      4. I agree that Sandy Hook and other mass shootings are intolerable. They are also an aberration. And maybe if we didn’t turn our schools into hunting preserves for criminals and crazies via the wholly stupid notion of a “gun free zone” (because a bad guy will see that sign and say “Oh! I guess I’ll go elsewhere, then!” Right?), then these mass shootings would happen a lot less often.

        I don’t like the fact that I need to plan for bad people to do bad things. But this is the world we live in, and so I do, because I have a family I need to protect.

        And I also don’t like the notion of punishing me for something a bad guy does if he, you know, STEALS MY PROPERLY-STORED STUFF. All that is, is more victim-blaming. You wouldn’t hold the same standard of liability if someone stole the butcher knife out of the block that’s right out in the open in my kitchen and then went to town on my neighbors with it, would you?

        1. In answer to: “You wouldn’t hold the same standard of liability if someone stole the butcher knife out of the block that’s right out in the open in my kitchen and then went to town on my neighbors with it, would you?”

          No, of course not. Guns are a category to themselves. The number of deaths by knives is miniscule compared to gun deaths. I really feel like this cannot be a sincere comparison. There are many differences in the uses and degree of misuse of a knife vs. a gun.

          As far as your comment about “…if we didn’t turn our schools into hunting preserves…” :

          In my original post, I expressed my confusion over why people are so insistent that schools are the only potential problem area for mass shootings. There are hundreds of settings of innocent groups of people for a mentally deranged person to choose from and there are no guarantees that having armed people in every possible setting would even work in saving every life, or any lives. The deadly firearms that have been used in these shootings can kill lots of people very quickly, even those with guns. The only thing that can guarantee there would be no more mass shootings would be the absence of guns. And as far as I can see, the right to own guns is more important.

          In regards to: “And I also don’t like the notion of punishing me for something a bad guy does if he, you know, STEALS MY PROPERLY-STORED STUFF. All that is more victim-blaming.”

          The number of gun thefts per year in the US, depending on the study, is 500,000 to 600,000. If a person wants to own a gun, they should be aware that guns are very often targets of theft. Those guns are then turned on others prompting the need for defensive gun use…a vicious cycle. I do not believe the person who knows their gun has a potential to be stolen but wants one anyway compares as a victim to the person who is murdered or otherwise victimized by that gun. There are a lot of things that we buy or use that are “at your own risk.” Guns should fall into that category.

          Like I said earlier in these posts, I do not think you can take guns away from anyone who does not see the value of a society without them. The people who want guns should be the ones responsible for having them and for their repercussions. Not the business owners who are damaged by them, not the taxpayers that have to pay for damages to public institutions and certainly not the families that have to bury their loved ones.

      5. Guns are not special. They are tools. In the right hand, they can be a tool for good. In the wrong hand, they can be a tool for evil. And in a country where guns outnumber people, you are not going to achieve an “absence of guns.” All you will achieve is a situation like they have in Chicago, where law-abiding citizens are disarmed and criminals hold sway. They just clocked their 500th murder on the year. So how’s that gun ban working out for them? The ONLY reason I went to WorldCon in Chicago this year was because it was all in one venue and I wouldn’t have had to leave the hotel if I didn’t want to.

        My comment was already wordy and I didn’t really think I needed to add “movie theaters, churches, etc, etc” to “schools.” Gun-free zones are shooting preserves for bad guys, period, no matter if they’re schools or not. The Aurora shooter bypassed several movie theaters on the way to the one he attacked. The one he attacked had a big “gun-free zone” sign.

        As for your argument about kitchen knives, well: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm For the link-o-phobic, doctors in the UK are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing. So there you go.

        As long as the bad guys are armed, the good guys will need to be armed as well. And I’m not going to stick my head in the sand and pretend that that isn’t the world we live in. There may be no guarantee of an armed person on the scene stopping some deranged idiot from going on a rampage, but I can guarantee you this: Waiting for an armed response from police who may be several minutes away will do absolutely NOTHING to lower the death toll.

        Also, mass shooting events are a hideous aberration. I’m a lot more likely to be confronted by a mugger or a rapist. And if it’s all the same to you (or even if it’s not), I’d just as soon be armed in a situation like that. At least then maybe I’d have a CHANCE. I certainly see the value of a society without guns, although I enjoyed the ones we owned before we lost them all in a tragic canoe accident, but you know what? Disarm the bad guys before you come after me. I’M not doing anything wrong. And do NOT turn ME into a criminal out of a misguided attempt to “do something.”

        1. Guns are special and not just any tool or they would not cause so much debate. Although it is a terrible thing, death by knives remains a miniscule percentage compared to guns.

          I think I have said several times that I DO NOT think the answer in the US is to try to remove guns. It would never work without voluntary gun control.

          What I am calling for is gun owner accountability. No one would be coming after you or turning you into a criminal unless your gun was misused and caused damage to innocents.

          Here is an article that I hope you will read which addresses the question of whether guns actually make us safer.

          http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer/index.html

          It is good to know you can see the value of a society without guns. I hope it might make you feel less afraid to know that overall violent crime rates are down significantly and continue to fall and that gun ownership has also decreased voluntarily. If you want, you can read about it here:

          http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/opinion/frum-guns/index.html

          Hopefully these trends will continue and we will all try to find ways to make the US a safer place to live.

          I wish you and yours health and happiness in the New Year.
          .

      6. Julie, would you feel that you were disarmed if you could have any firearm you want, with a magazine limited to no more than10 rounds?

        1. Chris, this ten round limit gets bantered around a lot, though I’ve yet to hear any details as to how this number was calculated. I doubt there was a detailed statistical analysis of a database of defensive shootings taking into account number of perps, rounds needed to disable said perps, hit percentages etc. I believe the more likely accounting of how this number was calculated was that gun-control advocates looked at their hands on the table in front of them and counted until they ran out of fingers and thumbs (presuming no amputations to skew the “calculation”). Even if there is statistical justification lying about somewhere, I’d hate to be the one falling outside of the allotted “one standard deviation” on the bell curve, finding myself involved in a gunfight for my life with ALMOST enough ammunition.

          Like the point made about firearms themselves, ammunition count is just hardware, and can have either good or evil uses. As Larry mentioned in the essay, no one ever emerged from a successful defensive use of a firearm and said “boy, I wish I hadn’t brought all that ammo.” I haven’t been in a gunfight for my life, but my instructors have, and when weighing their experience and opinion vs. the gun-control crowd who has apparently put less effort into their “ten round limit” suggestion than I put into my sixth grade science project, I’m going to have to give my instructors the nod. The way street math goes, where there’s one there’s two, where there’s two there’s six, where there’s six there’s twenty… Crooks don’t join gangs for the social networking opportunities, after all. They commit crimes as a group because crime is more effective that way.

          In the event that I’m confronted with a home invasion, I’m likely to face multiple armed opponents by myself. As such, the few seconds spent reloading may very well be a few seconds I don’t have. Multiple opponents with firearms, who can kill me at a distance without having to “rush” me and disarm me, is a scenario I’d like to take great lengths to avoid. Contrast that with the situation of a criminal mass shooter. Moral abhorrence aside for a moment to look at the crime only tactically, how would the limit of a ten round magazine affect him? His potential victims would have to recognize that he was reloading and not merely pausing, and close the distance and try to wrestle the weapon away from him (assuming they were themselves unarmed). This does happen occasionally (notably the Congresswoman Giffords shooting), but in most cases the shooter had more than one weapon, and the quickest reload is to grab another weapon. In the case of the Sandy Hook shooting, the shooter could have engaged the teacher in the room first, and would have been uninhibited by a ten round magazine limit when faced with a room full of frightened first graders. The few seconds added to the rampage by additional magazine changes would unfortunately not have lowered the number of victims.

          I’m not trying to merely play devil’s advocate to the suggestions from the gun control crowd, but when there are obvious flaws in their plans brought about by ignorance, I feel the need to point them out. We will never be able to accurately, completely predict criminal behavior, let alone pre-empt it (Minority Report was a work of fiction, after all). The best way to oppose these acts of criminal violence when we can’t pre-empt them, is to meet them with managed violence. One point gun control advocates seem unable to grasp is that not all shooting is evil. Some people need to be shot. When confronted with criminal violence, in that instant deterrence and law enforcement have failed, and violence is imminent. The only choices are to submit to that violence or oppose it. The second works a lot better if preparations have been made beforehand, and is my action of choice.

      7. Considering the source is CNN, I don’t trust it. Crime rates go down as concealed carry rates go up; this works everywhere it’s tried. Period. One of my resolutions this year is to get my concealed carry permit and get in some range time with my CC weapon(s) of choice. My husband, who already has his CCP, is 100% behind this decision.

        I see the value of a society without guns in a utopia. I don’t see that occurring in my lifetime. In the meantime, I hope for the best and prepare for the worst. And if preparing for the worst includes heavily arming myself so I can protect my family in the event of a complete societal breakdown (such as happened during the LA riots, and, hey, the Korean shop owners managed to defend themselves pretty darn well with those EVIL “assault weapons,” didn’t they, after the police decided to let the looters hold sway), well. That’s my choice, isn’t it. Or, you know, it would be, if it hadn’t been for the aforementioned tragic canoe accident.

        Chris, if I could have “any weapon I want,” a ten-round mag is pretty damn useless in something that fires three-round bursts. Think about the practicalities. If you’re talking for a weapon I would actually CARRY, that’s a different matter; the Ruger .380 and the Micro Desert Eagle both hold seven rounds (six in the magazine and one in the chamber).

        1. Yes, it is your right to live in a false sense of panic and not seek out the truth by checking your sources regardless of where information originates. I will be working for stricter accountability laws (not gun control) so the victims don’t have to pay physically and financially for your decisions.

          1. “it is your right to live in a false sense of panic”

            One violent felony (Rape, Robbery, Murder, Aggravated Assault) per the DOJ for every 200 people per year. (Note: most of these are committed without firearms so even if firearms magically disappeared they would still happen).
            That means the average person has, at best, a 99.5% chance of not being the victim of one of these violent crimes this year.
            Pretty good you think?
            Over two years, however, the odds are 0.995 * 0.995. Over three it’s 0.995 * 0.995 * 0.995. And so on.
            Over a 70 year lifespan, the odds of never being the victim of one of these crimes is 70.4%. Or, put another way, about a 1 in three chance of being the victim of one of these violent felonies sometime in your life.

            But wait, there’s more. I don’t just care about myself. I’ve also got my family to think about. The average household is 3.8 people. The odds that nobody in an average household will ever be the victim of one of these violent felonies then becomes 26.4% or almost 3 in 4 that someone in an average household will be the victim of one of these violent felonies sometime in their life.

            Being concerned about that, and taking steps to defend oneself against the likelihood is hardly a “false sense of panic.”

            “and not seek out the truth”

            Highly biased sources that continually repeat long debunked nonsense like the Kellerman study is not “truth.”

            “working for stricter accountability”

            What is this “stricter accountability” supposed to be? There are already criminal penalties for the misuse of firearms whether through negligence or criminal intent. “Shoot somebody without good cause, go to jail” is pretty accountability.

            What most people mean by this is “prior restraint”, the equivalent of gagging everyone who goes into the theater so they can’t “shout fire.”

          2. If someone obtains your neighbors firearm in a robbery, which was obviously not secured well enough not to be found, and then kills or injures one of your family members or yourself, who has to pay for the damages? Does the neighbor not have any blame for the bad guy getting their gun?

          3. If someone steals your neighbor’s car and kills or inures one of your family members with it, who is responsible for the damage? If someone breaks into your neighbor’s garage and steals a can of gas and uses it to burn down your house, who is responsible for the damages? If someone breaks into your neighbor’s house and steals a kitchen knife and uses it to kill or injure one of your family members who is responsible for the damages.

            I submit the answer is the same in all cases: the person who committed the crime.

            You want to take the victim of a crime (burglary) and victimize them doubly by making them pay for the further actions of the burglar.

          4. The person committing the crime will pay by law but not monetarily which can be devastingly expensive, not to even mention pain and suffering. Damage to public property will come out of taxpayer pockets whether they agree with gun ownership or not.

            If the gun was secured properly, it would not have been obtainable. I feel that is negligence and accountable.

          5. “If the gun was secured properly, it would not have been obtainable.”

            If the car had been secured properly it would not have been obtainable and used to mow down that crosswalk.

            If the kitchen knife has been secured properly it would not have been obtainable and used to stab a bunch of schoolkids.

            If the can of gasoline had been secured properly it would not have been obtainable and used to burn down that nightclub.

            If the cleaning chemicals had been secured properly they would not have been obtainable and mixed to flood the room full of kids with poison gas.

            And so on.

            The person responsible is the person who committed the crime, neither more nor less.

            As for requiring guns to be locked up (“properly secured”), I refer you to the Heller decision where that very subject was addressed. Any such requirement renders guns unusable for one of their primary purposes–self defense in ones own home.

            Thus, whatever you may “feel”, the Supreme Court differs.

          6. The vast majority of break ins occur when no one is home. The firearms do not need to be and should not be accessible in any way when no one is home to use them.

            Cars have liability coverage, home owners have liability insurance. Do guns?

            I will post this again here: Sometimes money is a motivator to help make a decision as to whether something is worth the risk to others or not. My motivation is absolutely a quest for finding a way to make gun owners understand their responsibilities to us all. When your rights affect other’s safety and health, then you should be willing to make amends.

            If guns are kept safe and no one is ever injured by them other than self defense, a gun owner would have nothing to worry about.

          7. “I will post this again here: Sometimes money is a motivator to help make a decision as to whether something is worth the risk to others or not. My motivation is absolutely a quest for finding a way to make gun owners understand their responsibilities to us all. When your rights affect other’s safety and health, then you should be willing to make amends.

            If guns are kept safe and no one is ever injured by them other than self defense, a gun owner would have nothing to worry about.”

            Or to put it another way; I am not a terrorist. Why should I worry about Wiretapping/Guantanamo/the TSA/etc?

          8. “The vast majority of break ins occur when no one is home.”

            And between 4 and 40 thousand (if not more) occur when someone is home.

            “Cars have liability coverage”

            When you’re driving them.

            “home owners have liability insurance”

            For things that happen on their home.

            Neither are involved if someone steals something and misuses it. If someone breaks into your kitchen and steals a knife you are not liable for any crimes committed with that knife. If someone steals your car you are not liable for crimes committed with the car. In fact, insurance pays you for the loss of the car.

            “Do guns?”

            The “misuses” that automobile liability insurance would cover have criminal penalties attached to them with guns. An “at fault” accident with a gun would be accompanies by criminal charges. That’s quite a bit higher standard than liability insurance.

            “I will post this again here:”

            Repeating an invalid argument doesn’t make it any less invalid. The storage requirements you want are unconstitutional, so decided by the US Supreme Court in Heller (with McDonald incorporating the 2nd so that the Heller Decision applies likewise to the States).

            You’re wrong. It doesn’t matter how many times you say it, you’re still wrong.

          9. T.C., you sound like one of those people who have their personal liability lawyer on Speed Dial.

      8. And it’s your right to stick your head in the sand and pray that no disasters strike in your lifetime. The so-called “mainstream press” has proven itself wholly inadequate and leftward-biased on this issue, and I’ve stopped listening to anything they say on it. I hope for your sake that you live in an area where nature isn’t mean. Floods, fires, earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes respect no one, and neither do the looters that seem to swarm when something like that happens.

        Get rid of guns and other weapons will replace them. They want to ban “sharp knives” in the UK because, guess what? That’s now the weapon of choice. The weapon is not the problem. The PERSON is the problem.

        I will reiterate: The only reason guns are “special” is because hysterical, uninformed people throw a hissy fit every time an evil person uses them for evil purposes. Guns are not special. They are tools. Period.

        1. I don’t stick my head in the sand because I watch Fox News, as well as other sources for news, and I can tell you there have been many false and skewed and alarmist reports mixed in with some factual information on Fox. If you are only getting your information from one source, you run the risk of being brain washed. Maybe it isn’t Fox News where you get your information, but it does sound like it. Do you know who owns Fox News?

          If a robber steals a gun from your neighbors house, which obviously was not secured well enough to keep them from getting it, and then the robber kills or injures you or your family, who pays for the damages? Is your neighbor not to blame for not securing their weapon well enough not to be taken in a robbery? Of course the robber is liable to the law, but they certainly will not be paying.

          1. “Of course the robber is liable to the law, but they certainly will not be paying.”

            Ah, so it’s not about justice or right but about finding somebody to pay and if that other person happens to be a crime victim too, well, it’s his own fault for owning those icky guns, right?

            There is no “right” to always be paid for any loss you might suffer. The person who commits a crime may justly be liable for damages, someone who is another victim of crime is not.

          2. Sometimes money is a motivator to help make a decision as to whether something is worth the risk to others or not. My motivation is absolutely a quest for finding a way to make gun owners understand their responsiblities to us all. When your rights affect other’s safety and health, then you should be willing to make ammends. If guns are kept safe and no one is ever injured by them other than self defense, a gun owner would have nothing to worry about.

          3. “My motivation is absolutely a quest for finding a way to make gun owners understand their responsiblities”

            As, so you want to punish people who haven’t committed any crimes because of the actions of people who have committed crimes.

            Let me ask you, what is your responsibility going to be if someone breaks into my house, rapes and murders my wife and murders my daughter because I couldn’t get to my guns fast enough because they were stored in a way of which you approve? (Or maybe they took me out first and were between me and my body–with my personal carry piece–and my now helpless wife)? How will you “make amends”?

            There are, in the US, about 3.6 million robberies every year (per DOJ statistics). Note that “robbery” is a violent crime involving direct confrontation between criminal and victim. If somebody breaks into your home and steals your stuff while you’re not there you were not robbed; you were burgled. To continue, if even 1% of those were of a an occupied dwelling (“home invasion” by definition) that’s still about 36,000 a year. If it’s only 0.1% that’s still nearly four thousand a year. Local reports on home invasions combined with statistics for the local area on robbery suggest that somewhere between those two figures is likely correct.

            Between 4 and 40 thousand home invasions a year. How many of those are you willing to sacrifice for your “properly secured”? And what is your responsibility to them if you succeed in getting your requirements into law (despite the Supreme Court saying, quite bluntly, that you’re wrong)?

            Where’s your responsibility in all this?

          4. “Sometimes money is a motivator to help make a decision as to whether something is worth the risk to others or not. My motivation is absolutely a quest for finding a way to make gun owners understand their responsiblities to us all. When your rights affect other’s safety and health, then you should be willing to make ammends. If guns are kept safe and no one is ever injured by them other than self defense, a gun owner would have nothing to worry about.”

            Well, thankfully English Common Law, our legal code and the USSC disagrees.

            Or to put it another way: Do not give ability or authority to ones own ideological brethren that would be horrifying in the hands of those you oppose. Because if there is any central truth, it is that all things change. Those in power today will not be tomorrow, so have a care what precedent you set and what authority you grant today, for tomorrow it will belong to someone else.

    2. I think you are hitting on something important. People intent on evil will always seek out ways to act upon that evil. To be specific, I mean evil in the socially acceptable sense of the word. What we…”understand” to be evil. It’s actually a REALLY heavy word when discussed. But that’s besides the point. And you’re right, the idea of arming certain groups of people does become a varying minefield of paranoia. We think EVERYONE is out to get us. The problem is that, if we don’t arm ANYONE who’s abiding by the law…what happens when we don’t. You pose a question with an answer laying entirely in perspective.

      But to offer an answer, should we arm all these people? It depends. Should we arm nurses in hopsitals and doctors? I wouldn’t say so. Not because I believe anything bad about them or they SHOULDN’T because they’re healers and whatnot….but there is some REALLY dangerous stuff that can be hit in hospitals. For example, oxygen systems running throughout hospital buildings. A stray bullet hits THAT….well, there’s a problem right there. So the issue is more practical than ethical. Of course I know some hospitals have their own security teams with limited powers of arrest and pursuit..so that would definitely help. Arming high school kids and workers in theaters? I think it’s here I can say, you’re missing the point. What correia45 is saying is that we should make less Gun Free zones, not that we should ARM everyone. Should we have armed security or guards in movie theatres? That’s pushing it, but not everyone who works in a theatre is a teen, some are old enough to have permits…but they can’t bring guns to work…legally. Hell, I’d be willing to be that a fair number of movie goers DO have CCW permits….they just don’t bring guns for obvious reasons. Forgetting the possible psych affects on people. I mean, as someone who KNOWS there may be guns in there…are you going to not think twice about “shooting up the place” if you don’t know for a fact that there’s no-one with guns inside? it’s like the bully problem, they tend to back down when you show teeth.

      To answer your next point: What if I’m forced to kill a man who has a gun to me…and he has a family? They’ve now lost someone close to them. They want compensation….well what was my other option? Die. That was it….it was to let this person kill me. And allow MY family to seek monetary compensation. It would be the same either way. The example is VERY simplified, I know. But it’s only use is to help make my point. And yeah, I am one who would say there should be SOME form of mandatory training/understanding before you can own a firearm. But one of the other articles that was in here pointed to a really good counterpoint: it’s going to make people NOT want to guy a firearm legally. When you have to put so much money and time into just being TRAINED before you can buy a gun legally, when there are others who can just go out and find one some other way ILLEGALLY…are you really going to spend that time on it, unless you REALLY want it? yeah, it would keep people from going out there and buying guns as much…but it also limits the ability for a person to defend themselves. Plus, if we make gun training mandatory, given how some people like to act, it would make those who seek out FURTHER training look bad. We get further training so we can know better not only how to use these weapons, but that we may better understand them. However, it’s the idiots who have given us a bad name. I point to the same analogy, you have ALOT of bad drivers out there who’s gone through the SAME mandatory training….it becomes the SAME thing. And as far as having guns not properly secured in the house? First and foremost (please, anyone, correct me if I’m wrong on this) but the person who shot up Sandy Hook had no SOLID history of mental disease. There were alot of signs here and there….but nothing truly concrete. No-one could have predicted what happened, but when it did? Boy, didn’t everyone say “Oh, it all makes sense now. All those random little things I saw over the years make sense.” There hasn’t been ANYTHING solid put out there about his mental condition…just random conjecture that could add up to a number of things.

      As far as anyone having a weapon in the house being held responsible? They are. EVERY state has laws against the guns being used by a minor or mentally unstable person…against the person who OWNS them. If a minor gets his hand on a gun in my state, one not properly secured, the minor is not prosecuted if damage is done, the parent/guardian is, for not having it properly secured.

      And as far as the studies go? The problem is when you examine the language. Yes, there are FAR less gun suicides and gun crimes in Australia…because MOST of the guns are gone. Of course GUN suicide is down, because guns are even harder to come by. Yet suicide numbers are higher, why? Because if a person wants to kill themselves…they’re going to do it. Doesn’t matter how…forgive my callousness, but a gun is a far easier method than some. I’d love to see the basic numbers of other types of crimes in Australia. Further, and this is just my critique on the article itself: it’s a PERSPECTIVE piece. The language and wording used there is VERY important to pay attention to….it DOES present facts, but pay attention to how it presents them. I do not see it as completely neutral.

      And, finally, touching on the religious aspects? I’m going to not get into how not everyone believes in Christianity or Judaism and follows the commandments. Given THAT, the argument from a religious perspective holds no weight on a practical and ethical argument, simply for the fact that it’s not going to be the same everywhere. That’s going to be the first and most obvious objection. HOWEVER, I am going to say this: does not God say suicide is a mortal sin? One that CANNOT be forgiven? What do you think it is to NOT to defend yourself when your life is in danger?You are, albeit indirectly, committing suicide there, by not defending yourself or allowing your life to be ended with no fight on YOUR part to stop it. And as far as the Sixth Commandment? Murder and self-defense are two different things. It is NEVER, and should never, be anything but a VERY weighty issue to take the life of another person. But when your only choice, as far as you can see, is die or survive? You tell me, does the fact that I followed, to the letter, a commandment of my faith change ANYTHING about the fact that I’m dead? Not really. Still dead, whatever happens after, I don’t know.

      And as far as stating having more guns means a premeditated willingness to kill? What about having more martial training? What about KNOWING how to properly use firearms? Knives? Bows? I mean, as someone who’s practiced Martial Arts for years, do I WANT to seriously harm someone because I have the ability to? Not in the slightest. Hell, given that I CAN do it, I’m that much more wary about it. I CAN, and have the ability to, COMPLETELY ruin someone. I can hurt them immensely, and make it last for the rest of their lives….this gives me pause, not reason or drive. I KNOW I can do these things…yet I do not wish to do them. I aim to be RESPONSIBLE the the ability, not flaunt it. So that blanket statement could not be more wrongheaded. It’s born out of a fear of guns and a hate for them, because there are some idiots out there who have NO clue what they’re doing. I DO accept they are out there, and I aim to be the exception. I think a great number of people here wish to do the same.

      1. It sounds to me like you may not have followed all the responses to my post? Some of your points were addressed there, including self defense. Self defense is a different consideration. With great power comes great responsibility. Guns are among the most powerful, deadly tools available to a private citizen. My belief is, if gun ownership is a right, the owner must accept the accountability of the high potential for harm to innocents and property because of their choice to own firearms. Some of the reasons for this were discussed in my original post and responses.

  404. Thank you very much for your concise, well-written, thorough and knowledgeable article. A friend shared it with me and I will share it with everyone I can. Keep fighting the good fight!

    PS: Downloading the Amazon sample of MHI now. If it’s good, you’ll have earned my business! 🙂

  405. I survived the office shootings at 101 california st in 1993. I used to be a control advocate and am now a responsible gun owner and conceal carry whenever legally allowed based on my south dakota permit. I agree with all your points. Molon Labe!

    If an armed citizen had been at our firm that day in 1993, the gunman would have ended sooner. If someone ever starts shooting people in my presence again I will straight up off them.

    The media should be banned from publishing the gunman’s name, the gunman’s body should be cremated and ashes flushed down the toilet as a matter of federal law.

  406. I just wanted to stop in and say that I really enjoyed this article. You have summed up 100% of my beliefs in this debate, and I applaud your effort.

    I am a gun owner and a law enforcement officer, and even before I became a cop I put in nearly 100 hours of defensive firearms training with Dan Abbott, Rick Benson and the gang at Oregon Firearms Academy. I did this on my own because I believe in training.

    Before I became a cop, whenever I would debate guns with someone, I would always ask the same question, “How do you feel about police officers having guns?” Invariably the reply is, “Well of course cops having guns is okay because they’re trained professionals, yadda, yadda, yadda.” I then tell them that by the time I’d taken my last class at OFA, I possessed more tactical firearms training than most police officers from rookie through 2-years into their careers. They grumble and growl and retreat to the time-honored, “Well, I just don’t like guns…”

    Thank you for this article, and I will indeed pass this along.

  407. Reblogged this on Inkhogneato’s Blog and commented:
    This is incredibly long, but it’s a well thought out (albeit poorly edited)
    document that accurately answers every single cliched and whiny catch phrase uttered by those who believe more “gun control” laws will be effective in this nation.

  408. Larry,
    I’ve been sharing your post repeatedly on Facebook. I’ve been snipping pieces here and there to answer specific misinformation that is being spread by the left-leaning I encounter (with a link to the post). You have put into words what I have been unable to for many years. You have backed it up with fantastic statistics that come from a myriad of sources that are, without a doubt, unimpeachable. Bravo!

    Thank you, thank you, thank you for your incredibly informative post.

    Now to go buy some of your books…hopefully they’re available in Kindle format (I’m a contractor and deployed to Afghanistan until March).

    1. Interesting. Problem is, understanding where someone is coming from doesn’t always allow for the introduction of logic into the conversation. Folks who react viscerally based on emotion aren’t usually likely to even listen to a logical argument, let alone think about things in a logical manner.

      1. “Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it.” – Ayn Rand

        “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” – Voltaire

        “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.” – Winston Churchill

        “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

        “Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available.” – Gregory Benford

        “Either you think, or else others have to think for you and take power from you, pervert and discipline your natural tastes, civilize and sterilize you.” – F. Scott Fitzgerald

        “Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.” – General George S. Patton

        “What can you do against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?” – George Orwell

        “How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?” – Robert Anson Heinlein

  409. A complete response to the emotional leftist drivel so prevalent now. To emphasize one point: NO LAW will see me relinquishing my weapons. Period. Our “lawmakers” should appreciate this fully. Well said, sir. I concur. Signed: Military veteran, attorney, father, gun owner who actually shoots my weapons regularly.

  410. I saved 5 lives with an AR-15 while living in Santa Cruz, Ca after my pregnant wife, myself and two children were threatened at our home by members of a Watsonville street gang after a work termination. It did not make news. I did not have to fire a shot. Glad I had it.

  411. With what amount of annual ri$k-pay are you going to remunerate each teacher whom you expect will carry a firearm? This is a serious question. I expect my wife/teacher to be properly paid for the service$ she renders to your treasured children. In which firearm do you suggest that my school district inve$t to issue to her?

    1. I would imagine that teachers who follow the union line of “no extra work without extra pay” would be exempted from serving their community by defending the children in their charge. I hope there are enough people like myself, who would freely volunteer their services as armed guardians of the school children. I think it ironic that such D.c. elite as the President and talking head David Gregory send their children to a school (Sidwell Friends) that has 11 armed guards on staff, not to mention Sasha and Malia’s Secret Service protection.

    2. Chris – I’ll tell you what – you get the government (Fed, state, county, local, and school board) to lift the prohibitions on me carrying at work (I am a teacher) and make it possible for me to get a CCW without having to make a large monetary contribution to any politicians (that’s the way it works here in CA – essentially if you bribe the local Sheriff, you can get a CCW), I’ll carry one of my guns to work. (as well as being a teacher, I am a retired military policeman and firearms instructor, I have completed the CA POST Defensive Firearms training, as required for peace officers in this state, at an approved facility – I am ready, willing, and able to start carrying at work as soon as the government okays it).

      Then, when my being armed saves lives – possibly including your wife’s – you can give me your undying gratitude, and possibly bring me some cookies. Personally, I will just be happy that I was able to do something other than have my students cower on the floor in the dark, and hope that the armed intruder passes our classroom by (yes, I have experienced multiple “armed intruder on campus” situations in my seven years teaching, and that is the accepted protocol).

      If your wife actually were a teacher, and you cared for her safety, then you would jump at the opportunity for her to have options other than “hide the students in the closet and bravely allow herself to be shot by the bad guy” – as happened in CT.

  412. A friend of mine posed this question: So, if criminals are going to not pay attention to the laws anyway, why not just not even bother with laws in the first place? I mean, if criminals are GOING to murder, and you know it, then why even bother having the laws themselves? (He was deconstructing the argument against banning guns or more gun control because criminals don’t pay attention to guns anyway. More so as an argumentative point than anything)
    He and I did debate a bit about it, but I wanted to get a few more opinions on it.

    1. “So, if criminals are going to not pay attention to the laws anyway, why not just not even bother with laws in the first place?”
      Because laws were not meant to prevent crimes, they never could. Laws were created to justify the State taking action to deprive a citizen of his or her rights, up to and including life and liberty. A law against murder cannot prevent a murder, it will however allow the State to incarcerate, or execute, the criminal without ordinary citizens having to worry about the same thing being done to them. The law says do this, the State will take action, don’t do this, then the State will not because it cannot. As long as the law is applied impartially, wisely, and promptly, it does tend to deter people who might be tempted to perform actions if they did not have associated consequences. There is however no magical force that comes out of the law books to restrain would-be criminals from doing evil deeds.

      So the law against murder, it is there so that the consequences are clear if you murder somebody. Murdering somebody is bad, civilization has agreed on that for a long time now. Gun control laws deprive citizens of their rights when they have not even committed anything bad, because owning a weapon by itself is not bad. Murdering people is bad but there are already laws against that. And those laws don’t seem to have prevented the massacres either.

  413. I was composing a long, point-by-point reply to this article and my piece of shit text program crashed and I lost everything.

    So unless I get a response to this giving me a reason to start over, I’ll just recreate what I think was my strongest point:

    “On the high side the estimate runs around 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year, which dwarfs our approximately 16,000 homicides in any recent year, only 10k of which are with guns.”
    “So even if you use the worst number provided by people who are just as biased as me but in the opposite direction, gun use is a huge net positive.”

    Yes, but only if you present the statistics that way.

    You yourself said that sometimes a bad guy can take multiple shots and still walk to the ambulance. So that wouldn’t count as a homicide, and neither would a good guy taking the same amount of bullets. Guns do a lot more than just kill. That ought to be factored in. Show me a comparison between defensive gun uses and gun-related deaths PLUS gun-related injuries PLUS gun-related robberies/muggings/carjackings/kidnappings. And if possible, include any data on police shooting citizens who turned out to be innocent. And especially data on deaths and injuries caused by guns malfunctioning.

    You have made some perfectly valid points here. But if I am to consider your overall premise, then I need to see the true picture. If we allow more good guys to carry guns, we will be allowing easier access for the bad guys too. What are we really risking by doing this? I’ve seen many gun advocates make your same arguments, and maybe it’s just a coincidence, but they always seem to only compare defensive uses to gun homicides too. Hmm.

    If you show me the true statistics, and the defensive use incidents are still the greater number, then I’ll consider your argument valid. Not until then.

  414. It appears that there is an unsubstantiated focus on the variable of psychotropic drugs, associated with mass murders in this opinion piece.

    While the author of this opinion suggests he does not have the credentials to discuss psychological issues in the section labeled Mental Health, I don’t see much inhibition of that effort in the previous section.

    While Zooloft is not a serotonin inhibitor, I can see where someone might miss-speak on that technical medical information associated with the drug, but the claim that there is evidence heard somewhere that close to 80% of mass murder shooter’s were under the influence of psychotropic drugs, is far from substantiated.

    In fact per the large research analysis done by the New York Times in 2000, spanning 5 decades and 102 rampage killers, 24 killers were reported as taking psychiatric medication, with 14 that had stopped using their medications before the crimes were committed.

    It appears that the psychological profile provided in this opinion is similar to the Virginia Tech killer’s description in his “manifesto”. However, in a Secret Service research study in 2002, for the area of school shooters that is the major current area of focus of public concern, there is no typical profile for a school shooter. Most of the school shooters studied were not loners, 88% had close friends, and many were involved in mainstream social groups.

    In my opinion that part of this opinion piece would have been best left at the media/copy cat factor, which is substantiated in some research, rather than a psychological profile that the author seems to suggest he has does not have the credentials to properly address.

    The support for hand guns is stronger in the US at 74% than it has been since 1959 measured recently in a Gallup poll. And in the recent Gallup poll after one of the most horrific rampage killing imaginable, the support for a ban against so called “assault weapons” has only increased 1 percent while the majority of the country still stands firm against even a limited ban on “assault weapons”.

    Every rampage killing in the last 5 years, and every suggestion of gun control sends sales of guns and ammunition through the roof. As long as there is a republican controlled house there is no substantial fear for gun advocates, and only a realistic potential of increased guns sales from these controversies.

    Enhanced and expanded enforcement of gun registration requirements, is a win-win for both sides, and the only potential realistic legislative result, other than a reduction in capacity of ammunition clips, which while supported by the public, is going to be difficult to pass in the house of representatives, particularly with the current partisan strife over the “Fiscal Cliff”.

    At least for what appears to be the next decade, considering the public emotional bar of severity for a rampage killing appears to have been met, there appears to be little to no potential for the ban of any type of Firearm in the US. And, there is close to zero percent chance above and beyond state regulation, that a federal requirement for concealed weapons by teacher’s in classrooms will be required to be allowed. State regulations are already working for that concern, in the limited number of states, where it is currently supported.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/09/us/they-threaten-seethe-and-unhinge-then-kill-in-quantity.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

    http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf

  415. I would have preferred to send an email directly to the author, mostly because I want to express some opinions, not become part of a debate, and not necessarily in public. First, allow me to thank Mr. Correia for his novels, all of which I have enjoyed. Second, I want to thank him for taking the time to write what I believe to be a thorough and knowledgeable statement on what is a terribly divisive issue. Third, I want to note that I agree with Mr. Correia on almost everything that he says. I thought that the original post was great, and will be forwarding it to some of my friends and family, some of whom would become physically ill if they knew how much time I spent practicing what they consider to be morally indefensible skills.

    My personal issue is with any argument based on fighting to retain certain firearms, should they be made unlawful. Would I ever actively resist our lawfully elected government, or its law enforcement arm (including my friends who serve therein)? Yes, the day they start rounding up some targeted minority to move them to concentration camps. I would not fight to preserve firearms. I might not turn them over, and accept prison time. I would note that having to imprison large numbers of otherwise law-abiding citizens might produce more problems (and public outcry) might produce a better reaction than taking up arms. I am not defending our elected representatives, any of them in either party. They suck, almost all of them. But I do buy my duty as a citizen, and that means living within the law, or taking the consequences of disobeying it. I’m not about to get into a fracas with my police, or my military. I believe that even mentioning it as a possibility hurts the credibility of anyone doing so.

    I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one point. Thank you.

    1. So when you get yourself arrested for civil disobedience for refusing to turn in gun A, and are now a convicted felon, allowing the government to legally take away the rest of your guns, how are you going to “fight back” when they start taking certain groups to concentration camps – especially since you will already be imprisoned – and possibly even be in a concentration camp?
      When they have to place millions of non-compliant gun owners into special prisons, won’t those be “concentration camps for a certain class of people”?
      As a Californian, I have already had to lose several firearms that I owned legally (and had previously registered with the local and state authorities – so they knew I owned them). I could have chosen to go to jail, be a felon, and lose all my other guns, but I went along, begrudgingly, and found homes for those guns in free states.
      There will come a tipping point though, where gun owners will refuse to give up any more of their rights to an out of control government.

  416. OUTSTANDING! Simply Outstanding Sir.
    You have the knowledge that we all need to understand to fight for our gun rights. When I decided to become a gun owner and CCW holder, I did so for the protection of my family. I have come to realize that the responsibility is much greater than that. It is a responsibility to my Country and fellow countrymen/women. I hope that I never have to draw my gun, but will do all in my power to be properly trained if presented with the situation. We should also do all that we can to protect our Constitutional Rights.

  417. Thank you for going the distance on covering all the hot topics surrounding gun debate here in the USA. Thankfully, I live in Montana and far away from sections of the US that are rabidly against gun ownership and the gun culture itself. I really appreciate the hard work you put into creating that brief. Best wishes to you from the Northern Rockies!

  418. Great article and I read it from start to finish and only have one comment.
    When you wrote about the Gabby Giffords’ shooting you failed to mention one important fact. Even though this shooting took place in Arizona, it took place at a Democrat event. That’s about as close to a gun-free event as you are going to get in Arizona.
    I have a lot of Republican and Libertarian friends and we all own and train with firearms and we all have CCW’s. If Jared Loughner would have tried something like this at a Republican or Libertarian event, he would have been so full of holes that he would whistle when the wind blew.

  419. Thank you for taking the time to write and post this. It is informative and researched. I will definitely reference this many times in the future. Unfortunately, most of the people who wish to jump up and shout “lets ban those evil looking rifles” are reacting from a non-rational, emotional point of view. Trying to inform and educate those can be practically impossible.

  420. WOW this was an excellent read, I’m sharing it on my facebook page in hopes that some ignorant Democrat will read it and wise up.

    My experience has been when they can’t come up with a convincing argument they resort to calling names, which only highlights their ignorance even more.

    My husband and I are both licensed to carry and after the Newtown shooting and the call for banning, we bought more magazines. 🙂 It’s sad that people let their beliefs be ruled by ignorance and fear.

    Great post!!

  421. I don’t understand this comment as a response to my post? My point is gun owner accountability if guns are to continue to be a part of the rights of private citizens. But, what would actually make me happy would be if no one would have or need guns (especially bad guys).

    Sadly it is statistically more likely that your children will be injured or killed by your own firearms than you needing to use it for self defense.

    1. And we already have that, somewhat, as was pointed out by another poster. I still have a problem with your blame-the-victim mentality. If I’ve got my guns properly stored, if I take every precaution I possibly can, and they get stolen, you still think I’m somehow accountable?

      Sorry, but that’s bullshit.

      1. Every time a gun is stolen we should be saying that the police failed once again. They’re the ones whose job is supposed to be stopping crime yet no one holds them accountable.

    2. http://www.childdeathreview.org/statistics.htm

      No, sadly your children statistically are more likely to die of something else first because accidental death from a firearm is the last item on the list in every state I checked and I checked about 40 of them. I got tired of clicking. If we did a Kaizen event on the accidental death of children, firearm deaths are so statistically insignificant that it probably wouldn’t get addressed when compared to other items on the list. I’ve been involved in enough Kaizens over my career that this would be probably be ignored. Every thing firearm related always gets top priority whether it makes sense or not simply because of peoples fear of them.

      Please put the statistics in accurate perspective.

      http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

      http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

      Looks like a conservative estimate is 1.5 to 2.5 million Defensive Gun annually with 1.5 million being on the low side. You’ll be hard pressed to support your statement statically speaking.

      1. Dave,

        You sound sincere in looking for data to support claims and I appreciate that. It is irresponsible to merely quote statistics without personally trying to verify BOTH sides of opposing opinions.

        My statement was “injured or killed “- this would also include the parent’s gun used for suicide and suicide attempts. There are many studies done on this subject, but here is a link to one that has graphic depictions as well as statistics on several gun issues including family injury. And here’s a quote:

        “It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.”

        http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

        The study you have posted the link to, conducted in the mid 1990’s, that claims the 1.5 to 2.5 million DGU’s is quite popular still, I see it cited a lot, but this study has been discredited long ago. Here is a study concerning this myth by the Berkley Media Studies Group, copyright 2000:

        http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/myths.pdf

        And another by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center that also has several other studies cited that you can refer to:

        http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html

        There is a lot of inaccurate data being quoted and statistics being presented that don’t reflect both sides of issues . No honest solution can be found without evaluating data for the truth – even if it doesn’t support ones cause.

        I am done expressing my opinion here. I sincerely hope no one reading this has to use their firearms on their fellow man and that no one uses a firearm on them in the coming year and beyond. Happy New Year.

  422. Thank you for your thoughtful and expert opinions. I found it very helpful with an idea of where to look for more info so as to formulate a hopefully semi-intelligent opinion myself on this touchy topic. I have a niece and nephew in elementary school and I want them to be safe. I want laws that make sense and will help keep them safe. Thank you and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

  423. Hello Mr. Correia and fellow commenters. I want to respond to to the idea of the knee-jerk reaction being more gun control. I’m a registered Democrat living in a red state, but gun control is one issue on which I disagree with most of the Democrats currently making the rounds on the news. I don’t think more gun bans or restrictions are going to deter this brand of shooters, especially since many of them were using guns owned by their law-abiding parents, but I also don’t think arming teachers is going to help matters as much as the NRA thinks it will.

    In ’98 there was a school shooting in my hometown. I was in eighth grade at the time, and during the rest of middle- and high-school I got to experience all of the added security precautions that the city and the schools thought would help curb such a thing from happening. We had to wear name badges so that people could tell students from non-students, but that wasn’t as effective as advertised since we quickly found out that you could wear someone else’s badge without consequence provided you had a similar skin tone. We had to use backpacks made of mesh or see-through backpacks to supposedly prevent someone concealing something dangerous in their bags, but it became obvious quickly that this measure was of limited effectiveness. We had lock-down drills for active shooters, and my most vivid memory of that is of my AP Biology teacher holding the classroom door shut with her finger because that classroom’s door-handle was missing. We had one security officer, who was a retired police officer, for approximately 800 students. All of these precautions were the result of the knee-jerk response to do something after a terrible tragedy. People hate feeling helpless, but to us students these precautions didn’t quite make us feel as safe as they intended. They were doing what they could with the budget they had, but anything short of an armed guard would be merely a nuisance to an active shooter.

    My parents are teachers at the grade-school level, and I’m a teacher at the college level, so I worry about this kind of thing happening to my parents or to me or one of my colleagues. After Virginia Tech I saw an upswing in the presence of the campus police at my college, including the addition of student workers whose job was to act as eyes with a radio. Of course, this subsided as peace brought complacency. Vigilance of that type is on a budget, and this is a recession, but as Mr. Correia covered in his article, teachers can’t be turned into cops just by arming them. I’ve had several years of self-defense training which has included some basics of handgun safety and defense. This is not to say I’m an expert, but when I look at my fellow teachers I see a lot of people who would freak at the prospect of being required to carry a gun, having one in their classroom, or would outright freeze if they had a gun and had to use it to protect themselves or their students. This is why having the option instead of being compelled, as Mr. Correia suggests, makes a lot of sense to me. Teachers who put time into firearms could have them with them and would be actually able to use them intelligently when needed. The teaching profession in general might suffer, however, if tactical handgun training became a required course next to the classroom practicum.

    I feel that there needs to be more of a middle ground in the national debate over this, and I want to float an idea here. Instead of giving guns to all of the faculty or trying to further bolster a gun-free policy, why not push legislation for the inclusion of armed security details in public schools? These don’t have to be police officers, but can be trained and licensed security personnel. It could even help the economy by creating more jobs while also helping students, teachers, and parents feel more at ease. Who knows, it might also cut down on smaller crimes in schools like fights, theft, drugs, etc.

    Of course, this idea comes down to funding. Education is one of the first things politicians promise to support in their campaigns and one of the first things they cut when they get elected, but this might be the kind of spending that left and right can agree upon. Still, it’s easier to ban something or institute smaller measures like name badges or mesh backpacks than it is employing additional personnel year-round. Thanks for your time.

    1. There seems to be a common misunderstanding among several posters that Larry and others are suggesting mandatory carry for school teachers, administrators, janitors etc. Unless I missed that somewhere in the prose, there has been no such suggestion, and there should not be. The only thing worse than an unarmed victim is an armed victim without the will to use a firearm. They are literally a self-propelled arms bazaar for criminals. This would fall in line with the practice of concealed carry outside of current “gun-free zones”. I chose to apply for a CCW permit of my own volition, and no one else that I know of was compelled to do so.

      What was suggested was to allow those adults who desire to carry concealed (and who qualify according to the laws of the relevant state) to do so, instead of advertizing to criminals that “here is a target-rich environment devoid of the means to defend itself”. In such cases I would advocate concealed carry, for the same reasons I prefer that option to open carry in general. Open carry may have a limited deterrence value, but as we’ve seen too often, sociopaths are seldom deterred by laws or signs, and if the open carrier is out of sight around a corner, the possibility of deterrence is lost. Open carry has the additional problems of maintaining control of a visible weapon amongst a sea of students, visitors, staffers and anyone else with which the carrier comes in contact. Open carry requires different equipment and training, in this case with little benefit. I view school employees carrying as a way to mitigate the violence early, not for the most part to deter it. The majority of these mass shooters are cowards, and as one of my instructors likes to point out, “Nothing changes the dynamics of a gun fight faster than return fire.” Many of these shooters take their own lives as soon as they face the first indication of armed resistance. I’m all for pushing that moment as far to the left on the timeline as possible.

      1. I apologize, as my writing was misleading about my point. I meant to agree with Correia about giving teachers the option for concealed carry. I misleadingly wrote “This is why having the option instead of being compelled, as Mr. Correia suggests, makes a lot of sense to me”, which I see now can be construed as “Correia suggests all teachers be compelled to carry firearms,” which I didn’t intend. I’m reacting, and Correia seems to be reacting to the same thing to a degree, to what seems to be an overly-reductive argument of “either arm all the teachers or put armed guards in the schools,” which seems to be how some people are interpreting the NRA’s position and it’s a silly way of looking at it because, as you say, an armed teacher with no idea how to effectively employ the weapon when needed is almost worse than being completely unarmed. I agree with you that school employees with CCW won’t completely stop this kind of violence in its tracks but it can help mitigate it by acting as what I believe Correia calls “speed bumps” for these shooters. The people opposing CCW in schools, however, seem to take the position of “an armed presence didn’t stop shooters at any of these other events, so why bother?”

        On the flip side of that same reductive argument, I’ve been seeing articles writing “well Columbine had an armed security guard, and a fat lot of good that did.” They did but it was one guy and he wasn’t in his usual spot that day. One guard to patrol the entire grounds, outside and inside? Even if he was walking around the campus all the time, never taking a bathroom break or resting, he wouldn’t be around for 90% of the crap that could go down. I teach at a college in an urban area, and while it has its own police department I only see them in visible strength three times a year (the very beginning of the school year, finals week when thefts are at an all-time high, and after an event like Virginia Tech or Sandy Hook has happened). I don’t think they’re lazy, but they have a lot of ground to cover and I’m betting they are stretched pretty thin. CCW’s in the school can help, but I would think for grade schools you also need at least two or three guards on a grade school campus with at least one always inside to report A) what is happening where, B) what the suspects look like, and/ or at the very least (C) who the Good Guys are, i.e. the teachers with concealed weapons.

        1. Sorry for the mis-read. It seems we are for the most part in violent agreement.

          While I think that armed guards or police would be a security benefit in schools (I’ve talked to several police here in town assigned to our high schools), the numbers make this prospect bleak. As Larry pointed out, there are about 700,000 LEO’s of all flavors in our country of 315 million people. With record government debts at the state and federal level, the prospect of beefing up police or government guard patrols just doesn’t seem in the cards. The “thin blue line” is thinner than most people perceive. We have to look out for ourselves, and each other.

          While the Columbine shooters weren’t deterred by the presence of an armed guard, part of the reason for his ineffectiveness was the SOP of the time, which said don’t pursue the gunman until backup arrives. In part because of Columbine, that SOP was changed, and that probably saved additional classrooms of kids at Sandy Hook. Unfortunately, I think the deterrent effect of teachers carrying concealed will have to come when one intervenes and shoots a gunman. Sociopaths will continue to perceive “gun-free zones” soft targets until they are no longer gun-free, and law abiding citizens (or police, or guards) can send the message “find weaker prey”.

          As far as guards acting as observers, and the possibility of fratricide, these are both subjects covered during my initial CCW training here in New Mexico. We were instructed to act as “armed observers” rather than “armed interveners”. By that I mean that as a CCW permit holder, I don’t break up loud parties, I don’t make arrests (citizen or otherwise), and if the threat is retreating, I do not pursue. I dial 911 when able, and act as eyes for the dispatcher. If I have drawn and/or fired my weapon, part of my conversation with the dispatcher is to give a description of myself, and exchange instructions for me when police arrive, so that we both know what to expect from each other. SOP is “when police arrive, I will take two steps away from the perp, I will place my weapon on the ground, take two steps away from my weapon, and place myself face-down on the ground.” It’s a lot safer to sort out friend from foe after everybody’s been handcuffed. Adrenaline during an active shooter incident is high, so eliminating variables early, as well as good gun safety (muzzle discipline, trigger discipline, etc.) all contribute to avoiding fratricide.

      2. Some voluntarily armed teachers would choose to carry a concealed weapon. Some of the teachers who would be voluntarily armed might even choose to have the firearm and ammunition locked up in the classroom (in accordance with safe firearms storage laws), and only access it when the “armed intruder” alarm is given. In this way, there would be less risk of the firearm falling into the hands of a student (either through accident or design of the student). Every classroom is already supposed to be equipped with a secure storage area for confidential documents (regarding students with learning disabilities, etc.), so it is not much of a stretch to have a locked gun case or small gun safe in such a secured location.
        Unfortunately, current law (at least in most locations) doesn’t allow for CCW carriers to enter campus areas and doesn’t allow teachers or other school staff to even have a gun in a locked container in the trunk of their car (makes it hard to go to the range after work), due to a combination of federal, state, and local “Gun Free School Zone” laws and “Zero Tolerance for Weapons” policies.

        The point is to allow teachers and other school staff to have choices. Personally, I am very “pro-choice” when it comes to firearms.

        1. The problem I have with “secure storage” is that gunfights tend to happen with brutal speed, little or no advance warning, and not necessarily when the teacher is in the classroom. This is also one of the qualms I have with the FFDO program that arms commercial pilots. Criminals have the advantage of initiating the confrontation, so law-abiding citizens are left with reducing response time as the best countermeasure.

          I live in New Mexico, a very blue state where (perhaps counter-intuitively) open carry is legal without a permit, while CCW permits require the weapon be concealed. The whole purpose of concealing the weapon is not for any nefarious conspiracy amongst CCW permit holders (“okay, the plan is to draw your weapon at 12:15 tomorrow, wherever you are, and shoot everyone you can”) but rather to maintain control of your weapon by not letting anyone know you have a weapon for them to try and take. We’re taught other techniques for weapon control as well, but in the 2 1/2 years that I’ve been carrying everywhere I’m legally allowed, I’ve never been called out by anyone around me as being armed. If I am “outed” I can face the administrative punishment of having my permit revoked. Having teachers remove their weapons and place them in locked storage (presumably in the presence of others) negates the whole benefit of concealment. The additional weapon handling required for daily storage/retrieval also has safety consequences. There is a school of thought that says the more you handle the weapon (load/unload, holster/unholster, or remove/replace the weapon while in its holster), the more likely you are to have a negligent discharge. This idea does have some merit, and calls in to question the safety of “clearing barrels” used by the military and some police departments for armed members to unload or “clear” the weapon when entering buildings.

          1. While a teacher who chooses to have a firearm locked in a secure storage area in their classroom may not be able to instantly gain access when they are out of the classroom, or if their classroom is the initial target of an armed intruder, it is still a valid choice for a teacher who wants to be armed, but does not feel comfortable carrying a firearm while working in close proximity to their students.
            I am talking about options and choices that would help improve safety, not “one size fits some” mandates that create resentment and may make teachers not want to participate in an “armed teacher” program.

            In the case of armed intruders on a campus, most of the campus will be alerted to the presence of the armed intruder before the armed intruder gets to them. In CT, teachers had the time to hide students in cupboards and closets. That would have allowed them time to access a firearm (either carried on their person, or locked in a classroom safe), before the attacker came in their door.

            Just as some homeowners may carry a firearm in their own home, while others will keep their firearms secured in a safe until the last possible instant (perhaps fearing accidents when children are in the home), the armed teachers themselves should be the ones given the authority to decide how they can best, most safely, and most effectively, be armed.

          2. I understand. I was pointing out the pros and cons not knowing your background (which I read in another of your posts). In the end I didn’t write anything you didn’t already know. Unless they have changed things in FFDO, they do not offer pilots the option, which is responsible for part of my resistance.

            My condolences on your having to deal with California gun laws. It took a while reading forums online before I found out what a “bullet button” was. (sarcasm on) I’m sure that’s reduced gun crime in the state though. (sarcasm off)

            FWIW, I have both a Glock 20 and 29 (my winter and summer carries, respectively), and the weapon I’m not carrying at any given time resides in a wall safe.

            Our instructor had a good suggestion for educating young children in households as to what to do if they find a gun. He observed that you can’t blunt their curiosity. It is innate. What you need to do is override it with a greater desire. To wit, tell them “If you find a weapon anywhere, in our house, a friend’s house, or anywhere else, if you leave it where it is and find me or another adult and tell us about it, I will buy you any one thing you choose at Toys ‘R Us.” I don’t have kids, but that seems like a good technique to me. He would tell us about his own sons when they were young, hiding behind clothes in his closet, with their toes sticking out, trying to catch dad making a mistake they could cash in on. I don’t as yet know of an equivalent technique to blunt young students’ curiosity about the gun in the drawer safe in teacher’s desk though. As a former military intelligence analyst, I’m a big fan of releasing only information that is necessary, as it’s impossible to pull it back once it’s disseminated.

  424. Thank You Larry…..I’ve been waiting for someone with a brain to put it together in reality. Very good article.

  425. I LOVE the ingenuity of the inventor in this YouTube video!

    6 shots before having to reload. Telling recoil. The soft copper barrels didn’t even explode once in the shooter’s hand.

    This is an excellent example to illustrate the discussion at hand. Thank you!

    I would OPPOSE legislation limiting manufacture and possession of a firearm functionally just like this one.

    Because IMO this invention would NOT be a useful tool for wholesale mass murder. And there are no NEW laws being contemplated to restrict a weapon like this. Unlike an AR15 with a 30-clip, this six-shooter is NOT an automatic weapon by anyone’s definition, and it must be reloaded after shooting 10 or less shots (it falls within popular proposed 10-shot magazine limits).

    With a firearm such as this in hand (which would NOT be limited by any suggested legislation), a pissed-off BadGuy could only murder e.g. a school teacher whom the shooter presumed would be armed, the school administrator (before she was able to get her “SchoolMaster” brand AR15 out of the safe) and only 5 first graders. That’s because before the BadGuy could possibly reload a weapon like this, he could be tickled-helpless to the ground by the GoodGuys. A non-automatic six-shooter like this could yield a count far less than the corporeal harvest facilitated at Newtown…probably only 6 deaths (i.e. IF he was a really practiced shot with it… maybe more if he planned ahead to ask the children to line up) instead of 26 deaths. My Newtown neighbors would see this scenario as a worthwhile 20-life savings.

    And if you save one life…

    1. “Because IMO this invention would NOT be a useful tool for wholesale mass murder.”

      Right, because there’s nothing keeping someone from having half a dozen functionally similar weapons under a coat giving one a good thirty-six shotgun rounds. (far more powerful than an AR15 round). Or a dufflebag maybe. (cf the Texas Tower Sniper who, BTW, used standard bolt action rifles.

      Or maybe use this to ambush a cop somewhere and then you’ve got the police officer’s semi-automatic handgun, his spare magazines (“high capacity” as the hoplophobes call them–if the only purpose of these things is mass slaughter, why do all the police use them?) plus the shotgun or AR15 in his cruiser (again, if the only purpose of these things is mass slaughter then why do all these police departments use them?).

      NO proposed gun control will stop mass slaughter. It can’t be done from that end. The only way to reliably stop a bad guy with a gun, or a bad guy with a lot of guns (even something as simple as the one in the video) is a good guy with a gun.

      One source of “good guy with a gun” is the police. However, the police cannot be everywhere. They just can’t There aren’t enough of them and there never can be enough of them. Ordinary people, however, can.

      I happen to think that most ordinary people are “good guys.” Allow them to be armed and there’s your “good guy with a gun.”

      1. ” I happen to think that most ordinary people are “good guys.” Allow them to be armed and there’s your “good guy with a gun.” ”

        And this illustrates a huge philosophical difference between pro2A and anti 2A people. Pro 2A people think of most Americans as potential “good guys” who will act to help others in need, while anti 2A people think that anyone who is not exactly like them is probably going to want to hurt them. I think that this is largely a reflection of how we evaluate ourselves.

        At lunch a few weeks ago at the school where I work, the staffroom conversation turned to the idea of allowing teachers to be armed. One of the teachers opened up by joking that she would pull it out and threaten to shoot students when they didn’t quiet down. Several of the teachers then made comments about how if they had a gun, they would be unable to resist the urge to shoot a few students for doing something annoying or disruptive in class, and that this would resolve all of their classroom management issues. They showed no concern about a student taking the gun from them, or that there would be an accident involving the gun – their sole concern was that they would not be able to control their bloodthirsty natures, if given access to a weapon.

        I was, of course, shocked by these comments, and wonder how these teachers manage to avoid beating students with furniture or textbooks, hitting or kicking students, or strangling students with their bare hands..

        My very unpopular response was to ask them why they would continue to teach, if they hated their students so much that they fantasized about killing them.

        It was interesting to me to note that their response to the idea of being armed – when they thought they were in a group where no-one could possibly be pro 2A – was not to think of how to handle it responsibly and safely, but to engage in juvenile power fantasies where having a gun would magically allow them to impose their will on others.

        Having a conversation about the same topic, off-site, with a couple of pro 2A teachers (not all from the same school), we had talked about whether it would be safer to carry on our person (direct control), or keep the gun locked up (less chance of having it grabbed by a student), how we would secure the gun and ammunition in our classrooms so that students couldn’t gain access to them (deliberately or accidentally). what protocols should be in place for an armed teacher (should we have a special ID that we would put on when we were armed, so students and staff would know that we are “the good guys”? Should the administration be aware? What kind of security would the administration need for the “armed teacher” list, so we wouldn’t be the first people targeted by an attacker? Should the local police know who we are in advance, and would we train with them when the school and police conducted drills?

        1. Humor is often used to cover fear. Fear, in this case, born of ignorance. Hopefully shame will motivate at least some of them to counter their fear with knowledge, but I’m not too optimistic. Dave Grossman thinks most sheep can voluntarily decide to become sheepdogs, but I don’t put that much faith in force of will.

      2. “… if the only purpose of these things is mass slaughter then why do all these police departments use them?”

        I’d never suggest that these things (e.g. the AR15 SchoolMaster with a bountiful magazine) are only useful for mass slaughter [of civilians]. They are very useful tools for mass slaughter, as needed, in a theater of war. That is what they were originally designed for, no? They may also useful for the hordes of individuals who would like to have such a tool to protect cattle from the hordes of coyotes. So it would make sense to offer permits for such. (Note that nowhere in Connecticut would this happen.) I’d also want to permit police officers to use tools like this. But I can’t think of anyone e.g. in inner-city Philadelphia, other than the police, whom I’d like to permit to have a tool like the one we are discussing.

        1. I mean, you’re gracious enough to allow them to the police, but why? What possible use do the police have for them that does not apply, at least sometimes (and without advance warning so “permits” hardly applies) to civilians?

          Consider: DOJ statistics are there are more than 3.6 million robberies per year. A “robbery” is a crime of violence where a criminal uses force or threat of force to take money. (When someone comes home and find someone had broken into their house and says “I was robbed” they are mistaken–they weren’t “robbed”; they were “burgled”). Now, the DOJ doesn’t explicitly track when these are robbery of an occupied dwelling with homeowner or tenant present (a “home invasion” by definition). Nor do they track which of the rapes were criminals breaking into somebody’s home and finding the victim present, nor which of the murders are in like case. But let’s go with just the robberies at the moment.

          Home invasion. Some percentage of those 3.6 million robberies every year are home invasions. What percentage? 1%? 0.1%? Local news reports on home invasions when compared to local statistics on robbery suggest that the number is at least somewhere between those two. It could be higher still, but let’s go with lower. Over the entire nation, then, that means between approximately 4 and 40 thousand home invasions a year.

          That means between 4 and 40 thousand cases each year of criminals breaking into somebody’s home to either rob, rape, or murder them and their families. Some, if not most, of those families have children. Don’t you care about those children?

          When it comes to home defense, the best, the absolute best, weapon for defense against a home invasion is a compact semi-automatic rifle.

          Despite what Hollywood would have you believe, criminals often continue to function after being shot, often after being shot several times. “The dead man’s ten seconds” is a phenomenon well and long known (the phrase comes from the Civil War). The criminal may be effectively dead from the first shot, but they still have the ability to do a great deal of harm before they’re stopped. Thus, it may take multiple shots to stop them. Maybe they’ll spend their entire “dead man’s ten seconds” staring down at the hole in their chest.” Maybe it’s easy for you to bet other people’s lives that that’s how it will go down but maybe instead they’ll use that ten seconds to hurt or kill the homeowner unless distracted by, oh, other holes being put in their body from repeat shots until they do stop.

          We have repeated reports of people in military theaters shooting an individual multiple times and having them continue to fight.

          And that’s not even counting that robberies are often committed by more than one occasion. Again, local news reports suggest that the majority of home invasions involve multiple attackers.

          Now, maybe in the “average” it’s over after only a couple of shots. But one can drown in a stream that “averages” 6 inches deep if one happens to step in a hole that’s 8′ deep (the rest of the stream only being 4″ or so so the “average” comes to 6″). But multiple attackers requiring multiple shots each to put down is one of the scenarios as “civilian” may face, and this without a partner, without backup on call, with just what they can grab ready to hand.

          In high stress and fear situations human beings have certain common issues. One is that fine motor skills go to hell. Simply working the action of a rifle or handgun can become a thing of fumbling when one is in fear for ones life (a necessary condition of use of lethal force in all jurisdictions in the US). Much better a simple action of “aim, pull trigger, aim, pull trigger”. Thus, semi-automatic.

          When an attack comes, you can’t be sure that everyone in your household is all together. You may, for example, have to go get the kids. This doesn’t involve hunting the “bad guys.” I don’t recommend that at all. Get your family together and defend them if the bad guys come to you, but “get your family together” may require some moving around. Now, when you’re moving around, you may have to do things like open doors or work light switches. Or maybe (it’s dark, say, and this occurred after everyone was in bed) you need one hand free to hold a flashlight. Maybe you have a light mounted on your rifle but, well, you’re looking for your kids. It would be good to have a light you can shine on things without pointing your gun at them, don’t you think? A “pistol grip” simply makes it easier to handle and keep control of the rifle in such circumstances. Also, a more “compact” design is easier to maneuver down hallways, through doors, and the like.

          The attack happens at night? When you fire the muzzle flash blooms in front of you, temporarily blinding you. Who knows what can happen in the couple of seconds it takes your eyesight to recover. A flash suppressor/hider doesn’t actually suppress or hide the flash. It diverts it to the side where it interferes less with your vision allowing you to keep eyes on target allowing you to assess whether the attacker had been stopped or if you need to keep shooting, and if you do need to keep shooting you can aim rather than fire blindly (literally) and trust to luck.

          A rifle is easier to aim accurately than any handgun. A centerfire rifle has more stopping power than any handgun.

          Now note what I’ve just described: a compact rifle with a pistol grip, “large” capacity magazine (actually “standard” capacity since that’s what these rifles are designed for), and flash hider. While there’s no “shoulder thing that goes up” (Carolyn McCarthy can never be sufficiently mocked for that) what I’ve just described is an “assault weapon” per the media and folk like the Brady Campaign.

          It also happens to describe the best tool for defending your family against one of the between 4 and 40 thousand home invasions that occur every year.

          How many of those 4 to 40 thousand families, many with children, are you willing to sacrifice?

  426. I find it passingly curious that every political assassination in this country since Lincoln has been committed by a far-left loon. Maybe they hate guns so much because they’re afraid that THEY’LL snap and kill someone famous, too.

  427. Not that this will change the mind of anyone who is determined to take away my civil liberties but here is one more reason why someone might “need” a high-capacity box magazine. Many of my relatives are farmers in the rural South. Coyotes and feral dog packs are a huge problem if you raise almost any sort of livestock. When you happen upon a pack running a cow or other animal you want to kill as many as possible. A semi-automatic rifle with a box magazine, a LARGE box magazine, is the tool of preference. The Mini-14, AR-15 style rifle, or AK variant in the truck rifle rack or on the tractor is not uncommon.

    Unfortunately, this is a fact and that doesn’t count with many of the categories of those opposed to my civil liberties.

    1. I’m willing to bet that some, not all but some, of the folks who want to do away with the second amendment would see this as even more of a reason do get rid of guns.

      “Those poor coyotes are just looking for food and you encroached on their natural habitat”. Same type of BS when the memes were up in arms over wolf killing in Alaska. Most anti second amendment people don’t know shit about guns, or the reasons why they are necessary.

      Give me a gun nut over a participation award winner when the going gets tough any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

    2. Totally agree! The AR is one of the sporting firearms of choice when it come to fast moving predators like coyotes and wolves. Try taking an AR away from a rancher with a coyote or wolf problem.

  428. Took me longer than I intended, but my own meager contribution is now up. See it here:
    http://noisyroom.net/blog/2012/12/29/on-modern-musketry/

    The Watchers Council has also heartily endorsed this essay. See that endorsement here:
    http://noisyroom.net/blog/2012/12/28/the-council-has-spoken-this-weeks-watchers-council-results-122812/

    Thank you Larry.

    Now that those of us in the choir have the right notes, it’s time to sing it to Congress.

  429. This should be mandatory reading for every lawmaker. As you quite rightly say, there are too many examples in the world that show there is no correlation between the levels of gun ownership and violence. The UK is a case in point. Lawmakers need to look beyond feel good measures and scoring cheap political points in order to address these kinds of terrible tragedies. Reason before passion is where good governance comes from.

  430. I enjoyed reading this blog post. It’s the discussion that millions of gun owners have with people on a regular basis. I would personally love to see another blog post where you list studies and and other articles that back up this post as reference. That’s one of my favorite thing to do to my more left leaning friends. Assail them with facts that decimate their feeble arguments.

  431. But here’s the thing, what most gun owners fear the most is that any new restrictions are just the thin end of the wedge. Lets just suppose banning semiautomatic sporting rifles and high capacity magazines made a difference, and that going forward all mass shootings were committed with 6 shot revolvers and bolt action rifles. How long will it be before there are similar calls to ban these types of firearms as well. Until the root cause of this problem is addressed mass shootings will continue to happen. They first banned semiautomatic sporting rifles in Britain, and then a few years later banned handguns. Have these bans had an impact on Britain’s overall homicide rate? Absolutely not. While Britain’s gun murder rate is low, it’s overall homicide rate is one of the highest in Western Europe. By comparison, the Swiss, on a per capita basis, privately own nearly 8 times as many guns as the Brit, many of which are fully automatic assault rifles, and yet the homicide rate in Switzerland is nearly half that of Britain’s. To put gun ownership in Switzerland into perspective for Americans, the Swiss, according to UN stats, are the 3rd largest gun owning nation on the planet. So why is it that the Swiss, and Germans and French, two other large gun owning nations (ranked 4th and 5th in terms of gun ownership) have some of the lowest homicide rates in the world? Evidently in some large gun owning countries, guns are not a problem. I think we need to understand and explore why this is before we go about banning anything.

    1. I think that most people have forgotten that during the last “assault weapons” ban, there was much discussion of a further ban of :sniper rifles”. The 0.50 calibre rifles were an easy target but the term “intermediate” sniper rifle also was being used which pretty much meant anything that could hit a 12-inch circle at a couple of hundred yards and have enough momentum to cause fatal injury to a human at that distance or most every centre fire rifle with a good scope.

      http://www.vpc.org/studies/sniper.htm

      The slippery slope is more like a ninety-degree drop.

    2. Only in paranoid fantasies could a move to ban ALL firearms occur. No-one, I say no one in government is considering abolishing the second amendment, although gun-industry lobbyists (Wayne La Pierre takes home over $1 Million a year) have successfully and intentionally been frightening people into thinking so.

      The rising interest is in finding a way to lessen the average efficiency of the tools too readily available with which mass murder may be executed. So maybe next time only 5 (instead of 20) sets of parents will have to mourn the murder of their first-graders. And there is NO ONE who thinks that putting limits on the efficiencies of abundantly available firearms will, by itself, solve our disgraceful national epidemic of efficient murder by firearm. Yeah, sure, lets also start with having more armed GoodGuy heroes in the schools, libraries, candy stores and doctor’s offices (See? I support the 2nd Amendment!) . But that by itself will not solve the problem (though it will make Wayne LaPierre’s masters happy). And further: It’s actually easy to accurately screen teenagers for (too common) depression as part of the school physical, so they could then be lifted up through treatment!

      No one intervention will make any difference by itself. But all of these, and more interventions, together, may lessen the shameful firearm murder and firearm suicide epidemic in our great country.

      OMG, what a mess Britain is! And can you imagine how much higher the murder rate in Britain would be if efficient, 30-clip SchoolMaster AR-15s were suddenly readily available to those willing to commit gun murder there?

      And regarding your [misinformed] assertion “Evidently in some large gun owning countries [like Switzerland], guns are not a problem.”, see the following interview with one who has researched the real-world firearms availability there:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/ 

      1. “Only in paranoid fantasies….”

        Janet Reno, the Attorney General of the United States: “Waiting periods are just a step. Registration is just a step. The elimination of private firearms in the goal.”

        Senator Feinstein: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate saying ‘Mr. And Mrs. America, turn them all in,’ I would have done it.”

        These kinds of statements are commonplace among “anti-gun” activists in unguarded moments. Their public persona may be “we just want ‘reasonable gun control'” (always meaning “more restrictive than we have now, for any given “now.”) but catch them off guard and what they really intend comes out.

        Recent discussion over on Kos where it was admitted that a complete ban was unattainable . . . now . . . but laying out a plan by which, in time, the complete elimination of private would be possible. Said plan starts with universal registration of firearms.

        That there are people in real power directly working for just that–the eventual elimination of all firearms from private hands, is not a paranoid fantasy. They may recognize that it can’t be done now but that doesn’t mean that it’s not the goal and that what they do now isn’t done as a stepping stone toward that end in mind. “Waiting periods are just a step.”

        The ink isn’t even dry on a new “compromise” before the freedom-deniers are going on about it being “a good first step.” There is no indication that there’s any point short of complete prohibition where they’ll say “we’ve got our ‘reasonable gun control’ and don’t need to go any farther.”

        Consider, the Brady Campaign puts out a “scorecard” rating gun laws against what they consider “reasonable gun control.” Not one State, even the most restrictive in the nation, falls short. Not one. The most restrictive State in the nation does not provide what the Brady Campaign considers “reasonable gun control.” That means they won’t be satisfied until the least restrictive (then) State is more restrictive than the most restrictive current State.

        That is the simple truth. Recognizing that is not paranoia.

      2. http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=28d0c499-28ec-42a7-902d-ebf318d46d02
        Take the time to read this and then tell us about paranoia. Ok, so I’ll admit that this particular bill actually allows a very few firearms to remain legal- you know, for hunting. That’s about it… and as pointed out above, this is just a “first step”… If you read the wording in this bill (that’s being submitted today) it covers just about everything else.

      3. Chris, one thing that is often overlooked when comparing the US & UK is that the UK has had a lower murder rate than the US for at least the last 200 or so years. This goes along with the fact that western Europe has had a declining murder rate since around 1600. See https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:rcexoMRGtkYJ:www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/postgraduate/ma_studies/mamodules/hi971/topics/interpersonal/long-term-historical-trends-of-violent-crime.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi4UjFyHzCjgWSlYN5Bc6hJOCEPnAj6Wr6kkDXHER5BhDFlckypn8LG1HikfVzglKez9lQH81MVk2bKSBi70ipLK9sIGPJj-BQOP9e5z1dXnFz8Gxw3V3FmpgbXX_iCErf6S-y4&sig=AHIEtbSEehjrjhlHG2VYaUBextNNRJ8Axw page 96 fig 3 for the UK in particular. Their murder rate was lower before they had gun control & has started to rise now that they have it.

      4. “OMG, what a mess Britain is! And can you imagine how much higher the murder rate in Britain would be if efficient, 30-clip SchoolMaster AR-15s were suddenly readily available to those willing to commit gun murder there?”

        Gun control advocates like to use Britain as an example of where gun control has worked, however they are very selective with the data they use to paint this picture. While gun homicides are low, the reported rate of gun crime and gun injuries has more than doubled, since Britain’s sweeping ban came into effect in 1997, according to British Home Office statistics. The doubling of the gun crime rate has also been widely reported in the British media.

        Furthermore, legal gun owners in Britain have never been the problem. Gun crime has virtually always been gang related, with criminals using illegally acquired black market guns. And even before the ban very few guns from licensed owners ended up in criminal hands.

        With regard to the idea of banning high capacity magazines, this again is just paying lip service to the problem. There must be 10 of millions of these magazines available in this country, which are always going to be in circulation, and if they get banned, guess what, only criminals will have them. So what will you say to the law abiding citizen who is confronted by a criminal with a high capacity 30 round magazine, and she is left to defend her life, and family, with a low capacity ten round magazine, or a 6 shot revolver. Take the high capacity magazines away from the criminals first, and then you might have a better argument.

      5. Chris, just to follow up on your paranoia point, I understand that Illinois Senate President John Cullerton has just announced he is going to be tabling a bill that virtually bans every type of repeating firearm in that State. So maybe these paranoid fantasies that you diss are valid.

      6. Chris – I’m always amused to hear someone say that gun owners are “paranoid” to be afraid of gun confiscation when gun confiscation JUST HAPPENED in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. During the exact time when people needed their home defense weapons the most, the police and National Guard literally went around door to door and confiscated weapons, making the citizens easier targets for looters. How can you possibly say with a straight face that people are paranoid for fearing something that’s already been proven to happen?

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

      7. Or how about these: http://coldservings.livejournal.com/51731.html

        Whenever I, or others, object to “registration” or bans on transfers, or other forms of “gun control” and firearms restrictions as steps toward an eventual complete prohibition and the confiscation that such would necessarily entail, we get told we’re paranoid and “nobody wants to take your guns.”

        Well, perhaps we should consider these “nobodies”:

        “A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls … and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act … [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.”
        Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

        “My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”
        Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

        “I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say ‘Sorry.’ it’s 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.”
        Rosie O’Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

        “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”
        Andrew Cuomo

        “I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.”
        Michael Dukakis

        “If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.”
        U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

        “In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea … Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic – purely symbolic – move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their
        ultimate confiscation.”
        Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

        “Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog.”
        Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

        “[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn’t count!”
        John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

        “I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what’s happened, it’s gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step.”
        Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

        “Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed.”
        Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

        “Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”
        Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

        “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”
        U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV’s “60 Minutes,” 2/5/95

        “Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”
        U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

        “Yes, I’m for an outright ban (on handguns).”
        Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes
        interview.

        “We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime.”
        Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson

        “I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers… No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun.”
        Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

        “I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think – I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it’s the beginning. It’s not the end of the process by any means.”
        William J. Clinton, 8/11/93

        “The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take…we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases.”
        U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6,
        1991.

        “I don’t believe gun owners have rights.”
        Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report “Handguns in America”, October
        1997

        “We must get rid of all the guns.”
        Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on “The Phil
        Donahue Show” September 1994

        “The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I’m just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough.”
        Sarah Brady 7/1/88

        “I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns.”
        Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

        “We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true…”
        U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

        “My bill … establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns.”
        U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93

        “We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal.”
        Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker’ magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

        “Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun.”
        President of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Michael K. Beard, Washington Times
        12/6/93 p.A1

        “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”
        U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

        “The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned…We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them.”
        The Washington Post – “Legal Guns Kill Too” – November 5, 1999

        “There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to Change the Constitution.”
        USA Today – Michael Gartner – Former president of NBC News – “Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?” – January 16, 1992

    3. @Chris.

      The national homicide stats are available for everyone to see. The point of my post is that there are some very large gun owning countries in Western Europe that have some of the lowest homicide rates on the planet. That’s a fact.

      The reason why Britain is in a mess from a violent crime standpoint, is because the justice system there does not always come down in favor of the victim. Self defense victims often find themselves on the wrong side of the law, so criminals know they can get away with virtually anything.

      In terms of “paranoid fantasies” about banning all firearms, you just have to look at countries where controls have been enacted to see that any measure is the thin end of the wedge.

  432. One of the best articles that articulates the reasoning we as a nation must not weaken our 2nd Amendment rights. Thank you for putting it out there.

  433. Dear Writerinblack,

    Thank you for referring me to The Brady Campaign:
    http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard-descriptions?s=1

    Is the Brady Campaign’s goal to outlaw possession of guns? No.

    Hmmm… It appears that in the laboratory of California…
    http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/CA/
    …we will be seeing whether “the thin edge of the wedge,” or a “slippery slope” sneaks up, resulting in total prohibition of gun possession, and the consequent subjugation of humanity. I can’t wait to see what the per-capita firearm murder and firearm suicide rates will be in California in 10 years. Can you?

    1. “Is the Brady Campaign’s goal to outlaw possession of guns? No.”

      Perhaps not their publicly stated goal but the most restrictive State in the nation is not restrictive enough for them. Their “reasonable gun control” is always a moving target. It’s always “more than we have now.”

      Can you point to anything where the Brady Campaign has said “that’s too much; that goes beyond reasonable”? Anything at all? Perhaps where they objected to Reno’s statement on Good Morning America? No? How about when Feinstein said that if she could have done it we’d have to turn them all in? No? Not there either?

      Until you get to a point where they prove by their actions hat there is a “this far and no farther” line the “the goal is the elimination of private firearms” remains what they are working for regardless of their public statements.

      And, funny that, you don’t seem to want to address the Reno quote nor the Feinstein quote.

      As for California, why wait ten years? They’ve had an “assault weapons” ban for eighteen years now. Chicago has had a handgun ban (well, until McDonald vs. Chicago and they continue to drag their heels on implementing that decision) for thirty years. What’s the homicide rate there? DC had one for even longer. What’s the homicide rate there?

      “Can’t wait”? We don’t have to wait.

    2. So ypu don’t care about how high the murder and suicide rates are, just how high the Firearm rates are? Why? You think the people will be less dead?

    3. BTW, you _are_ aware, are you not, that the Brady Campaign is the new name for “Handgun Control, Inc.”, the source of these gems:

      “We must get rid of all the guns.”
      Sarah Brady, speaking on behalf of HCI with Sheriff Jay Printz & others on “The Phil
      Donahue Show” September 1994

      “We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily, given political realities, going to be very modest. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns in the United States, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered, and the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns, and all handgun ammunition illegal.”
      Nelson T. Shields of Hangun Control, Inc. as quoted in `New Yorker’ magazine July 26, 1976. Page 53f

      “I don’t believe gun owners have rights.”
      Sarah Brady, Hearst Newspapers Special Report “Handguns in America”, October
      1997

      They changed their name. They didn’t change their spots.

  434. I don’t like. It I don’t believe it and could only be from. A. Yankee. Come on please spare me look at the stats USA. Handgun killing capital of the world

  435. Wow! Powerful post!
    A quick background – I was raised in Mumbai, India (I am a proud US citizen as of 2012!) I was in the US but my family was in Mumbai during the mass shootings you mentioned.
    I’d just like to add that it wasn’t just sheer incompetence but also the fact that most police personnel were armed with either antiquated weapons (the Lee Enfield SMLE [for the ORs] and the Webley Mk VI [for officers]) or just “laathis” (thick, wooden staffs). Also the re-training rate is probably abysmal – I could pick that out just by ‘observing’ cops whenever I went to India on vacation!
    But it doesn’t detract from the sheer heroism of the ones who put up a fight (can you imagine going up against an AK with just a bolt action SMLE?)
    It’s changing now – more cops are armed with the INSAS as the standard arm and officers and ORs carry semi-automatic handguns.

    But anyway, long story short, I wasn’t exposed to much “firearms” growing up – save for a short stint in the equivalent of the “Home Guards” in the old British military (think National Guard but not as involved). Growing up in the household I did, guns were never mentioned. Period.
    It wasn’t until I came to the US as a college student, graduated as an undergrad and started my life as a medical professional, that my thoughts about guns was ever re-kindled (from my ‘Home Guard’ days). My best friend (ex-Army nurse, current civilian nurse) – took me to a shooting range.|
    And the rest, as they say; is history…. including the part where I, could not believe that “civilians” not only had the right to ‘shoot weapons’ – but also to ‘own them’ and if allowed to ‘carry them’!

    That was the day I decided to become a “gun owner”. I would have done so earlier but I didn’t; because I didn’t know I could!
    And the reason I wanted to was very simple – I was the (supposed) victim of a knife-mugging. I won’t divulge how I got out of that mess – but suffice to say it left me badly shaken. I resolved that I would never again EVER place myself in that kind of vulnerability!

    I had never ‘owned’ guns till then. I’d always thought “why the hell do people need to own such things??!!”
    Never again. Never anymore! That feeling of sheer helplessness and terror were enough! The vast majority of my family don’t understand [my parents are upset that I feel the “need” to own guns!!]

    To the advocates of ‘gun control’ – I understand your fear and resentment. I was once part of your tribe.
    But also please understand this – no man, woman, government or entity – shall ever dictate to me what should be “appropriate means of safety and self-defence” for myself or my loved ones.

    Ban all the guns you want. Heck, ban EVERY gun you want – it won’t stop the criminals… and it won’t stop me…

    My only disagreement with Mr. Correia — “the left” isn’t the ones who want to restrict your self defence rights. Mitt Romney isn’t someone you should speak highly of when it comes to 2nd Amendment. I honestly think Dr. Ron Paul makes a better case and has been a better CHAMPION of the 2nd Amendment.

    cheers,

  436. If you are referring to the Port Arthur Massacre in Australia (1996) as being the impetus for their massive gun confiscations, there have actually been 2 mass-murder incidents in Australia since then;.

    The Childers Palace Fire – In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.

    The Monash University shooting – In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.

    It is also worth noting the number of mass-murder incidents in the UK and other countries (like Mexico) with severe gun control. These people that want to take away guns on a trial basis to see what effect it would have, only need to look to those countries that have taken away guns from their citizens, only to see murders and violent crimes rise as a result.

  437. There’s two other instances I know of automatic gun use involved in a crime. One was WACCO Texas the whole reason the feds acquired an interest in the Branch Dividians was because they were buying conversion kits to make their weapons full auto and the feds learned real quick when they were carrying away dead agents they better step it up. Not taking any sides on that one but it’s at least one reference to the federal gov’t and their indiscriminate killing of innocent children. The other was in California you can google “north Hollywood Shootout” if you’re interested. However it does prove your point at any rate. Here is a link to an article I wrote to my local paper.

    http://www.berkshireeagle.com/letters/ci_22271996/glorified-violence-weakens-society#comment-752606240

    Scott Moore

  438. Excellent read. I have posted it for some of more anti-gun friends to enjoy. While I understand your stance, I do disagree with you on mandatory training. People that understand the basic function and maintenance of THEIR weapon, as well as barrel discipline, are safer to be around. I guess that would make me “FEEL” safer…

    Understanding how the local laws affect their ability/decision to brandish or use deadly force could help folks out of trouble. If nothing else, it gives them less of an excuse when they do something stupid.

    1. I used to be of the opinion that civilians allowed to carry should have to undergo a ridiculously high standard of training before being allowed to do so.

      Part of my opinion was formed by the (naive, ignorant) belief that other legal gun carriers (police, military) were held to similar standards. In the military I found out first hand that there is no “magic” bestowed upon us that made us better, more responsible weapon operators. In the Air Force especially, as well as the Navy, most members are not combatants, and have at best cursory weapons training. In the civilian world, I am instructed by someone who also teaches police officers firearm training, and found that with weekly two-hour training sessions, I am much better trained with firearms than many police officers. This is not to say I am a cop. I lack their knowledge of criminal justice, arrest, first aid, and so many other things that they are also taught.

      I also wanted to limit gun ownership and concealed carry to just the most highly trained and capable civilians. There are a couple of problems with this idea though. First, guns are already out there amongst the populace, across a wide spectrum of skills and morality, Second, by setting the standard impossibly high, I would be denying self-defense to those of intermediate (but still perfectly adequate) ability to defend themselves with firearms responsibly, and also turn many otherwise law-abiding citizens into felons for a crime no more serious than wanting to defend themselves. I learned that the goal was to aim for the middle of the bell curve, and get as much training into the minds of as many people as possible. This approach also minimizes (but doesn’t eliminate) the possibility Larry mentioned of having a “back door” for gun-controllers to set the bar impossibly high, and achieve their goal as a fait accompli.

  439. Response to Mandatory Training:

    Here is some interesting information from John Lott related to those (NYPD) who have had mandatory training.

    Headline: Police hit rates on shootings as low as 17.4 percent

    http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2007/12/police-hit-rates-on-shootings-as-low-as.html

    I can’t find the supporting documents, but I have read more than once that the citizen shooter is more likely to shoot and hit the correct target than the police.

    I believe Larry touched on it. There are law enforcement officers who are a part of the “gun culture” and then there are officers just there for the job.

    As to the “gun culture”? Just because you possess a gun does not mean you are a part of the culture. The thugs on the streets of Chicago, DC, NYC, LA etc, who possess guns, are NOT a part of the “gun culture” they are the thug culture.

      1. A contributing problem is the “New York trigger” mandated by PC Kelly in a (mistaken) effort to limit negligent discharges. At 11 lb. it’s double the stock 5.5 lb. (like I’ve kept on my Glocks), and can’t be having a good effect on accuracy.

        And to dovetail with Kelly’s comment, while I’ve still got several hundred practice rounds (making me a danger in the eyes of the firearm-ignorant), if the panic buying continues I’m going to have to start cutting back on weekly practice.

        http://eu.glock.com/english/options_triggerspring.htm
        http://forums.officer.com/t126044/

  440. I am seeing even gun owners saying that large capacity magazines are especially deadly. WHAT?? If I were one of these jerks intent on mayham and you limit me to a 10 round clip, I would have 15 or 20 of them and practice speed loading for hours until I had it perfected. The size of the clip does not make a difference. The caliber of the gun does not make a difference. The fact the gun was stolen does not make a difference. Having someone with an armed response to these homicidal mad men does make a difference. I own an AR and at the range I usually use a 10 round clip. Why? Because with a 30 round clip I go through ammo way to fast. Having to reload after 10 rounds makes me shoot slower, better and to take my time with aiming. If I were going hunting for wild hogs you can bet I will have a 30 round clip in the gun. I have personally seen what they can do to someone with a 5 round bolt action rifle and the inability to put another shot down range on the hog in a timely manner.
    If I am in a shoot out with a bad guy and he used my gun to kill me, he will have to beat me to death because the gun will be empty by the time they get it.

  441. WOW that is one of if not the best gun control blogs I have ever read!

    Thank you for all the great info!
    I am one of the guns nuts from a whole family of guns nuts 🙂
    And yes I linked this well written piece of TRUE information on my site. I just hope my members find as informing as I did.

  442. The 2nd Amendment mentions the right to bear “arms,” not smoothbores, Ruger Minis, sawed off shotguns, or .50 cal rifles for example. Reasonable interpretations of the amendment over the years have led to banning the private ownership of hand grenades, anti-tank weapons, machine-guns, and many other military weapons. You’re not proposing that it’s ok for the general public to possess anti-personnel grenades, flamethrowers, or a Ma Duece are you? It’s time that the interpretation of the 2nd amendment included some more reasonable restrictions to accommodate the realities of the 21st century: 100 round drum magazines have no place in hunting or legitimate target shooting; ordering thousands of rounds of cheap Chinese 7.62mm for your AK over the internet isn’t a reasonable interpretation of the right to bear arms. It’s time for the reasonable adults in this nation to revisit what the 2nd amendment means and covers.

    Please spare us all the tired notion that an AR-15 or civilian version of an AK47 is not a military grade weapon. Those weapons were originally designed as military weapons and merely had their select fire capability removed. The fact that you can grab an accessory that fits on a combat M4 and add it to your AR-15 means it is still a military weapon. I get Guns and Ammo and I’ve see the ads. I own a Mossberg 12g and a semi-automatic military rifle (M1 Carbine). I think it’s perfectly reasonable that it should be illegal for me to be able to buy a 100 round drum magazine for my M1 (I know they don’t exist but that’s not because of an engineering issue but a supply and demand issue). Sure it would be fun to shoot, but it also makes

    The NRA’s current black and white stance on gun control is going to backfire on them. The 2nd amendment is an important amendment but one that the people of the United States have reasonably interpreted over the years. It’s time to do so again.

    I find the notion of needing the 2nd amendment to overthrow a tyranical government a bit misleading when recent legislation have trampled the many other amendments making warrantless wiretapping, government assassination of American citizens, and the ability of the President to declare war without Congress’ approval. Where’s the outrage there? Check this out:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/the-strangest-conservative-priority-prepping-a-2nd-amendment-solution/266711/

    Some more reasonable legislation is needed to address the technological advances in weaponry as well as reforming the mental health system to keep the insane either institutionalized or helped to the point where they don’t want to steal law-abiding citizens weapons.

    1. @ FlipFriddle

      The AR-15 was not developed as a military rifle. It was a civilian firearm before being adopted by the USAF, then the rest of the military.

      It is perfectly legal to own a semi-automatic version of the M-2 in most states. While some places ban .50BMG rifles, it is only when they are fully automatic that they require a Class III FFL and/or tax stamp.

      The M-1 carbine is a military rifle, developed as a military rifle. The standard magazines for an M-1 carbine are larger than the 10 round mag limit several states already “enjoy”. So when you start down the slippery slope about “reasonable restrictions”, your M-1 carbine will certainly be branded as an “assault weapon” with “high capacity magazines”. Due to it’s cosmetic similarity to the M-2 carbine (which is capable of fully automatic fire), your M-1 carbine is also likely to be branded as an “Assault Rifle”.

      So while you are sitting by and watching the rights of AR-15 owners being stripped away, smugly confident in the idea that “your guns” are “safe” from the gun-grabbers, you are sadly mistaken. They want to disarm you, just as much as they want to disarm me. And by your own arguments, they have more right to take your M-1 carbine than to take my AR-15. Please think about this, before turning on your fellow gun owners, and selling out your freedom for a false promise of security.

    2. Any test applied to the Second Amendment must also be applied to the others in the BoR. You can’t cherry-pick the Constitution:

      “Some more reasonable legislation is needed to address the technological advances in publishing as well as reforming the mental health system…”

      The Founders weren’t aware of modern tech like the Internet, Kindle, or even broadcast television. Would you restrict the 1st Amendment the same way you would the 2nd?

      Oh, and keep in mind, supporters of the 2A know the difference between personal arms and ordnance like nukes. That argument is specious at best.

    3. Okay, where to start? First, civilians can own functional flame-throwers, machine guns, tanks and mortars. You need to watch Family Guns and Sons of Guns once in a while. FWIW, these are only available to dealers with the appropriate licenses, the investigation for which is about as invasive as a colonoscopy. Military members and police don’t have to go through such an involved qualification.

      As far as “high-capacity” magazines, if not 30 or 100 rounds, how much is enough? I’m sure that the gun-control number of “ten” came about through rigorous acquisition of extensive defensive gun use data, to include number of perps involved, rounds required to incapacitate each perp, hit percentages and the threat of any possible follow-on violence before help arrived. Those numbers were then statistically analyzed, a “one standard deviation” applied, and the result was “9.87”, rounded to 10. Surely they didn’t look down at their hands on the table, and count until they ran out of fingers and thumbs (assuming no amputations to skew the results).

      But for the sake of argument, let’s play “stump the dummy”. Start with a muzzle loader; but what if there’s more than one bad guy (crooks don’t join gangs for the social connections after all, they’ve learned that crime is a lot more rewarding if practiced in groups)? Okay, three rounds then. What if I miss? Trained police officers have a hit rate of between 17-20% on average, do you assume I’ll do better? Now we’re up to 15 (the capacity of my Glock 20, when not restricted). Now, what if we’re talking about a home invasion, with 4-5 armed intruders, instead of just two?

      We can play this game as long as you’d like, but as Larry pointed out, nobody ever survived a gunfight for their own life, and the lives of their loved ones saying “boy, I wish I didn’t have all that ammo.” Magazines are hardware, just like firearms, and whether they are good or bad depends on the operator, not the hardware. Which 10-round limit, frequent reload scenario is more likely to cost more (or save fewer) innocent lives, a criminal spree killer amongst unarmed terrified victims, or a home defender facing multiple armed opponents? Potential victims were able to overpower the shooter in in the Congresswoman Giffords shooting, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

      As far as the whole “assault weapons” chestnut goes, I’m glad you get “Guns & Ammo”, but if that’s the extent of your research, you’re underinformed. Weapons’ looks are what led to language in the last AWB, which regulated such “functional” aspects as adjustable stocks, bayonet lugs and pistol grips. I.e. stuff that made the weapons appear “scary” to the ignorant, but did not in any way affect the function of the operational components. Assuming that your problem is not with the semi-automatic nature of the weapons (Larry has already addressed that point, and it’s irrelevance), then I’m left to assume it’s the detachable box magazine you’ve got a problem with, regardless of capacity. In California, they legislated that the magazine couldn’t have a magazine that could be detached without a tool. Hence the “bullet button” which replaced the magazine release button with a fixed bump surrounding a magazine release accessed through a small hole that required a tool instead of the user’s finger. How much has this “feature” reduced crime in California?

      As far as demonizing the NRA, while I don’t agree with all their positions (professional armed guards in schools being one), they have trained millions of firearms operators to make them better and safer shots, as well as educated millions of kids through their Eddie Eagle program to reduce accidental shootings of children, and their programs have been effective. What has the Brady Campaign or VPC done to practically address these problems? There is a common belief in the gun-control crowd that the NRA wants armed criminals. I must have missed that memo, as well as any reasoning behind it. If you think that NRA members are somehow “stocking the preserve” so they can “hunt” armed criminals, you are sadly delusional. I have legally carried a sidearm for 2 1/2 years, and haven’t yet needed to draw it in self-defense. If guns make people psychotic, I must be a really bad psychotic. What we want is to go about our business without being victimized by violent crime. In the statistically unlikely event that we do need to defend ourselves or others, we want to have the ability to do so. That’s it.

      As far as protecting against tyranny, what do you think the Syrian population (those not killed by their own military that is) are thinking of our 2nd Amendment right about now?

  443. I love everything in your article. Why this simple logic is inaccessible to people who parade around with signs “Guns kill!”, is beyond my understanding. (The same people, incidentally, carry the signs “Pro-choice!”)

    A friend recently visited his British friends in London, right after the riots. They sat at the table and the hosts mentioned that they had been lucky that the riots didn’t get to their house – the wave of vandalism sort of stopped on its own, and just a few blocks away the thugs were storming houses, breaking in unimpeded, rubbing at the gun point. So my friend asked this question, “So how do you think the riots would have progressed if every household had a gun?”

    There was this awkward silence at the table…

  444. If you want to place armed people in schools start with policemen and policewoman. Here’s my twist…..under the S. 1132, the “Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act,” Public Law 110-272, there is an army of retired law enforcement officers that can be used to protect and serve the public as they have always desired. Allow them to become reserves and most would work for free. As a retired law enforcement officer I would…..my family, neighbors and community will welcome a person they know and trust to once again serve and protect.

    1. I too am a retired Police Officer and would gladly offer to patrol a shool free and I am sure other officers would do the same

  445. Dear Larry,

    I know this probably won’t be posted (as per your second edit) but I wanted to say thank you for posting this. I am an admitted liberal. I do not own a gun. I have very little interest in owning one. I have learned to fire one, but am admittedly unpracticed and unfamiliar with guns (by and large). But it was good (and refreshing) to hear someone on the opposite side of me put down a well thought out argument that I could at least listen to.

    There are/were a couple of things on my mind as I read your post. I think a lot of the problem with gun discussion in this country is identical to a lot of the issues in this country. One side is told by its respective news outlet (whether that be Fox News for conservatives, MSNBC for liberals, or some other organization) that their views are right and the other side is a bunch of mislead idiots.

    This quite simply is not true (and I think you would agree). What we all want – liberals and conservatives alike – is to make this country better. We may have wildly different ways of achieving said goal, but the end goal is the same. The problem is we have been conditioned to say that “my way is right, and if you disagree you are an uninformed idiot”. This doesn’t push the rhetoric forward, it only digs each side deeper into the sand, a result that is good for exactly nobody.

    You seem frustrated (and rightly so) when you feel liberals who have never held a gun think they know the ins and outs of guns. I think liberals feel similarly when someone like Todd Akin says the things he says. We feel similarly when someone tells us that being pro-choice means we want to kill babies. Both sides are guilty of it – the insults (and death threats) hurled at you are no different than the insults and death threats hurled in the opposite direction.

    And this, I think is the problem. We have two sides who just want to yell at each other instead of presenting rational arguments. I have seen your commenters state that “If you read this article and your opinion does not change you are an idiot.”

    Through no fault of your own, your argument has not swayed me in favor of keeping gun regulation the same. That doesn’t make me an idiot any more than it makes anyone who is swayed an idiot.

    In my opinion, many of the statistics cited are irrelevant. Both sides point to Australia’s laws. You say that they didn’t have many mass murders in the first place. My fellow-liberals (who in this instance I disagree with) say that gun-violence is low because of the law.

    The question isn’t how many violent gun murders any country DOES have after enacting stricter legislation. The question is how many they AVOID. Both sides are asking the wrong question, and to me the numbers are irrelevant. How many gun murders we have in this country per capita is NOT a relevant statistic. The question is how many gun murders we would NOT have if we DID have more stringent laws. I think that’s, admirably, what you are after (though you never say it outright, unless I missed it). The problem is this question is impossible to answer realistically.

    The debate of gun control is a difficult one. But something being difficult doesn’t make the discussion any less worth having. We can split atoms, we put men on the moon – hell, we have cars that can park themselves. Difficulty should not be a barrier to entry for something that I think we all agree is an important discussion to have.

    But they key in that is the word discussion. Your ideas, and your knowledge of firearms IS something that should be brought in for discussion, as should ideas and thoughts from the left, and the right-of-center, the left-of-center, and the center. And we should do so without dismissing anybody else as ignorant, or stupid.

    We should do so without one side deciding that the other is a bunch of idiots hell-bent on destroying this country. Both sides are guilty of making that claim.

    Again – thank you for bringing a rationale discussion. It’s not one I agree with, but you have made me think. Even if this never gets posted, I am hoping you read it.

    – Keith

    1. “The question isn’t how many violent gun murders any country DOES have after enacting stricter legislation. The question is how many they AVOID. Both sides are asking the wrong question, and to me the numbers are irrelevant. How many gun murders we have in this country per capita is NOT a relevant statistic. The question is how many gun murders we would NOT have if we DID have more stringent laws. ”
      Actually, Keith, that is the WRONG question, since the question itself shows a strong bias, as well as being ridiculous and callously disregarding murders committed without guns. What you want to ask is “What is the difference in murders of all types, and other violent crimes, per capita, when stricter gun control legislation is passed?” Those who argue in favor of gun-control promise that the more legislation and restrictions, the fewer incidents of violent crime and murder will take place. In reality, we often see that there is an INCREASE in violent crimes and murders after strict gun control legislation is passed.

      Your question conveniently ignores the facts that:
      1) Murder is murder, and is something we want to avoid, no matter what weapon is used to commit the crime. The same applies to other violent crimes, including attempted murder, rape, and ADW.
      2) criminals, by definition, will not follow the law (lawbreaking is what makes them criminals);
      3) violent crimes and murders can be committed with weapons other than guns, so criminals may simply change weapons;
      4) guns are often used to prevent violent crimes and murders (1.5 to 2.5 million times per year, here in America), so disarming law abiding citizens may cause an upswing ion violent crimes and murders against those who can no longer defend themselves (and this is the only statistic in the entire debate that speaks to “avoiding” crimes – yet is ignored by gun-control advocates),
      Further, your question skews the data, since it ignores the overall problem and focuses on cherry picking data that it sees as the most likely to change in a way that favors your position, while ignoring the rest of the data, which is likely to favor the pro-freedom, pro-2A position.

      Would you really be happy with a gun-control result that reduced gun murders by 50%, but increased the overall murder rate by 20%? So instead of suffering a hundred murders, 50 of which were committed using firearms each year, your town could “enjoy” an annual rate of 120 murders, only 25 of which were committed with firearms? Would the fact that GUN murders were down by 50% really make residents safer than they were before?

    2. Keith,
      Your message did get posted, and FWIW, your fellow-liberals are right about GUN violence in Australia, but only through their use of “special pleading” (my favorite new phrase of the day), limiting the scope to gun crime. Of course a strict confiscation and buy-back of firearms will reduce firearm violence, though mass shootings aside, Australia had pretty low levels of gun violence already. OVERALL violent crime rate has crept up since the new gun laws however: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html I guess that’s either a win or a loss, depending on whether you find a greater chance of being stabbed/beaten/raped/mugged better than a smaller chance of being shot.

      As to your very good question of how many gun crimes could be prevented with stricter laws, I’ve just finished reading a study posted by someone else in this thread concerning Canada: http://www.tbuckner.com/SEXGUN.HTM Canadian gun laws are more restrictive in many ways than here in the U.S. (though without an equivalent to the U.S. National Firearms Act, shotguns with 12″ barrels are perfectly legal in Canada without the special licensing required for them in the U.S.) The relevant bit here is the section on Canadian gun laws, which put homicides committed by registered firearms in the single digits each year, along with accidental deaths (about the same as those struck by lightning every year in Canada). Overall, Canada has a lower crime rate than the U.S., but the study makes a good point about perceptions not hooking up with reality, as well as more laws leaving criminals with guns largely unaffected. For comparison, VPC tracks gun crimes committed by U.S. CCW permit holders (casting a broad net to include suicides among other things), and puts that at ~500 for all of last year, out of a population of 8M CCW permit holders nationwide. Canadian ownership regulations (which involve a couple of month+ waiting periods and more than one background check according to the information at the link above) aren’t directly comparable to CCW permit requirements (which vary state-to-state), but they’re close enough for a back-of-the-envelope comparison of law-abiding gun owners on either side of the border. Which is a long way of saying that tighter gun control doesn’t have a whole lot of room for improvement on the crime statistics, as it would increase restrictions on the portion of the population already responsible for the lowest rates of crime.

    3. Keith-
      ” The question is how many gun murders we would NOT have if we DID have more stringent laws.”

      A little clarification here. The Gun Murder or Gun Death is used to mislead people. England and Australia do indeed have fewer GUN murders than the US, as well as a lower rate than the US, but England has a higher rate of VIOLENT CRIME than the U.S. does.

      So maybe less people are getting shot to death in England, but more people per capita are being assaulted, raped, beaten, and murdered than in the U.S. Is it better to have a higher level of violence in a country, as long as fewer people are getting shot to death?

      Also England’s murder rate is lower than the US, but their murder rate went up after they banned handguns, and has only gotten close to the pre-ban rates in the past few years.

      So please stop thinking of things in terms of gun deaths.

      Gun Ownership is very high in the US compared to other countries. AR15s have been the best selling rifle in America since the ‘assault weapon ban’ (another misleading term) expired in 2004, and concealed carry is more widespread than it’s ever been in the U.S.

      And yet our rate of violent crime, of overall violence, has been steadily falling, and is currently the lowest that it’s been in like 30 years.

      So the presence of guns, by itself, doesn’t raise the level of violence. There are other factors, its a complicated issue.

      But guns are pointed out on television, radio, and print news, because it’s a simple, quick, easy case to make in a 3:00 segment. After all, look at the length of Larry’s post? Explaining that wouldn’t fit on a single episode of 60 minutes, let alone a 45 second story with a 12 second soundbite. The people pushing it can then hold up their efforts, to show their constituents that they tried (or actually accomplished) something, and secure a job for the next few years.

      And some people, like Feinstein, Schumer, McCarthy, Boxer, have made this their life’s work. That’s why some of the proposed laws were ready to submit so quickly. These people had already written them, and were handed a golden opportunity to try to get them passed.

      And they jumped on it.

  446. Even with the high volume of related material circulating around the internet as of late, this is by far one of the most comprehensive, explanatory and well-written pieces to date. It perfectly summarizes and reiterates my personal feelings on the issue. Well done.

  447. Great read, Larry. I agree with 100% of what you’ve said. I have one suggestion: I think what you say would have more clout and viability if you included citations/links anytime you mentioned any specific stories or statistics. I have no doubt that what you say is the truth, but some of your skeptics may not be as trusting. I think if you did that, this blog could become sort of a “pro-self-defensive Bible”. I’m in the medical field, myself, and no claim, fact, or statistic is accepted as truth unless evidence is provided by a third-party to prove it. Although, I understand that you do have a life outside of this blog and that suggestion may not be realistic – it is just my 2 cents! Again, great work

  448. Anyone have any thoughts on this gem of a reply I got on a Facebook thread? It came about from the famous [mis]quote of George Washington, “A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined…” Which got led to a debate on whether or not we are breaking the first commandment by “loving our guns” and the ninth commandment by “lying” by perpetrating misquotes relating to gun control.

    “Whenever anyone owns a gun they hold themselves to be the final law of the land. You agree with the original false quote of GW. That quote says that gun owners are the true law of the land. They are even above the government. Therefore, if God set the government in authority and if gun owners are above the government, then gunowners also set themself up above God. The Bible is full of peoples who tried to set themselve up above God. Apparently, modern day gun owners are no different.”

      1. Sure sounds like it. [Frown]

        Now if the Government had a position he disliked, he’d likely “put himself over God”. [Very Big Evil Grin]

      2. David,

        It certainly seemed that way to me. I believe that I object to his sentiment in that I don’t think a gun grants anyone the power of law or god. Only the responsibility to use it in the best interests of society. Many people may fail in that responsibility, but that doesn’t mean the responsibility isn’t very important.

        1. Seriously, the whole basis of his argument is wrong. Consider the Declaration of Independence:

          “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” [Emphasis added]

          The right of the people to alter or abolish it.

          Then there’s the beginning of the Constitution:

          We the people of the United States….”

          Not “we the God appointed rulers” but representatives carrying out what they understood as the will of the People of the United States.

          In the US, supreme sovereignty rests with the people, not with the abstraction we call government. It exists “to secure these rights” and derives “it’s just powers from the consent of the governed.” And when it becomes destructive to those ends, it is the right, the duty even, of the people to alter or abolish it.

          There is no “divine right of kings/presidents/legislature.” It wasn’t established by the Bible. It is not God’s proxy on Earth. Never mind that I’m pretty sure that I don’t believe in the same God that person does and thus why his beliefs about what God may or may not have to say on the matter should be of concern to me escapes me.

      3. “Okay, that’s weird. Why do I sometimes show up as “David Burkhead” and sometimes as “Thewriterinblack”?”

        I’ve had it mess up my name 3 ways. My user name(don’t use it that much), my name, and my name spelled with 3-4 letters missing. It’s a glitch from the log in credentials. It’s annoying though because I’m not trying to hide my opinions.

      4. As I said, it started as this person rebutting the oft-attributed-to-George-Washington quote.

        He actually began by trying to correct someone on it and went self-rightous-holier-than-thou.

        His first reply on the pseudo-GW quote:

        ———————
        “1. Freedom comes through belief and acceptance of Jesus Christ. Not from a gun. That is idolatry.

        2. Here is what Paul has to say in Romans 13:1-5 about our “right to overthrow our government.”

        1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.”
        ———————

        I admit the whole “be subject to the governing authorities” bit trips up a lot of people, but when government becomes a terror to good works we are not Biblically obligated to submit when said government goes bad.

      5. Exactly, and Paul even admitted to going against authority of government by teaching Christ.

        He had the nerve to say,

        “I’m not opposed to the U.S. Constitution or the 2nd Ammendment [sic]. I’m opposed to lies. GW never made the quote, so it is a lie. God does not condone lies of this sort.

        Furthermore, the 2nd Ammendment [sic] was never created so that citizens could violently overthrow the government. I seriously doubt that GW and the other founding fathers would have created the Constitution so that armed thugs with guns could overthrow it whenever they felt threatened.”

        Bottom line, this guy commenting was a troll and we all know they will not hear what we have to say. I told him he had his panties in a bunch and we eventually got him to shut up.

  449. Increase gun sales in California by 36% decrease hospitalizations for injury by 28% and deaths from guns by 15%. I guess people are taking the time to learn gun safety.

    What’s really sad though is the quote from the Chief of Police saying he doesn’t like seeing gun sales increase. Um… Yeah that’s um… Statism much?

    I wonder how Anti-Gun folks will spin this story, or will they completely ignore it? I’m sure they will point to the crack down on gang violence in the article. That’s the point though! It proves what Pro-Gun people have been saying. Crack down on the criminals not the law abiding citizens!

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57561950/as-calif-gun-sales-go-up-number-of-gun-casualties-goes-down/

  450. David, on Jim G.’s comment about “God and the Government”, I suspect that he made the mistake of thinking “Political Conservative equals Religious Conservative” and his argument isn’t based on his “religious” beliefs. It’s a mistaken argument based on what he thinks “Religious Conservatives” would accept. Like many Liberals, he may not understand what religious people (outside of Liberal circles) actually believe.

  451. This is a very well written, knowledgeable article! It was a pleasure reading it. I was able to pass this on to many family members in order for them to learn and respond intelligently.  Thanks again in taking the time to write this article!

  452. As Mr LaPierre said, “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”. The Liberals always attack gun ownership and want more restrictive laws that only effect the lawful citizens. Criminals will always get guns!!! The government Can’t and hasn’t stopped drugs, how on earth do you think they will stop illegal guns entering this country. WE as a country can’t even close our borders to illegal aliens, what makes anyone think they will stop guns from coming into the country. Disarm all the citizens of the US and three facts will occur………criminals will still have guns……..we will be a nation of victims……..and …..our government will rule us as subjects.

    I also wanted to say to the LIberals you pay for your entertainment, music, movies and sports. But went someone says a police officer should have a raise or you should pay for the protection of your children, you refuse and attack everything but the real problem.

    I write this as a veteran from 1980 to 1984 in the middle east and as a retired police officer of 25 years in the Philadelphia area

  453. Thanks, again. Well reasoned and written post – without even going into the historical atrocities made possible by “gun control.”

  454. You are in my top 5 favorite authors of all time, which puts you in great company. Thank you for this reasoned piece. As a non-gun owner for gun owner’s rights, I applaud you again! (BTW, I pimp MHI whenever I can, keep em coming!)

  455. Thank you for taking the time to write this and assemble all of this information. This is by far one of the most comprehensive and well stated views of gun control I have seen recently. I will certainly be passing this along. Thanks again!

  456. Excellent stuff Larry! I teach in a middle school that is having it’s first “Intruder” drill today. Left defenseless, we are instructed to huddle kids in a corner away from the door and wait for good guys with guns to show up and put an end to any active shooter(s).

    Fighting back smarter is what you just described and I have promoted in my school…with more head nodding than I expected. However, there’s the problem of the pesky State collectivists who insist we be dependent on them to safeguard our students. Can’t allow law-abiding, self-reliant individuals be responsible for their own safety now – especially with proper tools of self-defense. We’re reduced to cowering in a corner, or in my case, using improvised tools of self-defense like wasp spray, hammer, wedge under the door, and a jaw bone of an ass in my classroom. Until the ruling elites give us permission to use real tools, I guess I’ll stick to my plan.

    Cheers!

      1. One of the absolute most stupid, no good, bogus and illogical arguments is that gun owners are brainwashed by the Eeeeee-vil gun makers into buying guns.

        First, listen up Scooter… I know the Left is all about recycling, but taking the shopworn false consciousness arguments from the anti-smoking campaign is total FAIL if it doesn’t apply to the intended audience.

        Face it, guns ARE cool, awesome, neat, ect. Some are artistic, some’s all historical, and some are the proper tool for not letting someone make you dead.

  457. Reblogged this on The Null Hypotheses and commented:
    Here is a long but excellent analysis of gun laws. As explained, most gun control laws are naive and don’t work. What we really need to do is get rid of so-called “gun-free zones” which are usually the sites of mass murder because all the law-abiding people in them are defenseless against gunmen.

  458. Hi,

    I’m a recovered Brit, now American, and a responsible gun owner.

    This is very impressive, well-written and well-argued, but I’ll give you one small niggle: Don’t go talking about UK violent crime, and UK gun laws, as if there’s any connection between them. Wrong.

    Unlike the USA, there has in living memory been virtually NO history or culture of using guns in self-defence in the UK; it simply doesn’t happen. On the rare occasions it does happen, it’s major headline news. Traditionally, British guns have been for hunting and sports exclusively.

    Yes, the UK banned handguns (which were only ever used for target shooting at pistol clubs, absolutely no CCW) in 1997. In the ten years or so post 1997, gun crime went up hugely; doubled or quadrupled depending on your source.

    This was NOTHING to do with the handgun ban. UK criminals did what UK criminals have always done; used illegal guns to commit crime. They just started doing it *more* for reasons entirely unconnected with the ban. There wasn’t even any correlation with sources; legal guns, especially handguns, have always been tightly controlled before and after sale, and very seldom fell into criminal hands. Criminals have very largely sourced their guns overseas, smuggled firearms from eastern Europe, the former Soviet bloc.

    I wouldn’t offer anything that happened in the UK as useful evidence in suggesting what may happen elsewhere, especially in the USA.

    1. The problem is the anti-gun lobby is always using the UK ban as an example of how great gun bans are and how they reduce crime. If you can get them to stop using it as an example maybe we will.

      1. What isn’t mentioned often are the number of knifing events in GB. A Brit buddy tells me that baggy pants on the London tube late at night are something to avoid. Robbery by machete might be exciting, but not the type of subway experience most of us would appreciate. Google knife events, Great Britain.

  459. As a liberal gun enthusiast (yes we are a rare breed, but we do exist) And a fan of your books. (Yay for kick ass accountants) thank you for writing this. I know I have come to the party late, but I felt the need to tell you this.

  460. What about this people needs to know this . http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/homeland-security-graduates-first-corps-of-obamas-brown-shirts-homeland-youth/23898/
    Homeland Security graduates first Corps of Obama’s Brown Shirts – Homeland Youth

    Posted on October 18, 2012 by # 1 NWO Hatr

    It Makes Sense Blog October 7, 2012. Vicksburg. The federal government calls them FEMA Corps. But they conjure up memories of the Hitler Youth of 1930’s Germany. Regardless of their name, the Dept of Homeland Security has just graduated its first class of 231 Homeland Youth. Kids, aged 18-24 and recruited from the President’s AmeriCorp volunteers, they represent the first wave of DHS’s youth corps, designed specifically to create a full time, paid, standing army of FEMA Youth across the country.

    On September 13, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security graduated its first class of FEMA Corps first-responders. While the idea of having a volunteer force of tens of thousands of volunteers scattered across the country to aid in times of natural disasters sounds great, the details and timing of this new government army is somewhat curious, if not disturbing.

    DHS raising an armed army

  461. Thank you for taking the time to write this up.

    You make many assertions, which may be true. However you don’t provide sources for them.

    Annotating this entry with sources for your many assertions would make it much more valuable.

    Thank you again!

    1. You are correct that he doesnt cite sources – that is because of the factual errors contradicted by evidence.

      For example the Philadelphia study showed that owners are FOUR TIMES MORE LIKELY TO END UP SHOT AND KILLED (just check the media for the last week for examples).

      As “interesting” as his beliefs are, the evidence says the exact opposite. I judge by evidence, for example other countries that DO have gun controls.

      And what about the constitutional responsibility to implement gun controls ? Sorry – is that another inconvenient fact that the NRA ignores ?

      I dont see why my safety should be endangered because of some irrational gun owning nut job.

      1. If you’ve got data to add to this debate, by all means present it. If you’ve got nothing more than a variation of “I believe…” then please keep your insecurities over your own beliefs to yourself. “Constitutional responsibility to implement gun controls”? What exactly are you on about? It would seem to me that “shall not be infringed” is fairly self-explanatory, and counter to your statement.

        As to your statement, “I dont [sic] see why my safety should be endangered because of some irrational gun owning nut job.” I can more legitimately counter that I don’t see why my constitutional rights should be infringed to mollify the fears of an ignorant few who mistakenly believe that guns are evil, and anyone possessing a gun is a threat to the public in general, or those ignorant few in particular.

        This and other recent posts lead me to believe that Larry’s link has recently been posted on a gun-grabber blog site. If that invites more information and debate over the issue, bring it on. If however, it promotes nothing more than name-calling and belief proselytizing, then please save the unsubstantiated rhetoric for the faithful.

  462. Excellent post. I was raised by a family of hunters. I learned to shoot at 12 because even though I wouldn’t hunt, Daddy believed girls needed to be able to defend themselves if the need ever presented itself. We had rifles and a shotgun. I was a very good shot.

    However, as an adult I have not owned a gun because I had children, one of whom tended to be impulsive and we felt it would be too much work to monitor mischievous boys. When they pushed the car out of the drive to go joy riding in the middle of the night, we were glad of that decision.

    The only sad thing I find in all this is you are probably not running for office. The smart people apparently never do.

    1. Oops:

      “Do you also suggest that law enforcement and military also only train.”

      Should be:

      “Do you also suggest that law enforcement and military also only accept people over the age of 25?”

      Shifted trains of thought in the middle and, that’s the result. Wish there was an “edit” feature.

  463. Great article.

    Full disclosure: I’m probably on the side of ‘slight Dem’ (here comes the flamewar -hear me out first).

    Even as a slight Dem [and I’d probably vote Libertarian if they could actually win], I am fully supportive of gun ownership, armed teachers and the annihilation of useless laws and prevention of more of them. I, too, get sick every time there’s a mass shooting tragedy because I know the idiot parade starts behind the funeral processions and it’s “my people” at the vanguard. I find it a huge embarrassment to my vote, but that being said I had too many issues with the last few GOP presidential/vp candidates to support them. That’s neither here nor there. Lets not get into that part and agree to disagree, maybe grab a beer and maintain that we’re not actually enemies, even if we disagree on some things – another forgotten aspect of the American character. The issue here are firearms and our right as Americans. I agree with your article whole-heartedly.

    First, I don’t own any guns, but I do shoot and it’s a lot of fun. (I’m a beast with shooting trap – my buddy’s gun club hates me because I show up once in awhile with him and hit ~18-20 out of 25, which has me toward the top of leaderboard. The weekly guys hate me – I can read behind the lines when they say “nice shot [you MF!]”)

    My feeling is that if someone is not asserting the right to own one, the very least they or I can do is have some basic familiarity and ability to shoot handguns, shotguns & rifles. You should at least have some basic functional handling experience – that’s just my opinion. But not being an owner doesn’t put me in bed with the Brady Bunch at all, please don’t misread me. I think they’re wasting my time and my money. Your argument about the high capacity magazine ban and assault rifle ban was spot on, and I applaud you for it. To pull a card from Clue: “High capacity magazine bans are just a Red Herring!” I also agree with your stance regarding the useless banning of ‘scary things’ when it comes to weapons.

    And if there is ever a mandate for firearm training, I hope it’s that all able-bodied American people have to take it. Ownership shouldn’t be mandatory, but knowing how to shoot or handle a firearm should be – not just for those who choose to assert their right to own one.

    This piece was an accomplishment. I’m going to buy your books right now on Amazon and I don’t even know what they’re about. In the age of memes and bloggers calling themselves journalists, it’s nice to see a blog with actual journalism.

    Respectfully,

    Nathan Thomas
    Humble American, Handsome Bastard

    (“…and I’m not that humble.” – Bunk Moreland, The Wire)

    1. Nathan,

      There is nothing wrong with being “loyal” to your political beliefs on the surface of it. I don’t mind if you think that your political beliefs more closely map with the Democratic party and their stated positions on many issues. Vote what best serves your interests, because everyone else in the country who isn’t a fool does the same.

      What many people here are concerned about is that they believe that the Second Amendment doesn’t just serve to protect their personal interests in hobbies like shooting sports or hunting. The intent of the Second Amendment is to prevent the politicians running our government from becoming tyranical dictators who take away the inherent rights of the people by leaving within the hands of the people to power to defend themselves.

      The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to citizens through the power of the government. Citizens naturally have those rights already. The Bill of Rights limits the power of the government to infringe upon the natural rights of citizens.

      Also along with these rights comes a responsibility of citizens to not infringe upon the rights of others. The unfortunate cost of having these rights and responsibilities is that bad people will harm others. These bad people will try to murder, rape, rob, and steal because they are not responsible citizens. They are criminal thugs. No society on Earth thoughout history has been free of these criminal thugs. Yet most often when people lose their rights to defend themselves and their society these criminal thugs become the ones who control a society.

      That is the nature of Dictatorships and Tyranny. People who murder, rape, rob, and steal being in charge of the government. In this instance any legislator voting to steal the rights of the citizens to protect themselves, regardless of their party affiliation, is showing themselves to be a weak willed patsy at best, and a criminal thug at worst.

      The Second Amendment limits the government from taking arms from the people who want to protect themselves against tyranny. It puts the politicians of every party on notice that they will be rightfully dealt with as criminal thugs if they make the attempt. A lot of “progressive” thinkers don’t like this thought. They fear that the people will object to their end goal of complete control over the people in a violent manner. They know they can not win if they try to wholesale take away guns from citizens.

      So the “progressives” chip away using fear, using tragedy, using emotional reasoning to achieve their goal of a populace unable to defend itself from their objectives. They don’t want a classless society, they want a society of the “elite thinkers” and a proletariat which worships them.

      Two further details about myself here for clarity. First, I have never been a member of any poltical party. The constitution makes no mention of parties being necessary to the governance of the people. I believe that the two major political parties in the US represent a political shell game designed to keep entrenched power in control of the government.

      Second, I work for the federal government as an analyst. I watch the profusion of rules, regulations, polices, and orders the executive branch is supposed to enforce to a greater detail than the average citizen. I personally disagreed with the Patriot Act as a broad overreach of Federal Authority. I also like many of the federal workforce have an innate distrust of elected officials, most especially entrenched elected officials.

  464. This is really a great post. On that fateful day in Connecticut, I immediately realized that I do not want my daughter’s teach to try to hide her in a closet, or shield her with her body trying to protect her. I want that teacher armed, trained, ready, and expecting an attack at all times. I want the teacher practicing in her classroom how she will respond when the time comes. Signs and laws do not protect my child, responsible and courageous adults do.

  465. There are so many factual errors and omissions in this article – that this article alone is proof enough of why we need gun controls – because it seems that there isnt a rational owner anywhere out there.

    Thank you – I am posting this as a perfect example for Biden to use.

    1. Denis, it seems to me that if you’re going to call out an expert in his field on omitting facts and getting them wrong you’d be willing to cite specifics. Not just “Well that’s just not right and you’re leaving stuff out.” . You’ll notice that Larry, who works a full time job (and trust me if anyone reading this thinks being a successful writer is only a 40 hour a week gig you’ve clearly never tried it) and has a wife who probably likes to spend time with him occasionally was able to do so. So how about it? It’s easy to call bullshit. How about stepping up and pointing out where and how it’s bullshit? On the plus side, if you do give a copy of this to the Vice President and he uses it then that’s free publicity for one of the best writers currently working which means more likelihood of getting a Monster Hunter or Grimoir movie or TV show.

  466. There is no easy solution. I agree with most of what the article said, except the part about arming teachers. Teachers have enough responsibility without having to worry about a child finding their gun. Also, that idea doesn’t address the number of teachers who shouldn’t be in schools, those who are abusive, have mental problems, or molest children. If schools must have armed guards, they should be professionals hired soley for that job. And all school entrances should be locked, requiring entrance through a guarded metal detector, like courthouses. Of course, if it’s that bad, I wouldn’t want a child of mine in the school anyway, I would home-school them.

    1. The point is not to force teachers to accept an additional responsibility against their will, but rather to remove the restriction that they be forced to leave their weapon at home and work in an environment that history has shown is “gun-free” only for those who abide by the law. Nor was the point to bypass current CCW laws that (in New Mexico at least) involve a criminal background check, fingerprinting and mandatory training. You seem to be looking for excuses not to do this, when the overwhelming reason FOR doing this is plastered on the news every time another sociopath goes on a rampage in a “gun-free zone”. We can’t get rid of the sociopaths, and we can’t get rid of criminal firearms with more laws. In that instant when a gunman enters a school for purposes of evil, deterrence has failed. The only recourse left is either capitulation or defense. I prefer to give those at risk the option of defending themselves and their students, if they so desire.

      We need to get away from the urban idea of specialization. Cities are great for diversity and specialization, but they breed the idea that every job is somebody else’s. There are 7-800,000 LEOs all flavors in this country, about 200,000 on duty at any given time, against a population of 315,000,000. They simply can’t act as bodyguards. Hiring dedicated private guards for all of our schools is simply not financially possible. We need to return to the idea that we are ultimately responsible for ourselves, and those around us. It’s not a job we can foist off on the government, nor on passive security measures. Locked doors and metal detectors aren’t a deterrent to a sociopath who isn’t planning on leaving under his own power.

  467. Sorry, I didn’t read the whole thing. It’s 20 after midnight and this post is really long. I think there needs to be a specification set as to what the 2nd Amendment really means. To say, “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” can be interpretted in a couple different ways. The second part, starting with “the right of the people…” could potentially stand as it’s own statement and just refer to the right of the individual. However, since it’s only separated by a comma (and Thomas Jefferson would’ve had very proper grammatical skills) it refers back to the beginning of the sentence stating for “a well regulated militia”. Under that interpretation, civilians may only be able to legally bare arms when banned together as a group, creating a military force. As for gun regulations, I think people who want more guns miss out on the point that if you have more guns you need more regulation to regulate the influx of guns. For instance, if we allow teachers to have guns in school (which, let me state, I’m not against. There’s a school in north Texas where the teachers are packing) there needs to be regulation about how the guns are treated when on school grounds. For instance, if a teacher leaves the grounds for lunch and, for some stupid reason, decides the best place to take their gun off is at the school, leaving it in their desk drawer. There should be a definite penalty for that. People don’t realize that accidental shootings are still very common. Only a few days after the Newtown shooting a toddler got a hold of a gun that wasn’t stored properly and shot himself in the head. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but there isn’t anything that states you have to take any courses on how to handle a firearm when you purchase it. Maybe some mandatory shooting range time and a test on how to properly care for and store your gun. After all, you have to take a competency test at the hospital before you can take your newborn baby home. As for mental illness: I’m not saying the shooters should be patted on the back or revered in any way, but to a degree they are victims. We live in a society that sees mental illness as a weakness and sweeps it under the rug so they don’t have to look at it, instead of seeing it as the problem that it is and making sure that these people get the proper help that they need. If mental illness was taken seriously now, maybe a mental breakdown resulting in a mass shooting could be prevented later.

    1. Spencer beat me to the Penn & Teller comment, but I’ll add that if a Vegas magic act can figure out the sentence structure, it can’t be that obtuse.

      Lindsey, if you’re not going to read the whole thing, why are you commenting? It’s not THAT long. Set your alarm, prioritize, and book enough time to read what you’re commenting on before you comment. You do your position no favors by essentially saying “I didn’t bother paying attention, but I disagree”.

      I would suggest an even better course of action might be to gather a little information first-hand, rather than occasionally paying attention and lobbing comments from the outside looking in. Go take a CCW class. We don’t need more laws or rules to cover concealed carry in schools. We need to modify or remove a few of the 20,000 that are already on the books. Responsibility and maintaining control of your firearm are two of the many, many salient points covered in my 16 hours of mandatory classroom and practical training required for my New Mexico CCW permit, points further reinforced and expanded upon with subsequent non-mandatory training. It’s a weekend, not a semester of college, and you get to shoot under the supervision of an instructor. Don’t follow the path of least resistance, that of filling in the blanks with imagination or rumor, rather than fact. That path of least resistance seems to be the standard MO of the gun-controllers’ “education”, and to paraphrase a line from Yoda, “Ignorance, Fear, and Deception. The dark sides of the force are they.”

      As far as non-fatal firearm accidents go, there were about 14,000 in 2011 (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html, select 1. “unintentional” 2. “gunshot, firearm”, though this site http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html lists the annual firearm accidental non-fatal shootings at 200,000 without citing any source, so I’m inclined to believe the CDC’s number instead), and about 600 fatal firearms accidental shootings. The NRA has training programs and child education programs which are designed to minimize both of these losses, as do other gun groups.

      The second link does seem to have some anti-gun bias, though if their data is correct, they’ve unintentionally made a case that firearm laws do not in fact have an effect on overall suicide rate (though of course they will affect suicides by firearm). They drone on and on about the suicide rate for firearms, but gloss over the fact that overall suicide rate for the U.S. is 10.8/100,000, while the overall suicide rate for the aggregation of other “high income” countries meant to act as a control (Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), United Kingdom (Scotland)) was 14.9/100,000, despite firearms contributing only 1.0 of that (vice 5.8 for the U.S.). Their suicide data was apparently from the WHO. So perhaps the lesson to take away from this is that firearm availability doesn’t have a correlation with suicide rate (the despondent merely find other means), but living in a despair-inducing totalitarian Socialist country does.

  468. Why have the govenement brought another 750 millions rounds of hollow points and buck shots. This is enought rounds to shoot every American four times. Shop the this wasteful spending.

    Why has the Department of Homeland Security recently ordered a total of 1.2 billion bullets, the majority of which are hollow points and buckshot? What are they preparing for? Civil war? Economic Collapse? A combination of the two? These kinds of bullets are not used for target practice.
    Sources:

    450 million rounds purchased by DHS earlier this year:
    http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/03/13/ATK-producing-a

    Purchase order for additional 750 million rounds of ammunition
    https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d024b4476b2648e5

    Backup link to download the purchase order from my site:
    http://nindra.net/sites/default/files/uploads/HSFLGL-12-B-00003_Step_1_Techni

    Obama promises gun control action early next year
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/19/us-usa-guns-obama-idUSBRE8BI0ID2012

    Top economist say U.S. economy is in a death spiral that may end civilization as we know it:
    http://moneymorning.com/ob/economist-richard-duncan-civilization-may-not-surv

    DHS to use drones over U.S. territory:
    http://rt.com/usa/news/dhs-us-public-safety-019/

    NDAA 2013 passes with indefinite detention still intact
    http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-indefinite-detention-trial-403/

    QE3 has already Failed:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/09/19/will-ben-bernankes-qe3-w
    QE4:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesdorn/2012/12/27/ben-bernankes-qe4-another-st
    Toxic assets still on the books:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704570104576124701144189910.html
    The size of the derivatives bubble:
    http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2008/10/the_size_of_der.php

    Operation Fast and Furious:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57559809-10391739/fast-and-furious-gun-
    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/100112-627744-univision-reveals-fast
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/fast-and-furious-report_n_1897688.html
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57461204-10391695/a-primer-on-the-fast-
    Obama used executive privilege to protect Eric Holder:
    http://news.yahoo.com/fast-furious-watergate-only-body-count-181100013.html

    WHY HAVE CONGRESS ALLOWED GOVERNMENT TO BUY 2,500 ARMOR PERSONNEL CARRIERS TO BE USE AGAINST AMERICANS, WHAT IS GOING ON?

    http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/03/13/ATK-producing-a
    http://www.upi.com

  469. Firstly, I’m an Australian, and I got to this post via a World of Warcraft blogger’s reference. We don’t have the same level of issues here in Australia, and the gun control laws do have a lot to do with it. That’s starting to change a bit in specific areas though, mainly because the ‘western world view’ on gun use takes a lot of its cues from US based movies and television.

    So while I won’t get into the questions about your second edit to your rules to live by, I will say that if you intend to stop massacres and the sort of atrocities that happened in Connecticut, or Columbine etc, you can’t just re-edit laws, or make more guns. You have to change the way that people perceive gun use as well. Remove the “Its cool, cause I’m strapped”, and move towards guns as a defensive only purpose, necessary because of evil people, not part of them.

    Unlike here in Aus, you can’t just yank them all out of the populace, and even if you could, you’d only be removing the legal ones, and then have a massively long and dangerous struggle to find and confiscate the illegal ones. So you have to make their existence perceived in the right way.

    Because all the rest of the world sees as outsiders looking in when it comes to guns is:
    a) gang-bangers with handguns or SMG’s fighting turf wars,
    b) yokels with assault rifles on the roof trying to secede,
    c) depressed kids with their parents ‘self defence armory’ taking out schools.

  470. Not a debate starter here, I just wanted to say that your article was well written and comprehensive. I am saving this argument to show to my anti-gun friends to see if your way of explaining things is any better than my high school brain can muster. Thank you very much for a comprehensive guide and reasoning to the pro-gun argument.

  471. This is the most well written argument against new legislation I’ve seen. People like you make me proud to be a gun owner. Everyone who wants to maintain their 2nd amendment rights should contact their elected officials. Let’s tell them we mean business and any representatives actually buying into the anti gun lobby needs to get his/her facts straight before losing a very good portion of their votes. Also, visit the group on facebook/twitter “Demand a Plan” and flood their message boards with pro-gun rhetoric. Make sure no argument from the anti-gun mass is left unanswered so their ignorance is not allowed to fester and spread.

  472. Mr. Correia, I believe we corresponded a couple of times a few years ago after another post of yours in your blog. We share the same last name (well, mine is my maiden name). In any case, I just wanted to say that I wish you lived in Florida because I really really really want to learn how to shoot the two guns my husband has. One is just a plain rifle…it’s not even semi-automatic. The other is a Baretta handgun. I feel totally fine when he’s home with us because I know he knows how to use them. But I don’t. He’s showed me the basics but honestly, unless you get the chance to actually load and shoot, it’s really no use.

    What’s funny is I live in what was traditionally Florida Cracker country in Central Florida. In fact “the cowboy” is a central figure in this counties history. Yet, for me to get lessons I have to drive up to the not-so-good sections of Orlando and pay an arm and a leg…just to learn to shoot.

    If anything, like you I think one thing that would help greatly is to make access to education about gun use more readily available and more affordable. But alas, I think this administration and the left in this country that have taken over the media will NEVER allow for that.

    It gives me great hope to read your post though and to understand that the chance of them actually seizing the guns is near to impossible. I’ve always thought that when push comes to shove, I don’t think our military is not made of the type of people that would knowingly go in and take the citizen’s freedom from them.

    In any case, thanks again and I am going to share your site and posts with a friend of mine who just wrote his first Sci-Fi novel and shares your basic philosophies on culture. Thanks again!

  473. Why have the govenement brought another 750 millions rounds of hollow points and buck shots. This is enought rounds to shoot every American four times. Shop the this wasteful spending.

    Why has the Department of Homeland Security recently ordered a total of 1.2 billion bullets, the majority of which are hollow points and buckshot? What are they preparing for? Civil war? Economic Collapse? A combination of the two? These kinds of bullets are not used for target practice.
    Sources:

    450 million rounds purchased by DHS earlier this year:
    http ://www.upi. com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/03/13/ATK-producing-a…

    Purchase order for additional 750 million rounds of ammunition
    https ://www .fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d024b4476b2648e5…

    Backup link to download the purchase order from my site:
    http ://nindra. net/sites/default/files/uploads/HSFLGL-12-B-00003_Step_1_Techni…

    Obama promises gun control action early next year
    http ://www .reuters. com/article/2012/12/19/us-usa-guns-obama-idUSBRE8BI0ID2012…

    Top economist say U.S. economy is in a death spiral that may end civilization as we know it:
    http ://moneymorning. com/ob/economist-richard-duncan-civilization-may-not-surv…

    DHS to use drones over U.S. territory:
    http ://rt. com/usa/news/dhs-us-public-safety-019/

    NDAA 2013 passes with indefinite detention still intact
    http ://rt. com/usa/news/ndaa-indefinite-detention-trial-403/

    QE3 has already Failed:
    http ://www.forbes. com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/09/19/will-ben-bernankes-qe3-w…
    QE4:
    http ://www.forbes. com/sites/jamesdorn/2012/12/27/ben-bernankes-qe4-another-st…
    Toxic assets still on the books:
    http ://online.wsj. com/article/SB10001424052748704570104576124701144189910.html
    The size of the derivatives bubble:
    http ://www .siliconvalleywatcher. com/mt/archives/2008/10/the_size_of_der.php

    Operation Fast and Furious:
    http ://www .cbsnews. com/8301-34222_162-57559809-10391739/fast-and-furious-gun-…
    http ://news.investors. com/ibd-editorials/100112-627744-univision-reveals-fast…
    www .huffingtonpost. com/2012/09/19/fast-and-furious-report_n_1897688.html
    http ://www.cbsnews. com/8301-31727_162-57461204-10391695/a-primer-on-the-fast-…
    Obama used executive privilege to protect Eric Holder:
    http ://news.yahoo. com/fast-furious-watergate-only-body-count-181100013.html

    WHY HAVE CONGRESS ALLOWED GOVERNMENT TO BUY 2,500 ARMOR PERSONEL CARRIERS TO BE USE AGAINST AMERICANS, WHAT IS GOING ON?

    1. They’re buying up ammo to limit the supply & drive up the cost, making it less available. It’s a limited way of disarming us. Not to mention the ammo manufacturers probably lobbied hard for it.

      This is similar to the Japanese disarmament. They limited gun manufacturing & the govt became almost the only buyer. Once few had guns a ban was feasible.

  474. Dennis1946, why do you insist on spamming the board with your hysterical fearmongering? You’ve posted the same thing twice in two days.

    To answer the DHS conspiracy theory, consider this:

    There are about 105,000 armed government agents, spread across all the various departments. The ammo contract for which bids have been sought is spread out over FIVE YEARS, and is for *up to* that 750M-round number.

    But…taking the upper figure as a given, let’s divide this out:

    750,000,000 / 5 = 150,000,000 rounds/year.

    150,000,000 rounds/year
    ———————————
    105,000 agents

    = ~1428 rounds/year.

    And all of a sudden, the “story” becomes a bit less of a story. I keep more than that on hand in just .22LR.

  475. I am a WordPress blogger, but I saw this from a link a friend had put on Facebook. I am not a gun owner, but I am a huge advocate of the 2nd Amendment, and have been thinking of becoming a gun owner for sometime (since Obama won election, actually).
    I found your article well written and expertly informative. I plan to share this. Thank you!

  476. Do you have control of your guns? Or do you leave them where other people can get at them without your consent? Which do you think is a safer state of affairs?

    That’s all that I want from ‘gun control’ — that people keep control of their guns. Nancy Lanza didn’t. She *did* TRY to teach Adam how to properly respect firearms, as accounts have detailed how she took him to the range and taught him how to shoot, but she neglected to let her voiced concerns over his stability encourage her to keep her weapons secured from him when he was without close supervision.

    Is there anything wrong with making sure that one’s weapons are properly secured against people even in your own personal life who should not be allowed around guns unsupervised but might get otherwise get access to them? Is there anything wrong with treating ammunition the same as we treat Sudafed? When you buy a LOT of it, maybe someone somewhere should ask if anyone knows what you plan to do with it. After all, you shouldn’t need 4000 rounds for a 4-day weekend of hunting. Unless you prefer venison in lead sauce. (Note: Even 50 rounds is more than enough for another Newtown to happen, but the above 4-day hunting weekend can also use up that much ammo.)

    But hey, keep your guns. Buy your ammo. Keep them well-maintained. Keep practicing with them and drilling with them for home defense situations so that your reactions are honed and you not only understand things like the Four Rules, but live them as second nature. Just… please… *control* them yourselves so that others don’t have more and more reason to want to control them *for* you.

    1. Securing weapons against theft or unauthorized use is an important part of responsible firearms ownership. Having said that, Lanza shot his mom four times in the face with a .22 rifle (presumably his) while she slept, and so would have had all the time he needed to find the safe keys or open a biometric lock with his mom’s finger. I’m all for trying to stop psychopaths, but smart psychopaths are very difficult to stop consistently.

      The MSM focuses on the ammunition count, but having a lot of ammunition on hand has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to do harm or not. As you pointed out, even these mass shooters were able to use only a small fraction of that ammunition they purchased, in no small part because carrying 6000+ rounds isn’t practical. Ammunition is what scientists refer to as very, very heavy. I’m currently scrounging for enough ammunition to continue practicing regularly (as are many other responsible, law-abiding shooters during this current atmosphere of panic buying and hoarding). In saner times, we’d buy in bulk not to hoard, but for the same reason people shop at Sam’s Club or Costco…ammunition is cheaper in bulk, and when you find a good deal you buy. It’s not like ammunition spoils sitting on a shelf at home.

    2. Kelli: ” Is there anything wrong with treating ammunition the same as we treat Sudafed?”

      That’s actually a good point.

      The restrictions on Sudafed is an attempt to reduce and control the Meth labs. Did restricting how much a person can buy significantly reduce meth labs in America? no. Does it create problems for law abiding citizens? yes.

      How much can I buy? enough for one adult to take it for 5-7 days. So when my entire family gets sick? we can have enough for about one day. So I am either going to the store daily to get sudafed (which will raise flag, i guarantee it), or I buy it every time I go to the store and stockpile the stuff, just to be ready.

      So the answer to your question is Yes, there is something wrong with treating ammunition the same as we treat Sudafed. It’s the exact same thing that is wrong with how we treat Sudafed.

  477. I realize that this is at the end of a mile-long comment list, but after reading all of it I thought that there was an aspect being ignored.

    For all you geniuses who think that other people having guns makes you less safe, listen up.

    There’s a lot of people carrying concealed without a permit – and if you’re vocally anti-gun, they’re certainly not going to tell you. You’ve been around a lot more “other people’s” guns than you know, no matter what you think.

    A lot of your petty, opportunistic criminals know this, but they don’t know who’s carrying, so they “people watch” looking to see who they think is armed. With some it’s almost a sport, and if you’ve gone anywhere you’ve been sized up. No, you didn’t notice, did you? They don’t necessarily just jump anyone they think isn’t armed, but this subgroup will look and think if they have something like that in mind. They don’t want to get shot either.

    It doesn’t matter if there’s a gun or not, it’s whether they think that there MIGHT be one.

    I’m going to go ahead and all-caps this: THIS IS HOW OTHER PEOPLE’S GUNS MAKE YOU SAFER. Because people who would harm you think that you MIGHT have one.

    If they were sure that nobody had a weapon, they could just walk up and whack you in the face with a brick or other handy blunt object and take your stuff, etc., knowing that even if you can fight, you still can’t shoot them.

    It’s impossible to quantify this form of defensive gun use, but it’s definitely there on a large scale.

  478. Just read your article..really well put together, informative, interesting and factual. I live in BC, Canada, believe me we have the same problem here, maybe to a lesser degree simply because of population numbers, but criminals are getting more and more brazen here, mostly drug related and they just don’t care about gun laws…of course they don’t, they’re criminals! When it comes to dealing with these criminals, our courts and judges are becoming a joke..being too ‘politically correct’ and hamstrung by politicians who are catering to their respective lobby groups. I hope cooler heads prevail with this gun control nonsense otherwise the lid is going to blow right off. Wish we had more people in Canada with your experience and professionalism sir, people need to be educated about firearms…many thanks for your words of wisdom.

  479. I also just read your article. Very articulate and informative. I already agree with you on all point but I learned a lot from an expert. Thanks for a real “common sense” discussion.

  480. Larry, good read. I know this is pretty late, but I just wanted to bring this up. I apologize if someone else mentioned this in the comments and I didn’t see it.

    I agree with you on everything, but the statistician in me has to nitpick your “good vs bad uses” ratio of gun uses. Your “good” use stat includes drawing a gun in self defense. But your “bad” use stat includes only gun related homicides. Comparing these numbers doesn’t mean anything. I’m sure if you included all crimes where a gun was drawn but not necessarily fired (to make it a reasonable comparison) the number of “bad” uses would be drastically higher than just the homicide number, and the ratio would look pretty crappy. To say that “gun use is a huge net positive” based on those numbers just doesn’t make sense.

    I’m curious to hear your take on this. Again, I am totally opposed to any sort of gun ban/gun-free zones, but abuse of numbers like this kind of irks me.

  481. “Large capacity magazines have no place in civilized society.”
    Ray Kelly, NYC Police Commissioner; 7:21AM 1/18/13

    1. “Large capacity magazines have no place in civilized society.”
      Ray Kelly, NYC Police Commissioner; 7:21AM 1/18/13

      Then why does every police department in the country use them (including the New York City police)? Are the police not a part of “civilized society”?

      Magazine capacity that has been standard for more than 50 years (“large capacity” is a misnomer) is very much a part of “civilized society” and if the New York City police commissioner thinks differently, well, so much the worse for the New York City police commissioner.

  482. Thanks for this awesome article Larry. I will use it from now on to stave off the control freaks.

    I have just two comments. Auto sentry killer robots have been invented and placed in service in South Korea. I have a real problem with this. Anyone that’s ever read the Irobot series and is familiar with Asmiov’s 3 basic laws of robotics will understand why. Yes it’s science fiction, but it’s starting to come true.

    I wish you had left the liberal moniker out of the article. I am considered liberal by my conservative friends and many of my shooter friends are considered liberals. Being liberal doesn’t necessarily mean you are not an avid supporter of the second amendment (and yes I am one of those who fundamentally believes it was added to stave off tyranny). I know advocates for gun control tend to be liberal, but not all and let’s not forget where the Brady bunch came from…

    Thanks Again!!!

  483. Why was my comment deleted? I just wanted to know why the “good” use of a gun includes drawing in self defense, but a “bad” use only includes homicides and not all other crimes where one is merely drawn. Those are just poor numbers to choose to calculate the “good vs bad” use of guns ratio you talk about… I don’t want a gun ban, I just want stats used appropriately.

    1. I don’t delete comments unless they are complete whackadoos or death threats. WordPress is set so I have to approve all comments coming from a first time email. And your point was brought up earlier in the thread and discussed, including some other readers bringing in a bunch of other stats.

      1. OK, I’ll search through them later. There are thousands of comments so I didn’t have time to check each one… Thanks for the response.

  484. doctorbill1 wrote “That statement has been disprove a great many times.”

    Sorry but if you READ the amendment properly as a whole you quickly realise one thing, the part used to justify individual gun rights, if you read that as a stand alone, then the rest of the statement becomes incomplete.

    The amendment is ONE statement, not two. While you can cut out the latter part and it still makes sense, if you do so the former part does not make sense any longer.

    The problem is that modern lawyering keeps breaking the statement down to component parts and analyse those PARTS.

    Modern comments far too often also ignore the historical context, which ALSO points without ambigiuty towards the text statement being meant as a single whole, not something you can cut your favorite parts out from as you please.

    And one part of the historical context is that just about anyone was viable to be part of the militia that was supposed to preclude the existance of an army. THIS is the one way you can legally claim that the statement is generally appliable to individual rights.

    But being a de facto member of the militia where you live has not been true for many decades, and is essentially irrelevant today.
    The amendment should “simply” be updated to modern standards, because that is desperately needed. Of course that wont happen because the nutjobs of both sides will make that an impossible mission.

    However, the claim that the amendment as is, gives individuals unconditionally the right to “keep and bear arms” is simply not realistic or factual.
    That any “pro´s” can claim otherwise, that´s just dishonest on a scholarly level. Or incompetent. Or corrupt. Or sadly, most likely, shows how afraid many people are to actually contest the commonly claimed interpretation, because of the fighting it would cause.

    Also, “of the people” is not a codephrase with a predetermined meaning carrying over to every use. As you(or your links) argue it, the statements becomes nonsensical as you break out “the people” from the preceding definition already given.
    Again, you simply cannot just ignore the “a well regulated militia” part as you please.

    Me? My 2 main specialties is linguistics and history, both with about 3 decades of experience. And I have zero vested interest in the 2nd amendment either way(I don´t really care).
    I have nothing against gun ownership, as long as the minimum rules makes it hard to be irresponsible about such ownership.
    And more importantly, as long as the rules does not allow frivolous purchase of weapons as in many parts of USA today, they do.

    1. Much has been made by Freedom Deniers about the use of “A well-regulated militia” in the 2nd Amendment.

      Let’s see what James Madison, the gentleman who was the primary author of the Bill of Rights had to say on the subject:

      “The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. … [Here Madison describes a chain of events, unlikely as he thought them, that might lead to such a force being gathered] … Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and it would not be going too far to say that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to my best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves.” James Madison, The Federalist Papers 46.

      This was one of the arguments given for accepting the Constitution with its much stronger central government (compared to the Articles of Confederation). An army about three times the size relative to total population, as the US army is today, would be overwhelmed by a citizen militia of a number amounting to essentially every free male (an issue at that time) capable of bearing arms.

      Note that the 1790 Census listed a total population of “free white males 16 and over” of just over 800 thousand. Since some folk would be too old, or infirm, or otherwise not able to serve in the “militia” this is another confirmation that Madison’s “militia” was the entire population of the US capable of bearing arms. And here we see from his own words that one of the purposes of that militia was to serve as a check against the possibility of the Federal government using a standing army against the rights of the States and the People.

      And since Madison was the primary author of the Bill of Rights, I think this should put to rest any further speculation about what “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.” A good part of “security of a free state” is security as a free state. And the very purpose is to ensure that the States had sufficient strength, militarily, residing in their “militias”, which was to say the whole of their people capable of bearing arms, to outweigh any attempt by the Federal government to overpower the States.

      1. Thank you David. To be honest I am more than a little tired of dealing with the repetitive posting that seems to be required here. Thomas Sowell was really right when he likened some political positions to a “religion” with blinders which make it impossible to even conceive of the existence of other points of view. To many of those opposed to free expression of our civil liberties, all our arguments sound like the adults in the old “Peanuts” animated cartoons. I am having more luck focusing on getting the local (New York) school board to consider changing classroom doors to security doors as part of their fire code upgrade to the buildings. It is not very flashy but, unlike all the governor’s preening and posturing, it might actually do some good in the case of a school intruder.

    2. A couple of additional points. First, the term “well-regulated” does not mean what you think it means:

      The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

      1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

      1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

      1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

      1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

      1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

      1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

      The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

      http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

      Note: I own a copy of the OED and can confirm those usage examples as accurate.

      “well-regulated” does not mean “under government control” or even “subject to government rules”. It simply means “”properly functioning”.

      Second: With that in mind, note that every male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 in the US is a member of the militia according to the US Code, to wit:

      (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
      males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
      313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
      declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
      and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
      National Guard.
      (b) The classes of the militia are –
      (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
      and the Naval Militia; and
      (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
      the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
      Naval Militia.

      http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

      Anti’s point out that phrase “unorganized” as not meeting the requirements of “well-regulated” but that turns out not to be the case. As has been shown “well-regulated” does not mean “subject to government control” and, thus being organized (by the government) is not a requirement to be such a “well-regulated” militia. And, as has also been shown, the folk who wrote the Second very much had in mind the whole citizenry capable of bearing arms as being the militia.

      So the “it applies to the militia” is a non-argument. It applies to the people. The people, the same people name in the Preamble, in Article 1, section 2, in the First Amendment, in the Fourth Amendment, in the Ninth Amendment, in the Tenth Amendment, and in the Seventeenth Amendment are the militia.

      Quod Erat Demonstradum.

  485. Larry, thank you!

    My wife and I don’t own and never have owned guns. We don’t even “like” them, though we were never “anti-gun”. Nobody in our families own guns either (some being very vehemently “anti-gun”).

    However, we are finally convinced that we must get one and get trained.

    What’s convinced us is that there is too much nonsense promoted by our “leadership” and “the media” (i.e. emotional responses, slogans, etc. vs thoughtful, logical discussion), too much “shouting the other side down” (= popular/might is right) on a broad range of topics (not just guns) that run counter to what we see and can deduct for ourselves that we know “things just aren’t right”.

    Our thought is to get them legally while we can.

    Again, thanks for your educational piece here.

    1. And nobody was hurt. Compared with the 557 people who have been killed in mass shootings at “gun free zones” of one form or another between 1949 and 2009. So, yeah, “oops” but still better than the alternative.

      In Indiana there are over 600,000 people with a license to carry handgun. How many incidents do you think we have of folk finding firearms left unattended in restrooms and shooting people with them.

      The Indianapolis Children’s Museum bills itself as the largest Children’s Museum in the US. It has over a million visitors a year. Until recently (when they added a “pre-school”) carry was perfectly legal there. This is Indiana. One person in ten has a license to carry handgun. How many people do you think were shot by kids finding unattended handguns left in bathrooms?

      None.

      What you have is a situation where people are not used to carrying. Any time there’s anything new there are generally problems with “shakedown” until people get used to the new situation, develop new habits, and adapt.

      So it’s a learning experience, neither more nor less.

      Now, that said, I can understand the fear that a child might find such a gun during that “learning period” and do harm to themselves or someone else.

      So how about taking the time to teach your kids, or kids in general, the four rules of the Eddie Eagle program: Stop, Don’t Touch. Leave the Area. Tell and Adult. My daughter learned those at four. She learned to leave a gun alone and not handle or even touch it without explicit permission and adult supervision (taking away the “lure of the forbidden” by letting her handle guns with permission went a long way toward that). Today, she can tell me Jeff Cooper’s four rules of safe gun handling (although paraphrased–she hasn’t memorized a particular wording but when I quiz her, which I do frequently, but she does grok the concept). I’ll show her pictures of somebody with a gun and ask her “which firearms safety rules are they breaking. (If it’s an anti-gun politician the answer is usually “pretty much all of them”).

      I teach my daughter this stuff not because I want her to become some kind of super marksman. I teach her because guns do exist in the world and regardless of what I might wish she might encounter elsewhere if not at home (which is why “child proofing” my house and my own guns is a losing proposition by itself). Better that she knows how to behave properly around firearms in advance of any such encounters.

      If my daughter can learn that, your (generic “your”, not yours specifically) daughter can learn that.

    2. Gun control advocates are quick to point out any failures, mistakes or crimes by law-abiding gun owners, but are strangely silent on the 439,000 violent crimes involving criminals and guns every year. VPC has a running total of crimes committed by CCW permit holders on their web site (~500 for all of 2012, though they cast a wide net to get even that total), but are loathe to mention that the crime total is from a population of 8 million CCW permit holders nationwide. I guess they can’t count to 439,000, let alone 8 million. It does highlight their agenda though, which is exercising control over their political opponents concerning a specific topic they (in their ignorance) find distasteful. It has nothing to do with preventing crime, and everything to do with clinging to belief over reason.

      A CCW permit is a license, not a halo. There will be mistakes and crimes committed by people within this population, it is statistically inevitable. As a group however, we do pretty well for ourselves, and are 7.7x less likely to commit violent crimes than the general populace, and 13x less likely to commit any crime (violent or non-violent). If gun-controllers were serious about reducing violent crime (and maintained their selective credulity concerning data) then why aren’t they suggesting that CCW permits become mandatory?

      What it comes down to is that gun controllers believe guns are evil. To support this belief they have to “prove” that guns make otherwise good people do bad things, thus the running total of CCW crimes. The only way this belief holds together is to ignore the mountain of criminal violence, and the successful uses of firearms to oppose criminal violence. Were we to apply this selective use of data to other aspects of life (cars, alcohol, food), we’d all be left trapped in our living rooms cocooned in bubble-wrap, a condition that New York is well on its way to achieving.

  486. You make some very cogent points. I wonder what your thought is on this – I think concealed carry is a bad idea. Why? I guess I’m odd – I look at it this way – I don’t care if you feel the need to carry – but I feel a bit un-nerved at anyone who feels the need to hide it. Why hide it? Just carry your gun and carry it. Whatever. Is it such a big deal? I would say no. And this may be a straw man argument itself BUT – if concealed carry was illegal everywhere, and everyone who carried had to display it – wouldn’t that by default make the general public more at ease with those who do carry, since all who do would be displaying them in hip holsters (or the like) that make it evident they do carry? Just a thought – I know you have an insane number of replies to this post, so I understand if you can’t reply to this personally but my email is there, and I’d love to hear what you think if you do happen to see it.
    -KC, New York.

    1. Many states already have open carry as well.
      The advantages of concealed carry:
      1. Herd immunity. The fact that bad guys don’t know who is armed, but that somebody may be armed, protects the entire group. Yourself included.
      2. Tactically, it is kind of stupid. If I am a psycho killer about to go on a murder spree rampage, and open carry is mandated as the only way to carry, then I’m simply going to shoot the guy with the gun first, and then massacre everybody else.
      3. When I conceal a gun, people never know I have it. That includes the squemish freak out types. So I can conduct my business and not have to worry about somebody who knows absolutely nothing about guns freaking out and calling the SWAT team about a “OMG! THERE’S A MAD MAN HERE WITH A GUN!” because I walked into the grocery store to buy a carton of juice.

      Advantages of open carry.
      1. It is kind of awesome. 🙂
      2. Depending on where I am, I will often open carry. If I’m out in the deserts or mountains of rural Utah, I am usually carrying openly because it is more comfortable. In town, I always conceal because of #3 above.

      1. To (belatedly) dovetail with Larry’s comment, the most important reason for concealed carry for me personally is for weapon control. Law Enforcement has the advantage of being part of an organized system that can support individual members pretty quickly. Even so they’ve got holsters with restraining devices to help prevent a criminal from getting their gun. As a CCW permit holder, I don’t have a radio to call for backup, or a partner to watch my six to keep someone from getting the drop on me on the rare occasions I let my attention mode drop from yellow to white. The best way I have to ensure that my weapon is readily available should I need it, but at the same time not on the radar of any crooks nearby who want to get a gun by cold-cocking or ganging up on the guy with the visible gun, is to keep them from knowing it’s there to steal.

        I understand that devoid of experience or knowledge, the public’s default belief concerning anything concealed is that there must be something illegal or shameful involved. Rest assured, there is no CCW “secret handshake” that conspires to hide our handguns, only to brandish them simultaneously at a pre-determined time for the maximum simultaneous carnage. The purpose is tactical not nefarious.

    2. I like the idea of open carry. However there are disadvantages to open carry.
      1. If concealed carry were illegal and only open carry were allowed the bad guys would still concealed carry. Why would this be bad? That’s easy if a bad guy is determined to do bad all he has to do is look around. “What’s this no guns in site? I can do bad things here because I wont’ be shot”. Or “I see only two people with guns on their hips, if I shoot them first I will be free to kill more people”. If you make concealed carry illegal you basically announce to criminals where they will be safe as they just have to avoid the areas with guns. A concealed carry society means criminals will have to second guess if they can pull off whatever evil they plan on doing.

      2. Small mindedness and bigotry. Say for instance you are going on a job interview. “Hey now I know where I recognize you from you’re that guy who had a gun on his hip at the grocery store. I don’t want people working here who think it’s okay to carry guns”. They won’t even say it they could just internalize it. A concealed carry allows you to be safe, and not be judged by those small minded individuals out there.

      I believe there are more reasons why your get rid of concealed carry and replace it will allowed open carry everywhere won’t work but those are just the first ones that jumped out to me.

  487. I’ve re posted your comments above many times. I completely agree with every thing you have poste here.
    I watched Huckabee tonite and was able to put a name with a face.

    I would like to meet you some time
    Do you still live in Utah ?

  488. Reblogged this on freedomsbrushfire and commented:
    “Over the last fifty years, with only one single exception (Gabby Giffords), every single mass shooting event with more than four casualties has taken place in a place where guns were supposedly not allowed.”

    1. In fact, the Giffords shooting took place within 1,000 yards of a school, an area which is, by federal law, a designated gun-free zone.

      1. There are actually a number or exceptions to that Federal law as follows:

        (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

        (i) on private property not part of school grounds;

        (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

        (iii) that is— (I) not loaded; and (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

        (iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;

        (v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;

        (vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or

        (vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.

        (Emphasis added).

        So long as one has a state-issued license (for the state in which the school is located) then the prohibition about possession does not apply.

        State law, however, can be more restrictive. I do not know what Arizona’s State Law would say in this matter.

      2. I can’t speak for Arizona law as I live in Ohio, but the law here, which is similar in form to the law citation already provided in response, basically states that the 1,000 yard Federal gun free school zone (which was found to be unconstitutional back in the 1990s as it was too arbitrary anyway) does not apply on one’s private property or if you are dually permitted under state law to possess the firearm. Ohio, like Arizona, is what is called an open-carry state which basically permits you to carry without a concealed carry permit as long as you don’t try to hide it from view and are permitted to own the weapon by law (by permitted I mean – not a felon, not chemical dependent, or dishonorably discharged as neither state has a firearm licensing/registration regime). So Mr. Correia’s statement is correct as I quoted.

  489. Reblogged this on The Rio Norte Line and commented:
    As I have stated before, I have studied and worked in the criminal law field for 20 years. I have many friends who are active and retired, military and law enforcement officers. This push for gun control is not for reasons of crime control. It has been studied, argued, and ignored, but in every case, more gun control laws equal higher crime rates. Said differently, more possible victims means more victims in actuality. Mr. Correia has written a long opinion attempting to cover all the issues, this particular post already has over 1 million hits since December 20, 2012. I urge you to sit down with your favorite beverage and educate yourself.
    Sincerely, texas

  490. Massad for President.. With Larry Correia as his running mate! And if not.. one of ya’ll has please got to debate Piers Morgan.

    1. Piers Morgan doesn’t debate. Remember the reason we have the unpleasantness of his presence is because he was run out of the United Kingdom after lying about British troops committing atrocities in Afghanistan.

  491. You are right. It is a long articled but well worth the read. You background is just about like mine. This is a question I would like to ask anti-gun nuts. The thing is they will not answer it. They want to talk around it because in order to answer it they will have to agree with us. The question is this. If the men had a wife or daughter who was just in the process of being raped and murdered would you want me to take my awful gun out and use it to protect them. If they say no then they are telling a damn lie. If they say yes then they are a hypocrite. So I guess that would make them a damn lying hypocrite. They are just like the hypocrites in Washington. They can carry one or have a dozen bodyguards but we are not smart enough to carry a weapon to protect our family. They always say that controlling or taking away of guns would protect our kids lives. If they were interested in saving kids lives they would pass a law to where kids cannot drive until they are twenty one years of age. It is a fact more kids are killed with cars then with guns.If they want to tell the truth they should say WE HAVE TO CONTROL THE GUNS BEFORE WE CAN CONTROL THE PEOPLE.

  492. Well I just forced myself to listen to the state of the union address and i have to say while I was sickened i was not surprised. Once again the anti 2nd amendment faction attempted to shut down logical debate by packing a room with pitiable victims and selective telling of facts. Mr President while the death of the little girl you spoke of is sad tell me she was a resident of the city of Chicago correct? A city run by your party for how many decades? A city with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. And yet this city has a violent crime rate spiraling out of control. Can you logically explain and not with emotional manipulation why we should impose this abject failure on the nation at large?

    1. You know, AK, that they love dancing on graves (of victims of guns only. You don’t see them trying to ban cars, baseball bats, hammers, alcohol, rope, rat poison, cleaver, etc…) More than than one gun-grabber had the audacity, the nerve, to say that “Newton is an opportunity not to be lost. 20,000 gun-laws don’t stop criminals; let’s pass a few more.

  493. Just a quick thank you from a Canadian. I’m what you’d call a left-wing gun nut. I agree with a lot of the political left on social policy… But when it comes to firearms, I’m squarely opposed to the BS bans. We have some of the toughest laws around up here, regarding firearms, most of which are a cross between paranoia and stupidity. That said, it’s ironic to find that the New York anti-“assault weapon” ban recently enacted, would even go after by deer rifle, simply because it LOOKS SCARY. Insane.

    Thanks for the article. it’s about to be shared yet again. 🙂

    Leslea
    Alberta Canada

  494. When friends and family from the neast visit the ranch in TX, they invariably express fear of guns. In Jan, my sister-in-law said she had no interest, was afraid. I broke down a 9MM browning to it’s component parts, handed her the grip. While reassembling it, explained each step of the way how it was a harmless piece of metal until a round was chambered and trigger pulled. Took her through the safety steps, then put her in a shooting station (so she couldn’t whip around pointing a loaded weapon). That woman went through 100 rounds of 9MM and later 38 special ammo. Loved the experience of hitting targets.
    First gun she has ever fired.

    With a knife wielding perp, a CHL holder has the ultimate equalizer for both women as well as men. Only law abiding citizens can get a CHL; any thug will have a weapon.

  495. I really like Colion Noir – his youtube channel is definitely worth subscribing to. I post his videos to facebook and twitter all the time, because he makes really compelling points in favor of gun rights and the format of his videos is great.

  496. MHI is one of my favorite series and I completely agree with your statements…. one thing that I have noticed however when our 2a leaders go on tv is that when the “host” brings in their argument of the UK and Australia they don’t actually break down the stats… good old piers morgan likes to bring up the firearm homocide in merry old england but he doesnt talk about the overall murder rate which has increased… dead is dead… they cant kill people with guns so they use some other method.. all this means is that the law abiding citizen cant protect themselves. on the other hand violent crime in these countries is something like 40% higher than our own

  497. I enjoy, lead to I discovered exactly what I used to be taking a look for.
    You have ended my 4 day lengthy hunt! God Bless you man.
    Have a great day. Bye

  498. As a future handgun owner I’m happy that there are still reasonable people on this planet, capable of fighting for and promoting gun rights!

    Thank you sir.

    1. I’m not really sure what a “WORED” is, but I think I only used 10,000 words for this (which took me 4 hours to write). And if you’ve got 100 words that is going to go viral on the internet and get read by a couple million people, get you on national TV and radio shows to argue your point, and end up being used by a bunch of state legislators to help draft new laws, please, do go for it. 🙂

  499. I’m not sure if I completely agree with you about arming teachers, while I’m not completely against it, I strongly oppose them being thought of as a “front line defense”. I believe it would be much more effective (in multiple ways) to use unemployed veterans to fill security positions at schools. This way we would be able to create employment for unemployed veterans and be able to better protect both our children and educators.

    1. Most school systems don’t even have enough money to update their books or computers. And you want to add more jobs, to that?

      Wishful thinking does not generate the money to pay people, that’s what got many states and school systems into the messes they are in now.

      What Larry proposed in not “arming school teachers” in a mandatory means. Rather allowing teachers to arm themselves if they so choose. If a teacher is properly trained in the use and retention of a firearm they should be allowed to carry. Larry was not talking about forcing them to carry guns.

  500. Larry,

    In case you haven’t seen it Rick Boatright has done some excellent work researching the supposed low murder rates in the UK. It appears that their official crime stats don’t count a murder as a murder unless the crime is solved and the criminal convicted whereas in the US the FBI “murder” stats include pretty much any time someone dies from other than natural causes, suicide, or accident.

    As a result, UK murder numbers are dramatically underreported compared to US stats. By digging into other sources it looks like the murder rate in the UK is actually _higher_ than in the US.

    Of course, “but it’s not gun crime” as if that matters to a dead person.

    One wonders if the statistics for other European nations are equally deceptive (to US readers expecting US reporting standards–in reverse, it would be the US stats that are deceptively _high_ to people expecting the UK reporting standard)?

    Link:

    http://rboatright.blogspot.com/2013/03/comparing-england-or-uk-murder-rates.html

    1. Seriously David? Pardon my language but that’s some bullshit right there. Maybe my caffeine levels are too low right now but from here it looks like some slimeball politician-I know, redundant- decided to deliberately tweak the definition to create a false impression of the actual crime rates. I don’t care what side of the aisle you vote on that’s just underhanded and stupid.

      1. Not really dishonest, just stats that measure something different from what we measure. It does underscore that when making comparisons of statistics you have to be sure that what you’re actually comparing is the same thing. In the UK “murder rate” appears to be a statement about convictions, a perfectly valid statistic but it’s not the same as the US term “murder rate” which basically counts dead bodies that aren’t natural causes, suicide, or accident.

        BTW, since I first read it, Mr. Boatright has edited the page. He more or less retracted the “UK homicide rate is actually higher than the US” and went with a “it’s much higher than reported, and it’s impossible to say if it’s lower or higher than the US because the data for a direct ‘apples to apples comparison is just not available.” (Both these “quotes” are actually paraphrases–don’t want to put words in his mouth).

      1. The problem I have with the proposed “universal” background checks is the same one most Sheriff’s departments have, one of enforceability. The Brady Campaign trots out the statistic that “40% of firearms sales occur without a background check”, and the gun-control pundits are quick to parrot it without further examination (though going to the Brady Campaign for firearms statistics strikes me as being as foolish as going to a Christian Scientist for medical advice). Further, they imply (or allow the ignorant to infer) that all of that 40% is going down at gun shows, which is not true. Out of all gun sales, those occurring without an NICS (for you dyslexic Mark Harmon fans, sorry) check, include:
        17% (out of 100%) between family members
        12% (out of 100%) between friends
        4% (out of 100%) from a gun show (private seller)
        4% (out of 100%) “other”
        3% (out of 100%) through the mail

        Of note, FFL’s selling at gun shows already have to submit a 4473 and do a NICS background check, just as they would at their store. So that 4% gun show figure covers only private sales at gun shows. Currently BAFTE spot checks gun shows, but if a background check requirement is imposed, what will prevent those transactions from occurring in the (unregulated) parking lot? How do the lawmakers propose to enforce requirements for private sellers elsewhere to submit background checks? Felons are already prohibited by law from buying or selling guns (and these are the people the law is ostensibly supposed to inhibit), so how exactly do the lawmakers intend to coerce these folks to submit 4473’s? For mail order weapons, long guns have to be mailed to an FFL, where the purchaser must pass a NICS background check before taking possession.

        There is also a States’ Rights issue of trade regulation, which a Federal background check would infringe. Then there is the fear that a universal background check would lead to a gun registry, though there was language in the proposal to prevent that, at least for now. For those doubters who wonder what all the fuss of a gun registry is about, I refer you to law-abiding gun owner’s having their information “leaked” in New York, as well as British citizens having their guns confiscated in 1997, with the registry established in 1968 as a helpful shopping list. Or the historical fallout of weapons confiscations documented in the film “Innocents Betrayed”.

        sources:
        http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/31/police-chief-johnsons-testimony-40-bypass-background-checks-is-false/
        http://magicvalley.com/hold/fact-checker-do-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/article_844279d8-dde2-5d1c-8336-493fc5ad425b.html
        http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/innocents-betrayed/

    1. A good point, though not perhaps for the reasons you intended. There seems to be an opinion in the gun control crowd (which I am not saying you belong to) that goes along the lines of “we don’t know anything about guns other than that they scare us, but rather than educate ourselves we propose that we deal with our ignorant fear by having the rest of the world bend reality to accommodate our fears.” The proper response to ignorance should be education, not accommodation. I’m not saying everyone should be proficient with guns, but there should be a level of knowledge at least high enough to know how to discharge (or not discharge) a firearm. The four safety rules should be sufficient: 1) always treat a gun as if it is loaded, unless you have immediately verified visually and by feel that the weapon is unloaded 2) Keep your finger off the trigger until and unless you are ready to shoot 3) Don’t point the weapon at anything you aren’t willing to destroy (if unsure, pointing down at the ground or up at the ceiling are good default safety directions, again depending on what floor of the building you are on, and what or who occupies the floor above/below you) 4) identify your target, as well as what is in front of, and behind it. Perhaps the NRA safety spokesman Eddie Eagle’s advice for children is applicable too; Stop, don’t touch, leave the area and tell an adult.

      Along those lines, I have been in a situation similar to the one described in your link, twice. When my father died, we discovered a Luger P08 pistol, along with a Browning .32 pistol and ammunition. My mother is very anti-gun and wanted nothing to do with them. As I lived out of state, and hadn’t begun taking firearms training yet, I didn’t express interest in getting the guns. In the end, my brother (living near my parents) and I took the weapons to a local gun store for appraisal, and he later returned there to sell them. More recently, my wife had a Charter Arms 5 shot .38 revolver that had been damaged to an unknown extent while in storage with Air Force Security Police (we suspect but can’t prove that they attempted to fire +P ammunition through the weapon), and didn’t feel it was safe to fire, negating the option of giving it to a friend. Not wanting to pay the value of the gun to have a gunsmith go over it thoroughly, and also unwilling to sell it at a pawn shop where we might very well find ourselves mugged with the same weapon a few weeks later, we decided to surrender it to local police. Long story short, it took six months of phone tag between the local police, state police and state capitol before I was able to get the local police to accept it (calling the police to tell them you’d like to give an officer a gun leads to its own intricate dance to avoid threatening the officer, yourself, or innocent passers-by, but I’ll spare you that description). For my fellow guns rights advocates, take this into account when forming an opinion on whether the government is coming for your weapons. Different jurisdictions will no doubt react differently, but out here in New Mexico, I couldn’t give away a firearm to the government.

      If you want to get rid of a firearm, the police dept. is a good first stop, but don’t be surprised if they don’t show any interest. At the risk of stating the obvious, the NRA/GOA/NSSF might be good sources of information. If you want to know about guns, it only makes sense to ask the folks who know a lot about guns. A local gun store would be another good source of advice. If you sell to them (provided the paperwork is in order) they won’t be able to sell to anyone without a background check. Without paperwork, they will still probably be able to point you to a local weapon surrender program.

  501. Dear Larry,
    I know I’m late to the party(and I’ll wade through the comments later), but I followed the link to this article from Ace Of Spades, and want to thank you for taking the time to make such an intelligent, reasoned post. It seems especially prescient after Chris Dorner and other events that have happened since you wrote it.

    As a career USN vet, who had to learn how to use a gun, and later, train others as a range master, I did it because it was simply my job. I never owned a gun before, because I didn’t feel I needed to own one to support the 2nd Amendment. But how times change, and I feel I need to take a step on my own, rather than warming myself by the fire of another patriot.

    So, thanks for adding a sane voice to all the noise. I just hope more people will listen to it. Oh, and yes, I’ll be visiting Amazon shortly. I have a Kindle with a lot of free space on it.

  502. A very interesting and though-provoking post. I must note it plays a little lose with some nuances and frankly veers a bit into paranoia about those with whom you disagree politically. A real shame, because much of what you say actually offers some area for compromise between the extremes of “Guns ALWAYS BAD” and “Guns are the ANSWER forever!”

    1. Guns ARE always the answer to a certain problem, just as 4 is always the answer to 2+2. If a man comes in your house with a gun, which do you want to defend yourself with – a gun or a kitchen knife? There is only one correct answer, and you don’t get a second chance.

    2. David, for all of us ordinary folks that don’t deceive ourselves into thinking that DC has the answers and will look after us, it’s not a choice between “the extremes of “Guns ALWAYS BAD” and “Guns are the ANSWER forever!”

      The murderers at the Boston marathon had a running gunbattle with the Boston authorities. The 19 year old was too young to have acquired a permit, the 26 year old never tried. Yet they had handguns and long-guns, along with explosives.

      The Sandy Hook murderer tried to purchase weapons, couldn’t. He killed his mom, then took her guns.

      The Aurora movie shooter found the one theater in the area that wouldn’t allow concealed carry on the premises. Bobby-trapped his apartment and hoped the neighbor or someone else would open the door at midnight, blow themselves up while he was blasting away at the midnight movie.

      The Columbine kids stole the guns (not of age to purchase) and assembled explosives.

      Gabby Giffords shooter probably choose her because of the lack of security; her staff did not want local law enforcement at her outdoor town hall meetings.

      In every single instance, these folks:
      1. broke multiple existing laws
      2. had mental health issues

      So what do the politicos do? Run out to pass another law that only restricts rights of law-abiding folks, without ever addressing the real problem. Enforce current laws and address the mental illness issue. Perhaps even prevent the crazies from roaming the streets looking for their next victims. You want to see how good gun control is, up close, go to Chicago or DC, walk the streets at night. Absent putting a cop on every corner, we are going to address the mental health problems. Maybe even volunteering to go into these inner-city urban areas, mentor some of these kids who still have their faculties but lack adult supervision, ie parents.

      Or maybe just lace the local water supply with Valium.

    3. The problem, Mr. Blue, is that we’ve tried the “area for compromise” time and again. The ink isn’t even dry on the “compromise” (which is really gun owners giving up some of their rights for nothing in return)* before the “gun control” crowd is saying it’s a good “first step” and they need to work on the next restriction. And, when they come up with the next demand, do they credit us with compromising in the past? Nope, it’s always “you gun rights people are never willing to compromise!”

      By this point it’s clear that the “gun control” crowd will never be satisfied. At some point we’ll have to say “no farther”, no more “compromises”. Either that or we’ll have to accept the fact that sooner or later we’ll be “compromised” into our rights going away completely.

      So if we’re going to have to face that choice eventually, why not now? Why should it be some future compromise we reject (where they’ll make the exact same argument) instead of this one?

      Some would, at this point, make the claim that what I’ve just said is “paranoia” that “nobody wants to take your guns.” Well, to that, I offer these “nobodies”: http://coldservings.livejournal.com/51731.html In addition, I ask, can you point to any gun control advocacy group or individual supporting gun control who has ever on any of the many “compromises” that have been made to date and said “that’s enough, any more would be ‘unreasonable'” and switched to working against further restrictions? Anyone? Ever? There have been some who switched sides who started “pro gun control” and, on further reflection or obtaining of further information, decided that gun control didn’t work, or otherwise was a bad idea, but someone who claims to support “reasonable gun control” who then decided that something short of a complete ban met that “reasonable gun control” criteria and went to opposing further restrictions?

      You might find one. Two? Maybe. But I’ll bet you dollars to navy beans you won’t find three.

      *”Compromise” as the “gun control advocated” practice it:
      Mugger: “Give me all your money.”
      Me: No.
      Mugger: “Then give me half your money.”
      Me: No.
      Mugger: “What are you, some kind of fanatic? Why aren’t you wlling to compromise? Look, I compromised by being willing to meet you half way.”

      That’s the “compromise” offered by the anti-gun freedom deniers.

      1. A real compromise would give something back to American citizens in return for taking away our rights.

        As it is, “gun control” does not reduce crime or improve public safety, and only serves to deny freedoms to the people.

        How about this for a compromise – have background checks – “free”, “instant” background checks with no record of why the check is being made – and used for gun transfers, voting, employment eligibility verification, government benefits verification, etc. (because we actually do need to ensure that only law abiding citizens get access to these things).
        In return for us allowing such intrusions into our freedoms, we would – at a minimum – like to have the ability to buy or sell firearms in any state, and use CCW or other permits from any state in any state.

        This means that a Utah carry license would be valid in California, New York, Chicago, or Washington D.C..

        We would also like for guns and ammunition to be exempt from sales taxes – as such taxes are an infringement in our ability to exercise our rights.

        To sweeten the deal, maybe we could also have a tax credit for citizens who attend firearms safety training and who can show that they practice firing their firearms a number of times each year.

        When we are offered things like this in return for giving up our 2nd, and 4th amendment rights on the background check issue, then – and only then – is there a compromise on the table.

        1. I am for many of the things you’ve outlined, but there is a problem with your proposed quid pro quo. That is that unlike reciprocity and benefits verification (again, good ideas), rights are non-negotiable. Something that actually got through my head at SERE was that Geneva Convention rights are always in existence, I can’t sign them away (either deliberately or through deception). Similarly, the right to keep an bear arms can’t be partially negated for political favor. While we do have restrictions on this right, they are for safety, and I suppose acknowledge that no right is absolute or inviolate.

          The problem with universal background checks isn’t (for the most part) cost or time. It is that they will only be submitted to by those who are overwhelmingly not committing gun crimes, and that when these people do submit to them, there is not enough data in the NICS database to catch the few high-risk gun purchasers who actually submit to them. Jared Laughner was kicked out of college because students and faculty were afraid of him, and his parents knew he had some strange toys in the attic too, but nobody put anything about this in the NICS database. Ditto John Holmes. Before you cry “Input all mental health records into NICS and be done with it!” realize that there is some heavy ethical and practical baggage that comes with that idea. Then there are the vast majority of criminals, who just don’t care about one more law to ignore. Adam Lanza didn’t want to wait for Connecticut’s mandatory waiting period, and simply shot his mother to death in her bed and stole her (legally purchased, NICS background check complied with) firearms. None of these homicidal maniacs would have been inhibited in any way by anything the gun control activists are proposing. The bottom line of that fact as far as I can tell is that they are either completely ignorant, and attempting to bend reality to conform to that ignorance, or they are duplicitous, and following Rahm Emanuel’s advice to “never let a good crisis go to waste” in the pursuit of their agenda, again divorced from reality.

          Predation, competition for limited resources, and violent psychopathy are all a part of life, and cannot be legislated away. Reason cannot completely hold sway over these forces. For those rare instances where the innocent are confronted with these threats, there is only one best response. Shoot back.

          1. While background checks do nothing to stop a dedicated criminal, they do provide people with the false sense of security that so many Americans are willing to sell out their birthright for.
            It is nice to think that we live in a fantasy land where our government would never violate or infringe upon our rights, but that just isn’t the world we live in.
            While we know that rights are not absolute (your rights do not trump mine, for example), we do want to maintain as much of them as we can – so if we are having limits put on our 2A rights in one area, it is only proper to regain 2A rights in other areas.

          2. While an absolute position on the 2nd may well be the correct one philosophically, it’s not necessarily the best approach to take tactically. All too often “all or nothing” means getting “nothing.”

            Consider the tactics that have been used against us: always pressing at the edges, obtaining a modest concession here, a small gain there, accepting “compromises” that have just about always been net losses for gun owners. Those tactics have been very successful in use against us. Perhaps “returning the favor” and using them ourselves is not such a bad idea.

            We didn’t get where we are now in one fell swoop and we won’t get back that way either. The antis are always talking about “a good first step.” Well, we need some “good first steps” of our own. And one of them would be to _stop_ the “give me half your money” (hey, at least it’s not all of it . . . this time) “compromises.”

          3. I realize of course that 2nd Amendment rights are neither universal nor absolute. I can’t (nor would I want to) own a nuke, chemical or biological weapon (though with a clean record, and enough time, money and paperwork, I can own a flamethower, mortar, machine gun and tank). Convicted felons are denied the right to own a firearm, even though this to some degree shuts the door on reforming their ways. Ex-cons are threatened by violence too, and arguably more so than the average citizen. I don’t have a better answer for the time being though, and consider the odds of recidivism to outweigh the imposition on their rights. Background checks too, infringe on the absolute, but have had more benefit than detriment, even as compromised as their implementation has been. I guess a better way of expressing myself would have been to oppose offering concessions to the gun control crowd that would be ineffective other than to occupy a spot in somebody’s score column of give and take. Of course this same attitude is largely responsible for the perpetual gridlock in Congress these days.

            I like the idea of turning their “death by a thousand cuts” strategy back on them, but the best I can offer to their “if it can save just one life” false dichotemy is the equally rhetorical question; “How many rapes are you willing to trade for that one life? How many undefended assaults? How many lethal home invasions? Not just those that would have been directly resisted by citizens with firearms, but how many more intangible ‘crimes not prevented’ due to the perception in the criminal population that lacking a viable possibility of encountered resistance, there is no reason for restraint?” It starts entering into the arena of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” in that facts and data will be lacking for hypothetical crime. Then again, that lack of data hasn’t slowed the gun control crowd down so far. The nonsense spewing out of the mouths of liberal Colorado legislators recently is proof positive of that.

    1. Yeah, except for that whole let he who doesn’t have a sword sell his cloak and buy one part. Personally I believe my loving creator didn’t create me to be a useless namby-pamby idiot, floating through life banking on the mercy of others, so I carry a gun.

      “They belive their brothers are out to get them,” – well, duh. I missed the part where Jesus came back and we’ve got peace on earth now and mankind has ceased to use their free agency to commit sins of violence.

      And not to muddy the waters, but since you’re a Christian Liberal, you probably have some other things you need to reconcille in your personal philosophy first before you assume that everyone who owns guns lacks faith. I’m sure Christ just loves that whole abort all the pesky babies stuff. I recall another bit about millstones, necks, oceans. Something like that.

      Freaking hippies.

    2. CLib, the Bible also tells us God granted mankind freewill. To make good as well as bad choices. To chose to do harm to others or to do good works.

      You chose to be a lamb, and good for you. As long as a “first responder” (don’t you like the pc wording for police) is close by, you should be fine. I spent enough time growing up in the country to learn to hunt, fish, build fence lines, tend livestock, dress a wound, and handle firearms. Try a year north of the Arctic circle if you think the only concern of handgun owners is other folks. Or on ranch land in TX when your livestock is being attacked by coyote or cougar (we have lost calves, poultry and pets).

      So whether law abiding folks in the urban areas chose to own or not own a handgun, it’s between you and your conscience. BTW, in Houston, a large percentage of the population has concealed carry, with your home and car also being permit/registration free zones for handguns. You don’t know if the woman crossing the parking lot has a ccp, but there is an excellent chance she does. You can’t carry openly a weapon in public, felons can’t possess a firearm (or get a ccp), nor can a ccp holder take a weapon into a bar, sporting venue, amusement park, hospital, school, or federal building. That’s about it. I can take my concealed into the state capital building. CCP screening is thorough, only the good guys can get ’em.

      I think our homicide rate reflects favorably with other large metro areas with low murder rates. Much lower than DC or Chicago. For some reason, we don’t have much in the way of gang violence either. Folks tend to be civil when the woman next to you may have a gun in her purse.

    3. Personally, I see a gun as one tool among several. Like the locks on my house and car, my fire extinguisher ,my seatbelt when I drive or simply maintaining an awareness of my surroundings. Despite a past that would convince anyone with a brain that the world is an ugly place full of people who will, at the slightest opportunity fuck you over and do you real lasting harm I believe that the overwhelming majority of people are good, decent folk I’d probably be friends with if we had the chance to sit down and chat. But the presence of good people in the world doesn’t preclude the presence of bad ones. And availing yourself of the tools to keep the bad ones from harming you is neither living in fear nor a sign that you don’t believe in a higher power. It’s simply a sign that while you would rather live a peaceable, drama-free life you’re prepared to deal with matters should trouble come looking for you. Remember; most faiths have some version of “God helps those who help themselves” among their teachings

    4. Hmm…so I guess that whole standing up to Nazism, imperial Japan, fascist Italy, communism, and many other dictatorships with force and firearms was just a lack of faith on our part. Sorry, but I am a Christian and a conservative!

      Most liberal ideologies are at odds with Christian tenets, such as prohibition for homosexual behavior and other sexual immoralities, abortion, opposing capital punishment, and theft of my wealth via a socialistic state to give to those who will not work.

      Self defense is a divine right if you see the value of innocent human life. As Larry points out, you should check out Luke 22:36 on this.

      As a “liberal” Christian, you may feel good about yourself, but you are NOT following Christian commandments and principles.

  503. I really like Larry’s response (“…freaking hippies”), but I’ll add this:

    Christianliberal’s comment reminds me of the joke about the devout Christian drowning in a flood. While treading water he prays to God for salvation. A short time later, a boat of rescuers floats by, but he waves them off, shouting “I have prayed to God, and have faith that he will save me!” Confused, they sail on, and a short time later a rescue helicopter flies by. Again the man waves them off, shouting above the din that “God will save me.” Finally, just before he goes under for the third time, rescuers on a nearby dike throw him a life preserver with a line attached, but again the man insists “I have faith that God will answer my prayer and save me!” Shortly thereafter he drowns of course, and being a devout Christian with a good soul, he finds himself in Heaven. There, he meets God and asks “Lord, I prayed for you to save me. Why did you forsake me?” To which God replies “I sent you a boat, a helicopter and a life preserver. What were you waiting for?”

    There are people on Earth who do not live by the golden rule. Predation, competition for limited resources and psychopathy are all very real parts of this world, and relying on divine intervention to protect you from them is not a recipe for longevity. Then again, God makes guns, too (and for the Christian Scientists out there, he also makes doctors and pharmaceuticals).

    1. Larry,

      I too, am an author. Seven times over to be exact.

      About 30 years ago I first published a book entitled: Florida’s Distinguished Shooters.

      The first recorded pistol shooter from Florida is listed as having earned a Distinguished title in 1923. The first recorded Distinguished rifle shooter from Florida is listed as having earned a Distinguished title in 1929.

      Therein are bio’s and (to date) 146 photographs of Florida’s Distinguished Shooters. Multiple Florida shooters have competed at the Olympic level.

      Too bad that Florida’s Distinguished shooters know little, if anything, about the publication, after all, it’s all about them.

      A free copy to you for the asking. Need an address + ZIP.

      Jim Perkins

  504. I for one see no point in passing anymore gun laws. The only people that follow laws are law abiding citizens, not criminals. Don’t think for a moment that they won’t find guns if they want them. I’ve heard so many people say that they think all guns should be banned in the USA. Take into consideration drugs, they are illegal, yet you can buy them on any street corner. A huge black market would open up to cater to this new demand.

  505. I think most of the posters need to take a deep breath and calm down.
    We are talking about minor changes to already existing gun controls.
    Most of the shooting tragedys are commited by people with extremely low intelligence or other mental issues ,these are the people the new gun controls aim to target NOT normal citizens.
    Companys like the NRA see a threat to there profits and start sreaming about liberals trying to disarm you and leave you at the mercy of screaming hords, and you believe them!. Goodness me people you have your own brains, use them.
    And Larry, yes you have a small penis and a big gun helps you compensate but again, minor changes to gun laws will not change either of these facts, calm down.

    1. So much wrong. Where to begin, oh where to even begin?

      1. The whole take a deep breath and calm down thing. Another typical liberal argument where they try to dismiss their opponents without debate because they are angry or upset. Which is especially ironic since they are side depending on emotional decisions. Plus that assumes people are even angry at all, and totally ignores the concept of righteous anger.

      2. In December when I wrote this we were not talking at all about “minor changes”. That is a historical revision on your part. In December congress and the president were floating new bans and national registrations. These were all defeated and broken because the American people got angry. See #1.

      3. The NRA isn’t a “company”. They are a non profit lobbying organization. The vast majority of their money and resources come from their regular membership. These records are viewable because they are a non profit lobbying organization. The NRA is made up of five million regular Americans who believe strongly enough in the subject to donate money.

      But once again, somebody urging people to think with their brains doesn’t have time to check actual facts! That’s crazy talk!

      4. You are correct. I am compensating. My penis is entirely incapable of hurling a 230 grain lead projectile at 850 feet per second, and thus is completely insufficient for self defense use. 🙂

      So… Let’s see… Outright lies, historical revisionism, a couple standard liberal arguing tactics, and closing it all off with a dick joke, all in a single post. Bravo! You must not have read the thousands of comments above where people on your side–a whole lot smarter and more eloquent than you–did a much better job debating. You should probably shut up now and let them argue for you, because you’re certainly not doing your side any favors.

      1. I don’t think it’s that fair to say that “calm down” is a “liberal tactic”. Republicans/Conservatives use the same thing – when liberals were emotional over the Newtown stuff, Republicans/Conservatives were all over the air saying we can’t make an emotional decision, and that bringing children and school violence into it was unfairly trying to make people emotional. Framing it as a liberal tactic is not only totally unfair, it’s ignorant. Both sides are guilty of it.

        Also – I think the point about the NRA is that while they are a non-profit organization, they are one of the biggest lobbies in America, and are greasing many a politician. I’ve read articles about NRA leadership, and a lot of what I see is they know there’s money to be made, and they go ahead an make it. I honestly do not believe the NRA as an organization cares about the 2nd Amendment so much as the top cares about earning money. That’s not to say members of the organization don’t care about 2nd Amendment rights, but when 90% of Americans an 60 of 100 Senators want or vote for something, it seems to me like that should pass. The NRA is a lobby with enormous power.

        1. “One of the biggest lobbies in America.”

          No. They aren’t. Unions, to give just one example, donate more far more money to politicians than does the NRA.

          What the NRA does bring is _votes_, people who _care_ about NRA A and A- ratings and vote accordingly.

          “90% of Americans”

          Another myth. The survey that is quoted from is 1) deeply flawed and 2) terribly outdated. Support for additional gun control has been steadily falling since its peak shortly after Sandy Hook. Oh and 3) based on false information. Many people think “stricter gun control laws” but the laws they have in mind (for instance, requiring dealers to perform background checks at gun shows) are _already_ the law. A dealer has to perform the same background check at a gunshow as he does at his shop. There is no “gun show loophole.” People telling you otherwise have been lying to you.

          Also, you might want to consider that such support as there _is_ for gun control is weak–only 4% of American think “gun control” is the number one priority–while folk who support Freedom and the Right to Choose (see what I did there?) are quite energized. The post vote “protest” in DC had less than 100 people, _including_ the press there to cover it. The protest outside the NRA convention? Single digits.

          I’ve seen more people protesting the local planned parenthood clinic up the street from where I live on any given Saturday.

          Arguments based on false premises are, ipso facto, false.

          1. First of all, I didn’t say that the NRA was the biggest lobby in America. I said it is ONE OF the biggest. Just because Unions spend more does not mean what the NRA spends is not significant. Reading what I actually wrote might be helpful. So yes, I am correct. The NRA is a big lobby, one of the biggest in the United States, and they grease a ton of pockets.

            And there IS a gunshow loop hole, because a private citizen not calling himself a dealer can sell without doing a background check. Forcing “dealers” to perform background checks is only effective if you define who is and is not a dealer. It’s a clever little play on words that Republicans and Democrats are quite good at (referring to, for example, “small businesses” during the last election but not defining what is and is not a “small business” – which, under Romney’s plan, would have been businesses grossing less than a quarter million in profit per year).

            In short, requiring background checks for dealers doesn’t do a thing if a person selling the gun doesn’t meet the criteria of a dealer. You are the one who is mislead, or at best fooled into believing that simply saying dealers must perform checks is effective if you do not properly or adequately define “dealer”.

            I do understand that the 90% does not prioritize which rights are important (and which are not), but if the NRA wants to talk about fairness, shouldn’t the fact that a majority of senators voted in favor of the new law mean something? Every other civilized democracy on earth uses the 51% standard, but the NRA chooses to ignore that most Americans on this issue are not on their side.

          2. 1. Dealer is defined, rather strictly by the BATFE. Everything you just said on that topic is incorrect because this is clearly codified, and I say that as a former FFL and Title 7 SOT.

            Private sellers may sell their personal firearms at a gunshow, just like they can sell them in their house, at their job, or in the parking lot of Burger King. One of the common things the ATF does at gunshows (and the ATF is undercover at every gunshow) is to watch for private sellers who they believe are engaging in the actual business and not just selling their personal collection. If this is the case then the BATF will stop them or they have to become FFLs.

            So once again, there is no such thing as a gunshow loophole, and when people use it they are talking about private individuals selling their private property without government oversight. You can say somebody is mislead all you want, but I know the actual laws and how the codes are enforced and you’re full of crap, as dealer status is clearly defined.

            2. On a side note, the term small business is also already codified, and as a retired accountant and person who has worked with the SBA, you’re incorrect on that topic also.

            3. The NRA ignores 51% of the (democratically controlled) senate? What huh? That is one of most nonsensical comments I’ve ever seen since the Constitution sets the rules as to how the congress functions. The NRA is a lobbying organization that lobbys on the behalf of its membership, and the NRA’s membership clearly disagrees with 51% of the senate. Planned Parenthood clearly disagrees with the majority of the republican controlled congress, doesn’t mean they are going to stop doing what they are doing now does it. Duh.

            Luckily we live in a constitutional republic where I don’t have to give a crap what 51% of anything thinks, nor do I have to care about the idealistic and nebulous concept of “fairness”. Thank God.

          3. 1. The term “Dealer” was just an example, not to necessarily discern the rule. There is also an issue about what it means to be “engaged in the business”, which yes creates the gun show loophole. The argument about closing it has to do with more specifically defining the terms. Can you stop a private citizen from going to some criminal’s house and selling him a gun? Of course not. Not sure how that means any and all gun sales by any person to any person should be legal.

            We all want what’s best for this country, and that I think we can agree is to not put guns in the hands of bad guys. Some of us believe that the best way to do that is to make sure any and all legal sales of guns are not to criminals, whether you want to say it’s in the law or not the fact is a loophole does exist and tightening of language is required. You believe the best way to do that is wait for a bad guy to draw a gun and have your gun out faster and more efficiently. IF that’s what you want we can have that debate, but I think we need to stop pretending that making sure a criminal isn’t buying guns legally is the

            2. Small business under Romney’s plan was NOT defined in the legislation. While Small Business is defined in some laws, Romney’s proposed tax breaks altered the definition of small business, but that’s neither here nor there in this instance. But you’re wrong on that front.

            3. Well, the NRA DOES care about the 51% thing.

            Ted Cruz at the NRA convention of 2013 on a gun rights bill he tried to propose: “That bill got 52 votes in the Senate including nine democrats…and what happened? Harry Reid and the rest of the democrats filibustered the deal, killed it, demanding sixty votes” (boos from the NRA crowd).

            So yes, your buddies in the NRA do care about whether 51% of senators voted for or against something. Nobody’s saying that the NRA should stop doing what they are doing – but let’s be realistic. People by and large are not in favor of what the NRA wants, and if this is a democracy shouldn’t democracy rule?

            Or do you only care about preserving this country’s government when it suits your interests as a gun owner?

          4. “one of the biggest”

            Declared so by fiat. If you want to make that claim, rank the number of lobbies out there and show where the NRA falls in that list. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

            “because a private citizen not calling himself a dealer.”

            Whether one calls oneself a dealer or not if one is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms, especially if one does so at gun shows where ATF agents and local law enforcement have a strong presence just _looking_ for violations.

            And a private individual selling ones personal property while not engaged in the business of firearms dealing is able to do so at a gun show–exactly the same as they can do it anywhere else. “Gun show” has nothing to do with it.

            “only effective if you define who is and is not a dealer” and the ATF does just that–someone engaged in the business of selling firearms. If you buy or build a gun for your own use then later turn around and sell it, that’s one thing. If you buy or build guns for the express purpose of selling them, that’s a whole other ballgame and the ATF does look for that, does find it, and does prosecute it. Your “if” has been done by the ATF.

            So dealer _is_ adequately defined. Your shot in the dark misses.

            “Shouldn’t the fact that the majority of senators voted in favor of the law mean something.”

            It does mean something, it means that the majority of Senators don’t care about their oath to the Constitution.

            The whole _point_ of a Constitution and a Bill of Rights is that certain things are _not_ up for popular vote. The US was created that way for a reason.

            As for “the rest of the world” type arguments. We fought a war because we _didn’t_ want to be part of “the rest of the world” and wanted to build our nation differently. So no. Don’t buy “the rest of the world does it that way” as a reason why we should do something that way. I quote:

            “Doesn’t matter what the press says. Doesn’t matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn’t matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else; the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tel you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree next to the river of truth and tell the whole world ‘No, YOU move.'” (I love Cap.)

          5. Well, according to DC v. Heller:

            Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

            So our Supreme Court has said the 2nd amendment is NOT unlimited. So yes, Senators are allowed to vote on it.

          6. “have been upheld”

            Just like “Separate but equal” was upheld, right up until it wasn’t. Likewise, the Fugitive Slave Laws were also upheld, right up until they became moot.

            But even giving you that argument, that some restrictions are Constitutional does not mean that any given restriction is.

            Considering the number of AR and AK pattern rifles in private hands now, they would certainly qualify as “in common use at the time”.

            “Historical tradition”. Not so “historical.” Invented in 1934. “Supported” by a decision where _only_ the government’s side of the case was heard (Miller) by the court. That’s not much of a tradition.

            See the following for your “tradition”:

            http://coldservings.livejournal.com/52096.html

            (Which also, not coincidentally, completely demolishes the “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” argument on “restrictions on rights.”)

            The US was set up from the start not to rely on a simple 50% plus one vote. You might want to consider that there is a reason for that. And until you can explain why it was set up that way and why some very smart individuals who were quite familiar with the idea of simple majority rule eschewed it and why the more restrictive approach was, to them, a good idea, then perhaps you don’t understand it well enough to legitimately claim that 50% plus one vote is necessarily better.

  506. “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” – Edmund Burke

    “We are always trying to convert people to a belief in our own explanation of the universe. We think that the more people there are who believe as we do, the more certain it will be that what we believe is the truth. But it doesn’t work that way at all.” – Paulo Coelho (from The Pilgrimage)

    60% of Americans think ESP is real, and 70% believe that magnetic therapy works. If the majority is ignorant or just plain wrong, it doesn’t change reality.

    Keith, I’m going to follow my pretension of quotes with further pretension and give you homework. First, correctly define “Conformation Bias”. You’ve read a lot of articles about the NRA. Why do I think that none of them were written by members of the NRA? Why do gun controllers assume they are qualified to weigh in on gun control, despite repeated demonstrations that they know nothing about the subject? It makes about as much sense as putting a Christian Scientist in charge of HHS. For further homework, I want you to go out and (legally) buy a gun, take training from an accredited instructor, and (legally) sell the gun. Then come back and tell us how fraught with loopholes the whole process is. It shouldn’t be too hard, Cho passed a background check, as did Laughner. Holmes passed three. Lanza couldn’t be bothered with Connecticut’s additional waiting period, and just shot his mother dead in her bed and stole her guns (purchased legally, with background checks) instead. The gun control lobby won’t tell you that though, because it undermines their belief that guns are evil. As for no one coming to get our guns, that was the argument the gun-grabbers in Connecticut and New York used. No, they didn’t confiscate any weapons, they just put an expiration date on the 2nd Amendment. I can’t wait for that to be challenged in court.

    There seems to be a belief in the liberal east that by some mystical transitive property, Judeo-Christian standards of nagging and guilt can be applied to the criminal population, and that compliance can be assured through sheer weight of paper. Lanza broke an estimated 47 laws on his rampage. What makes you think 48 is the magic number? The combined total of Federal, State and Local gun control laws already exceeds 10,000. Paper cannot always protect you. When reason does not hold sway, force is the only means left to defend oneself. Whether applied on an individual or national level, that is why our founding fathers included the 2nd Amendment, right after the 1st, in the bill of rights.

    As a side-dig at Bill Maher, who thinks opposing tyranny is “quaint” and “ridiculous”, yes I guess the thought of a couple thousand guys with small arms holding off the combined might of NATO does seem a little silly…oh, wait.

    Have you stopped to consider why gun controllers only come out of the woodwork after mass shooting tragedies? It’s because their arguments won’t stand up to scrutiny in less emotionally charged times. Nothing being proposed (Feinstein’s 2013 AWB, universal background checks, magazine limits) would have had ANY affect on the recent mass shooters the gun control lobby is seeking to exploit emotionally. They’re hoping that an ignorant American public will be too emotionally riled to notice, and you seem to be complying nicely. I know you think you’re bravely carrying the standard of gun control in a forum of gun nuts, but you’re not. You’re offering opinion as fact, and when you get called on it, you’re changing the subject to another you’re equally ignorant of, lather rinse repeat. Do yourself a favor, type less, read more and educate yourself on the topic so you don’t come off sounding like a tool.

    Sources:
    http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/SmartPeople.htm
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/5/bill-maher-ridiculous-quaint-think-2nd-amendment-c/
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/04/connecticut-senate-approves-gun-control-bills-sends-to-house/
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/us/new-york-gun-bill

    1. Greg,

      Just to quibble on one point, I am what many liberals quaintly refer to as a “gun nut”. The definition of that term in their parlance is anyone who is interested in the ownership, maintenance, and operation of firearms. If you allow their definition any credance (which is admittedly a stretch), then yes this is a forum full of “gun nuts”.

      That being said, I would much rather spend my time talking and hanging out with “gun nuts” than any group of liberal know nothing self important effete douchebags out there.

      I hope that clarifies things a bit.

  507. Sorry, I didn’t mean to legitimize the term. My intention was to use it satirically as part of a consistent statement of Keith’s ignorance.

    I’d have answered sooner, but was hanging out with my own group of “gun nuts” last night at our weekly “Choir Practice” with our instructor at the local range. Last night was flashlight drills.

    1. What a great article to classify and educate everyone on the nature of firearms and their uses.
      While I do not agree with everything such as high cap magazines as its my military experience that a mag change does give you an opportunity to reposition or retreat in a tactical advantage. Gun laws should regulate storage and trigger safety in the same dwelling as children or at risk people.
      I notice that it seems the most inaccurate and rhetorical themed comments are from what I might call fanatics. You do your side no favors when you just spout out or repeat errors and misinformation.
      It’s like showing up at a battle of wits unarmed! Lol

      1. “…as its my military experience that a mag change does give you an opportunity to reposition or retreat in a tactical advantage.”
        So more frequent mag changes=good? Is anyone in the military chomping at the bit to go back to an 8 round en bloc clip?

        “Gun laws should regulate storage and trigger safety in the same dwelling as children or at risk people.”

        Bathtubs, buckets and toilets drown hundreds of children every year, is anyone mandated by law to lock these down?
        “…at risk people.” Now that is a wonderfully vague term I’m sure anti-gun proponents would just love to see codified into law.

        1. And your military experience has absolutely nothing in common with a civillian gunfight. What ranges are you engaging at that you enjoy having the time to change a mag and maneuver? Since the average civillian gun fight takes place at just past conversational distance, and you’re usually by yourself with a twenty of your closest friends with M-4s to provide you with cover, no thanks. You are making assumptions about how other people’s violent encounters will unfold based upon your bias.

          I want more rounds so that I have to manipulate less, not so I can shoot more.

          The problems inherant with safe storage laws could take up a whole ‘nother great big article. In brief, where they exist, they don’t work. They are just one more hurdle to allowing people to defend themselves. In places with jackass leadership, “safe” quickly comes to mean in a state that is pretty much totally useless for self defense. And once again, criminals don’t give a shit. My home area has a fairly legendary case about some children who were butchered my a lunatic with a pitchfork, even though the oldest kid knew how to shoot and tried to access her father’s firearm, but it was locked up according to California law.

          “At risk people”. I’m sure that will be defined with the same strict criteria the IRS uses. 😉

  508. “The US banned assault rifles once before for a decade and the law did absolutely nothing. I mean, it was totally, literally pointless. The special commission to study it said that it accomplished absolutely nothing”

    that is wrong. The reason the commission came up with no decline is because the legislation (dictated by the NRA) only allowed a study of the FIRST YEAR after the legislation took effect. Natuarlly there was little effect. OTHER studies done over the full ten years the legislation was in effect showed a 30% drop in use of those weapons, all attributable to making them harder to get.

    So, please use real fact, not those ginned up by the NRA.

    1. Fewer people were killed with rifles of all types (let alone “assault weapons”) than were killed with bare hands.

      If, magically, all crimes committed using “assault weapons” were to magically go away (and there were no “substitution effect”–folk simply using something else to commit the same crime–let alone “bad guys” getting the illegal weapons anyway) the difference would be lost in the statistical noise.

      There simply isn’t enough crime committed with “assault weapons” for any such ban to have a significant effect on crime rates.

      Those are the real facts.

    2. Joe, don’t rely on the gun control crowd as your only source of information. It’s like going to a Christian Scientist for an appendectomy. The updated report on the effectiveness of the 1994-2004 AWB is here:
      https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf
      and says that either the AWB had no effect, or that there wasn’t enough data to determine any effect. Note that the report is posted on the National Criminal Justice Reference Service website, and the NRA had nothing to do with it (Brady, VPC et.al. won’t tell you about that, either). As thewriterinblack points out, there is so little criminal use of “assault weapons” as to make any legislation affecting them relatively ineffective. If they’re less than %.01 of gun crime, then nothing affecting them is going to have any perceptible effect on gun crime. Cold comfort to those relatively few victims, but I wouldn’t describe exploiting their tragedies to mislead the general public to further a political agenda as “comforting” either.

    3. Oh yes and as we have seen after the Federal Assault Weapons ban lapsed murder rates just skyrocketed up didn’t they? Oh wait…

  509. “up to and including a tyrannical government.”

    This line of argument alone proves a person to be completely delusional about what they will use a gun for. Total paranoid delusional fantasy.

    1. “Total paranoid delusional fantasy.”

      Right, right, right, right, right.

      Because “It can’t happen here”?

      http://coldservings.livejournal.com/50207.html

      Or maybe because Madison (the guy who actually wrote the 2nd Amendment–with input from others, certainly, but he was the one who set quill to parchment) didn’t write in the Federalist Papers that 1) The Militia was intended as a check against Federal power and 2) that the numbers he cited for the militia meant, quite clearly and incontrovertibly, the whole of the people able to bear arms. Except, wait, he did.

      http://coldservings.livejournal.com/50537.html

      1. That’s crazy paranoid talk. Next you’ll be saying that the government would be collecting all of our email and phone records, screwing with the free press, and using giant federal agencies to harrass citizens with opposing view points! Get out of here with your outlandish fantasies!

    2. Yes, the thought of a couple thousand guys with small arms holding off the combined might of NATO is just silly…
      Not meant to be a statement of political right and wrong in Afghanistan, merely an observation of tactical reality to the naysayers who doubt the ability of 80 million American gun owners to oppose tyranny should it rear its ugly head (more obviously than the current climate of NSA data dragnets and IRS targeted obstruction).

        1. As I’ve often put it:

          “Isn’t it strange that the people who say that lightly armed irregulars, in the US, cannot win against the US Military are the same people who say that the US military cannot win against lightly armed irregulars in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and, oh, yes, Vietnam.”

      1. Not to mention the fact that a shot need not even be fired. Where are they going to put 80 million people? In jail?

      2. Well sans the U.S. and maybe Great Britain the combined military might of NATO isn’t all that impressive.anyway.

  510. Larry, slightly off-topic, but I just escaped the SF bay area in ole Cali to come (back) to Utah, and I’m excited to get some firearms training. Do you happen to still teach CFP classes in Utah? If so, can I get in on one of your classes (pretty please)? If not, can you recommend a good instructor? If it helps, I’m in Lehi (yay, happy valley).

    1. I gave up my certs last year. Go onto my Facebook friends list and find Wes Dahl. He used to be my assistant, and he still teaches a lot.

  511. Excellent article, thank you. I have often noticed in the wake of a terrible shooting crime, the knee jerk reaction is to limit any future possibility of realistic future response. Very much like calling for the abolition of the armed forces in the face of foreign aggression.
    Unfortunately, I’m not aware of any reasoned, peer reviewed, widely circulated study by opponents of gun control, such as myself, outlining a program with demonstrable effectiveness. The centerpiece of such a study would be an exhaustive list of the type of episodes you outlined in your article.
    Thanks Again.

  512. You might get a new wave of angry posters. Someone posted a meme and a bunch of people were posting that “signs don’t stop shootings, crazy people can’t read”. In reference to “gun free” vs “armed and willing to defend” signs.

    So I posted a link to this thread. I figure most of there questions can be answered here far better than I could do over on FB.

  513. No argument from me, I’ve been hearing the same crap my entire life.

    Just Saturday, someone pulled the “more likely to be killed by a friend or family member” statistic out of their butt. Funny, they’d never heard where that statistic came from, they’d never wondered because of their conformation bias. Now that they do know, I expect it will be a while before they use it again and then act surprised when they get called on it. Again.

    1. Bob Robertson, I’m curious about this – is there some support for the notion that we *aren’t* more likely to be murdered by someone we know or are related to?

      Or to put it a different way, that murders by people unknown to the deceased aren’t a minority of cases?

      Last I saw, only about 20% of murders (where the assailant is known of course) are done by someone who’s a stranger to the dead person.

      1. You just did it right there. The equivocation fallacy. Conflating “friend or family member” with “someone we know.

        In a drug deal gone bad, the parties are usually known to one another “someone we know.”

        In a gang war the sides generally know each other. “Someone we know.”

        An abusive ex comes back and things “get out of hand.” Someone we know.”

        All of those get pulled in to that “a gun is more likely to…” BS but does not support the contention that a gun is more likely to be used to kill one of our loved ones than to kill in self defense.

        But wait, as they say, there’s more. Notice what else is done there with that “statistic”. It only counts defensive uses that end with a dead bad guy. In the majority of defensive uses, the gun is not even fired. And in the majority of cases where a gun is fired at a person–defensively or otherwise–the “target” is not killed. So the vast majority of defensive uses of firearms are not counted in that “statistic.”

        Note that the lowest estimate of defensive gun uses, the NCVS performed by the Department of Justice, is on a par with the total number of crimes committed by guns and far greater than the total number of homicides committed using a gun. The NCVS has been criticizes for serious flaws causing it to under count defensive gun uses and most estimates run from half again to twice as high. But we’ll go with the NCVS numbers for now for sake of demonstrating the point. Those two numbers–number of gun defenses and number of homicides committed with a gun–demonstrate that the gun is used far more often defensively than to kill anyone, let alone “a friend or family member.”

  514. @thewriterinblack: I concede that I kinda wandered away from the “friends and family are more likely to kill you” trope and broadened it to include “someone you know is more likely to kill you.” My bad. I plead insufficient caffeination.

    It does seem difficult to tease out how the stats are constructed – who is an “acquaintance” versus a “friend?” If someone buys a dime bag from a drug dealer, does that make them “acquaintances?”

    However, I wasn’t really interested in the “your gun is more likely to be used to shoot you or a family member” argument, or a dissection of defensive gun use (a subject in which the “statistics” seem to be more conjecture than anything). I was just looking at the broader discussion of who murders who, which is what it seemed Mr Robertson was actually talking about.

    This document, from 2008:

    http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

    Shows 22% of all murders being committed by a spouse or family member. Of those, 51% involved a firearm – 11.22% of the total.

    This FBI webpage: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html

    Says there were 14,180 murders in the US in 2008. Doing the math, that yields ~1591 spouse/family murders committed with a firearm that year.

    >>In a drug deal gone bad, the parties are usually known to one another “someone we know.”

    >>In a gang war the sides generally know each other. “Someone we know.”

    I have a couple problems with this:

    1) It contains unsupported assumptions about the quality of thugs’ personal relationships. They may in fact “know” each other, but again, it’s difficult to ascertain how the term is defined. This might seem like rhetorical hair-splitting, but I think in any sort of research of societal phenomena it’s very important to have labels be well-defined and specific.

    2) I can’t find info that supports this (or doesn’t). I would love to see it either way.

    >>An abusive ex comes back and things “get out of hand.” Someone we know.”

    I don’t see how you could label an ex-partner anything BUT “Someone known to the victim.” Are you implying it’s a stretch to label the relationship as such?

    1. Most murders are are either “business” or “crimes of passion.” (The psychopath killing for amusement or what have you is the rarity.) To get that level of passion, to get the level of hate, even for a moment, required to end another person’s life, generally, ironically enough, requires a degree of closeness. So, yeah, a lot of murders are people who, at least at one time, were “close” to the person murdered. That really has nothing to do with guns. Under such circumstances it’s not that difficult to find a way to kill if that is what one wants. I mean a woman once killed a man by setting his bed on fire. (I happen to remember that one because of the “based on” movie.) Could as easily have been poisoning the food or stabbing him in his sleep both of which happen often enough.

      The use of gun for same is no more relevant than noting that of people who die of complications due to diabetes, the vast majority have insulin in the house. Should we, then, blame insulin for the deaths? Consider the possibility that people who are under specific threats of violence might be more likely to acquire guns than the average person.

      I submit that the problem is not guns, but violence. At best the presence or absence of guns leads to a substitution effect. If they have a gun they’ll use it (or not; some folk have a gun but still use something else to commit murder). If not, they’ll use something else.

      Now, on to the specifics:

      “They may in fact ‘know’ each other, but again, it’s difficult to ascertain how the term is defined.”

      And that is the problem. They don’t define the term. But to get the “43 times as likely” number from the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned Kellerman study requires that they define it pretty broadly.

      “but I think in any sort of research of societal phenomena it’s very important to have labels be well-defined and specific.”

      Don’t tell me, tell the folk who do and report that slipshod and highly biased research.

      “I don’t see how you could label an ex-partner anything BUT ‘Someone known to the victim.’ Are you implying it’s a stretch to label the relationship as such?”

      I’m not implying anything. I’m flat out stating that it’s disingenuous at best to include such in the “x times more likely to…” when it could well count on _both_ sides. Woman assaulted by an abusive ex (that restraining order being merely a piece of paper). Clearly self defense. But it also gets counted as “friend or family member” (which “known to the shooter” invariably morphs into after an iteration or two.)

      The fact remains that there are more defensive gun uses, even using the _lowest_ estimate of same than all homicides committed using guns _combined_, by almost two orders of magnitude.

      The “a gun in the home is more likely to…” is complete and utter kark.

  515. Greetings,

    Just an odd note that occurred to me recently. How many families of the current politicians made large fortunes running guns (and alcohol) during the 1920s? I know that the Kenedy and Bush family did, and I came across some less-verifiable rumours about a bunch of the other currently elected officials. Makes you wonder if they ache to get back in the business. Wasn’t a recent Senate candidate a known gun-runner? How many of our current political families have profited from illegal gun traffic, and therefore in their best interest to pass laws to encourage further illegal profits? I don’t (currently) own a gun (since my state is … somewhat draconic about it) but when I’ve lived in other places, the expectation that one is armed, and if one isn’t armed, the person standing next to you might be, so you might have a fighting chance.

    Thank you for taking the time to write this.

  516. Larry,

    So you mentioned that you had run the numbers and gotten that 2.5 when stopped by a civilian, 14 when stopped by cops.

    If you still have the spreadsheet that you set up, could you post it publicly somewhere? Because then every time there’s a mass shooting, I could just link this editorial, like that spreadsheet, link Heller (to shoot down the inevitable “just for recreation”), and say “Wouldn’t it be awesome if we had more guns in more places?”

    /Of course, since I’m stereoblind and losing my right eye, I’m firmly in the camp of people that you don’t want to have guns, but it’s still nice to be able to abuse herd immunity like that.

    1. It isn’t my project. If you scroll up through the comments the original article has been linked several times.

  517. Outstanding post, Larry! You did, in slightly shorter form, what I did, and much for the same reason: I wrote a book. It’s called “Knowing Guns.” It’ll never be on the NYT best seller list, but I can order ’em up by the dozens and, when confronted by the same old, tired questions, can hand it to the questioner and say, “here… the answer is here.” I’ve been fighting the good fight for a good, long time now. Best to let the book (or your excellent blog) do the talking for me on the basic stuff, and when the questioners get a bit more educated, I’ll be happy to answer all the questions that are “off the books,” so to speak. I hope you don’t mind, but I’m going to post a link to your blog on my Knowing Guns Facebook page. Thank you for taking the time and effort (and patience) to once again put the facts in an easy-to-digest form for those who need the education!

  518. Thanks for this very informative article.
    I am a liberal pacifist. I am a pacifist because I hate violence. However, I own more guns than I can carry because although I hate violence, I also understand that the only effective response to violence is formidable resistance in kind. I don’t want to end up as someone else’s lunch, so I invest a lot of time and money training to send lead downrange as efficiently as possible.

  519. This is amazing – to find a civil discussion on gun control? On the internet? You, sir are a wizard to have created such a positive and open community.

    1. I too am amazed by this, I strongly feel that Larry takes the time to moderate this consistently which many bloggers and forum managers so not. So I imagine that there are indeed SOME incivility that is removed with due vigilance and diligence. All of this, and the way that Larry’s words helped me to come to an internal understanding of guns and their place in society at a crucial time in the development of such in my psychology, is why I am still a quiet and subtle member of the group that maintains involvement in this blog.

  520. I know pretty much exactly every single thing an anti-gun person can say

    The only important thing an anti-gun person can say is “don’t shoot”.

    The only constitutional response by a Citizen of the Republic is to say nothing: two to the torso, one to the head.

  521. You also fail to interpret the 2nd correctly:

    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.

    The Militia – being all able-bodied men – is not optional. It is necessary to the security of a free State. Able bodied men, especially those who wish to be accounted Citizens of the Republic necessarily must not only own guns, but carry them and be trained, ready, able, but most of all willing to use them in defence of the free state, that is of the Constitution of the Republic.

    Dems? Gun-Controllers? Communists? Don’t get to vote.
    Really what the 2nd demands they get is two to the torso, one to the head. Or to hang, just the same as George Washington did to ever Loyalist he caught.

  522. Where does the incentive lie for teachers to lay their lives on the line when given a gun?
    Even if a more trained armed security guard were posted in every school, why would Bob on $30,000 dollars a year want to save the day?
    No Guns, no shootings. There are few more simple statements, yet the number of right wing that suggest that more guns, means less shootings is baffling.

    1. I won’t waste much time responding to an old blog post that nobody is reading the comments to anymore, especially for somebody who obviously didn’t read the original article to begin with, but…

      Where is the incentive? Well gee whiz, I know some of you simply can’t be bothered to get involved when children are being murdered, but some of us can. Which is why I said make it voluntary.

      Why would Bob on 30k want to save the day? Uh, he’s not an amoral sociopath or total coward? Why would Pvt. Bob sign up to go to Iraq or Afghanistan and risk his life, or why would Officer Bob of the Local PD sign up at 30k a year to risk his life? Maybe they’re just not cowards like you are?

      And your close is a simple, yet wrong, statement. The problem isn’t the simplicity. The problem is the world has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not give a ship about your cowardly, simplistic, idealistic, asinine view of how things should be.

      1. As an armed teacher, with my ex-Army, Boy Scout leader, right wing world view …I can’t tell you how disappointed I am that human beings can have the attitude you are displaying, Ollie. I don’t need an “incentive” to do the right thing, if I needed an incentive to do good, I wouldn’t bother being a teacher, as there’s not much incentive there, either.

        I dedicate my life to serving others, to help those in need, and to educate our kids so that maybe, someday, our society will be a better place to live. If that requires me to carry a gun and risk my life to stop some nut job from hurting our kids, count me in.

        correia45 nailed it.

      2. I’ll leave aside the statement that not everyone is a pathetic little coward who will willingly let children under their protection die to preserve their own (frankly, worthless to the species) ass. Others here have made that point clear.

        I will refrain from going into detail how, even if the coward could wave his magic wand and instantly eliminate all current examples of a seven or eight hundred year old technology, it wouldn’t change a damned thing, because Home Depot sells all the supplies needed to make two dozen or more very functional shotguns (Aisles 9, 15, and 23) that fit into a BOOKBAG. Others have also made that point.

        I will point out that the biggest school based mass murder in American (and I believe world) history wasn’t done with a gun.

    2. My wife is a teacher and a liberal democrat. And even she says to arm teachers who will take the training. Look at Israel if you need to see how it works.

      Are you really so naive as to think that you can legislate away evil?

    3. I’m still reading Larry (well, I’ve still got email alerts set), so I’ll take a crack at it.

      Where does the incentive lie? The same place my incentive lies carrying in public…not dying. As it stands now, CCW permit holders working in schools or other “gun free” zones can’t legally carry concealed firearms for self defense (much less defense of those around them). As we here have pointed out time and time again, crooks don’t follow those laws, and CCW permit holders with guns aren’t the ones shooting innocents. Where does the incentive lie in passing laws that only protect you from law abiding gun owners, who overwhelmingly aren’t committing these crimes? As to Bob making $30,000/year, what arbitrary minimum salary have you set in your ignorance before self defense is justified?

      You’re right in saying “no guns, no shootings”, just as I would be correct in saying “no pathogens, no disease”, but the two statements are both equally specious and unachievable. Even if “no guns” was achievable, as recent events have highlighted, a sociopath without a gun is not exactly a problem solved. Sociopaths without guns are still perfectly capable of killing those with no means of defending themselves. I suspect that the reason you’re here bitching to the side who’ll listen is because if you walked up to a criminal population and tried to convince them to adhere to your “unicorns farting rainbows” theory of crime prevention, they would either laugh at you, or shoot/stab you (or laugh at you then shoot/stab you). The sooner you let go of your unachievable dreams, the sooner you’ll be able to resolve the cognitive dissonance those dreams embody, and get your first tentative grip on reality.

      I know you believe all guns are evil, but understand that it is exactly that; a belief, without any factual support beyond anecdotes (the preferred “proof” of snake-oil salesmen through the ages) and grossly skewed statistics from biased sources. Bottom line; law abiding citizens aren’t shooting innocents, so passing laws that disarm us makes the problem worse, not better.

    4. Where does the incentive lie for teachers to lay their lives on the line when given a gun?

      If you really have to ask where the “incentive” is to do whatever it takes to protect children under your care than I feel really, really sorry for you. It must be remarkably lonely to be such an incredibly selfish individual.

      No Guns, no shootings.

      And if you had a magic wand to make all the guns in the world disappear along with the knowledge of how to make them and the ability to re-invent them, then maybe tht’s how it would work. Barring that, the “bad guys” will get guns so long as they want them.

      You can build a single shot “zip gun” with a few bucks of pipe parts. The instructional video is on youtube. “Only single shot” you say? It’s _also_ small and cheap. You can carry a dozen in a fanny pack. A hundred in a satchel. Grab a handful. Bang. Bang. Bang. Grab another handful. Repeat.

      The military has a training manual on improvised weapons that includes firearms and explosives. It’s available online. I have it in PDF.

      So guns are not going away. The bad guys will continue to have them if they want them. You can’t stop that. All you can do is even the odds by allowing the law abiding to be armed as well. If the “bad guys” fear they might face armed opposition many of them might decide to do something else instead, including possibly getting a job.

      Historically, that’s actually how it has worked.

      Oh, and Larry, I get email updates to comments made here so I, at least, still read new comments. 😉

    5. As a liberal Democrat myself I have to call bullshit on your rather sad naivete . And as a man I have to shake my head in sadness at your personal lack of character. What is the incentive to risk one’s life in defense of innocent people who are being murdered? Ummmm how about the simple act of being a human being worthy of the oxygen you breathe? That is all the incentive anyone does or SHOULD need. If you see someone being harmed you ACT . Period. And yes, I speak from experience having put my one and sadly less bulletproof than I’d like ass on the line when complete strangers were at risk. I didn’t do it because I was getting paid to -I was actually on the way home from a movie and I’m a retail pro by trade- orbecause I knew the people. I did it because it’s what you DO. Unless you’re a gutless coward that is. And did it not occur to you that teachers do what they do because they love their profession and the kids they teach? You really think someone choses to eat the amount of shit the average teacher ingests in a career for the MONEY? How stupid are you? FFS man, one of the teachers at Sandy Hook was prepared to DIE to protect her kids. You think someone with the stones to face down an armed psychopath with nothing but her empty hands is gonna shrink from defending her charges when given the means to do so effectively? All you’ve done here is show the world the true color of your character and I gotta say friend, it’s not a shade I’d take pride in wearing.

      1. one of the teachers at Sandy Hook was prepared to DIE to protect her kids.

        And did.

        “No greater love hath a man then this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”

        It’s a truly sad person who doesn’t get that.

    6. In my first three years of teaching, I had over five occasions where I spent an hour or more of my day sitting in dark classrooms, with my students cowering in a huddle on the classroom floor, because an “armed intruder” was believed to be on campus.
      The only means of defending my students, and myself, was to plan to use a chair to attempt to fight off anyone who broke through the windows or door.

      As a teacher, defending the students in my care is not optional. Protecting them comes with the job. Doing my duty as an adult, and as a teacher is the only incentive I need.

      Most high profile shootings occur in “gun free zones”, so your idea of “no guns, no shootings” has already been proven false multiple times.

    7. Also keep in mind that an objective examination of mass shootings shows WHY more guns in the hands of “good guys” means less killing.

      The cowards who carry out these attacks generally surrender, flee, or suicide, the *instant* they face effective resistance. And FBI analysis if violent crimes has, for *decades* shown that the most effective resistance is with a gun – even in the hands of utterly untrained civilians. (Not that I advocate anyone with a gun forgoing training, mind you.)

      You are either a coward beyond pity for believing that most adults would stand by and watch children get butchered when they have the ability to save then, or you are a would be tyrant who fears that if the population has access to arms, they’ll block your end plan.

      There is no innocent third choice.

  523. I wanted to add my voice as one who follows this “old post” and all it’s comments. Larry – thanks for taking the time to pen it in the first place AND for adding the occasional rebuttal as required.
    – CJ

  524. By these overwhelming responses i’ve garnered I can only imagine i’ve been completely misunderstood. The ‘incentive’ that I mentioned wasn’t suggesting that I don’t see why anyone would want to save innocent children. I’d like to see it from a more logical perspective. Placed in a school, with a sociopath carrying assault rifles would send any human into shock and fear for their lives and those around them. Therefore you cannot predict the response armed teachers are going to produce.

    You mention that it is not the gun, but instead the gun holder that is ultimately responsible. If that were the case, teachers would surely need to undergo medical checks, and to all be mentally stable and willing to carry a concealed weapon around young children, which would be an incredibly strenuous procedure.

    I take your point that you cannot legislate against ‘evil’. But what we certainly can legislate against is said ‘evil’ carrying killing machines freely.

    I have never lived in fear of sociopath’s in the streets with guns, or with anyone with guns for that matter. I’ve never seen a gun in my life and I never intend to. I suppose it’s an argument that will never draw to a close because of that. Different cultures have different have such different view points, regarding justice.

    1. “Placed in a school, with a sociopath carrying assault rifles would send any human into shock and fear for their lives and those around them. Therefore you cannot predict the response armed teachers are going to produce”

      We do not need to predict we know for a fact that school faculty at Sandy Hook attempted to stop their attacker even though they were unarmed.

      “I take your point that you cannot legislate against ‘evil’. But what we certainly can legislate against is said ‘evil’ carrying killing machines freely.”

      Yes because as we all know someone willing to murder another human being would never even consider violating a firearm law.
      So what about knives, baseball bats, lengths of pipe, fertilizer and diesel oil?

    2. So, you’ve never seen a gun (much less fired one, or had any training, obviously), and have no intention to do so.

      But you believe you know more about it tgab people who not only do know firearms, but have been (and in many cases still are) *professional* firearms instructors, police officers, and military personnel whose specialty was this sort of thing. Makes sense – Google “Dunning-Kruger Effect”.

      Look, unlike you, I *do* know what I’m talking about. I’ve not only been trained to do this professionally, I was a school certified professional trainer of other professionals. And I have actual experience training people who have never seen, much less touched, a gun, to *professional* competency levels. (Also trained newbies to non-professional standards of competency.)

      You are simply so woefully ignorant, you are the equivalent of a kindergartner lecturing an aerospace engineer on how to design a wing for a high transonic transport. (That isn’t a slam – I’m trying to present an analogy you might understand.)

      Your ignorance of guns and shooting is nearly matched by your ignorance of shooting incidents and how they tend to go down.

      *History* of what happens in similar cases tells us why voluntarily armed faculty (without even any special training beyond *basic* use of force rules and marksmanship) would be effective.

      We have experience, knowledge, and historical facts on our side of the discussion. You are only bringing uninformed emotionalism and falsehoods learned from a combination of those who know as little as you do, and deliberate lies told to you by bigots oppose a civil right that interferes with their view of how to dominate society.

      No, you really *aren’t* “entitled” to an opinion on this matter, anymore than a hysterical passenger who has never flown is “entitled” to order the aircrew on his first airline flight around during an emergency.

      1. I will agree with you on every point except that “ollie” isn’t “entitled” to have an opinion. Certainly in a country which respects the concept of freedom of speech, even the people who have an uninformed and dangerous opinions are permitted to state them. It is simply contingent upon those who are informed to correct these flawed opinions so no one else picks up these bad ideas. Otherwise how are we to know that their flawed ideas exist, and that allows us to offer guidance to help them learn better, unless we allow them free reign to express them?

        1. I stand corrected.

          I should have stated, “entitled to have your opinion treated with any respect.”

          It’s like two neurologists and a witch doctor (who believes disease is caused by the spirits being angry) discussing treatment options for your brain tumor. I would simply say the witch doctor isn’t entitled to an opinion, rather than specidyjg he’s free to have one – but he *doesn’t* deserve any respect or weight shown to it.

    3. Always laugh when I read the “it’s just a different cultural outlook, I guess,” comments from people who have proclaimed their absolute ignorance of the facts pertaining to the matter at hand.

      No. It. Isn’t, “just a culture thing.”

      Not unless you think “trained pilots” and “hysterical people who have never even stepped foot on an airplane or had even theoretical aeronautics training” are merely different cultures in a discussion about handling in-flight emergencies.

      1. My personal culture is that I learned to fly small personal aircraft in college back in the 1980s (where I earned a private pilot’s license), and I’m going to be shooting this weekend to practice on the 600 yard range of the White Horse Firearms and Outdoor Education Center in West Virginia to prepare for a charity tournament on October 11th. My shooting skill set is still squarely in the amateur enthusiast bracket, and unfortunately it is going to likely remain there as I consider marksmanship to be a hobby instead of a job requirement.

        I have shot with current and former Military and Law Enforcement members, and been through basic firearms training with professional police and military firearms training instructors. I’ve also watched individuals with advanced firearms skill sets in action, and can see the vast differences between our relative abilities.

        That being said, I can obtain a full “minute of perp” at 600 yards with my AR-15 using a 3 power ACOG from a bench. I’m still relatively hopeless when it comes to freehand, at least in terms of keeping a tight pattern on the target at any distance outside of 100 yards, and I do still know how to keep a weapon pointed in the right direction while handling it safely. I’ve spent 40 years as a shooter (I started with my father and uncle at age 7). In all that time I’ve never injured myself or another person, and I have never damaged anyone else’s personal property.

    4. The ‘incentive’ that I mentioned wasn’t suggesting that I don’t see why anyone would want to save innocent children.

      Nice attempt at spin but we do know how teachers react to active shooters. They, for the most part, try to protect the kids with whatever they have available.

      We simply propose to give them the tools to more effectively do what most are already predisposed to do–protect the children.

      But far more than that, these “mass shooters” keep going after “gun free” zones. The mere fact that some of the teachers are armed means the putative shooters will, in all likelihood, choose another target, or better yet, a less flamboyant method of committing suicide.

      <blockquoteteachers would surely need to undergo medical checks, and to all be mentally stable and willing to carry a concealed weapon around young children, which would be an incredibly strenuous procedure.

      Um, no, actually. As Larry mentions they’ve been doing this in Utah for years. It simply is not as you describe. Oh, and all the dire predictions that people make whenever the idea of allowing more people to carry in more places? They don’t happen either.

      But what we certainly can legislate against is said ‘evil’ carrying killing machines freely.

      You can try, and fail. All you can “succeed” in doing is legislating against law abiding people carrying the tools to effectively defend against evil.

      Here are some of the reasons why:

      http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=5235

      http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/gun/www.thehomegunsmith.com/index-2.html

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlwyo2xwZds

      http://cryptome.org/0001/tm-31-210.htm

      That’s just a start.

      You cannot keep the “bad guys” from getting guns if they want them. All you can do, all you can do, is maybe level the playing field.

      I’ve never seen a gun in my life and I never intend to.

      So you come in here and make pronouncements on a subject on which you are totally ignorant.

      For some reason, I’m not surprised.

    5. “You mention that it is not the gun, but instead the gun holder that is ultimately responsible. If that were the case, teachers would surely need to undergo medical checks, and to all be mentally stable and willing to carry a concealed weapon around young children, which would be an incredibly strenuous procedure.”

      First off, not all, just the ones who volunteer to carry. Again, the idea is that it’s VOLUNTARY. As in, only people who are willing to accept the responsibility of carrying a gun.

      Second, are you seriously saying that it’s too much trouble to ensure that the people we ENTRUST OUR CHILDREN TO are “mentally stable?”

    6. I have never lived in fear of sociopath’s in the streets with guns, or with anyone with guns for that matter.

      You don’t say where you’re from Olliewindle, the “about” on your blog is just a “this is an example of a page” stub. But you post on American politics (and about as I figured from your posts here) so here are some things for you to consider:

      According to the US Department of Justice, 83% of American will be the victim or intended victom of an attempted violent crime (Rape, Murder, Robbery, Aggravated Assault) sometime during their life. About half of those, (42%) will be completed crimes.

      53% of the population will be the victim or intended victim more than once.

      https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/104274.pdf

      And before you say “but that’s because guns…” Only about 6 to 9 percent of violent crime involves guns:

      “While the number of firearm crimes declined over time, the
      percentage of all violence that involved a firearm did not
      change substantively, fluctuating between 6% and 9% over
      the same period.” http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

      So even if guns magically disappeared and those violent crimes that would have been otherwise committed using firearms would not simply be committed using something else (unlikely in light of the fact that even now 91-94% are committed using something else) then the overall violent crime rate would not be substantially changed. The odds of being a victim of violent crime sometime in ones life would still be close to the same.

      Maybe you’re special. Maybe you have high confidence that you’re in that 17% who go through life without ever being victimized by violent crime.

      Some of us, however, aren’t so confident and would like the tools to at least give us a fighting chance against violent criminals.

    7. Like many hoplophobes, you seem to be treating firearms like they’re some sort of contagious pathogen, and treating them by quarantining yourself from the infection. It’s a good idea for Ebola, but here it’s the wrong paradigm. Ignorance will not protect you from something you so desperately need education on. I suppose it’s good for you that your irrational fear is directed towards guns instead of cars. It’s a lot easier to deny guns than it is to deny automobiles. You will maintain the “different viewpoint” of your “culture” as long as you insist on sitting in a corner with your fingers in your ears humming to avoid any information that challenges your (flawed) world view.

      Why do hoplophobes tell themselves that gun owners need to be subjected to phenomenally stringent levels of training and scrutiny before being allowed to carry (or even own) a firearm? Get it through your head; guns are not magic. They are not psychotropic drugs. They do not turn good people in to sociopaths. Allowing a teacher to carry a concealed weapon does not put the children at greater risk. If that is truly your fear then you really do need to employ logic, and not just mention it in passing. Think for a second what a sociopathic teacher could do with a car and a bus stop. If you trust teachers with your kids, you can trust teachers with your kids if they are also willing to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense, and for defense of their charges.

      If it makes you feel any better, here in New Mexico I undergo a DPS background check every four years (unlike anyone here who has access to a 4000 lb. vehicle) in order to qualify for my CCW permit. I suppose I could be a devious sociopath who’s managed to stay of LE’s radar, but if that were the case, what would prevent me from just avoiding the whole process and buying a gun on the black market? That’s what criminals do now, despite breaking several existing laws in the process. You cannot legislate against “carrying killing machines freely”, or more correctly, you cannot guarantee compliance. Laws aren’t magic just because you want them to be in order to confirm your (flawed) world view. Even if you lived in a magic world of massless pulleys and frictionless surfaces where guns magically disappeared, taking guns away from sociopaths leaves the sociopaths. Ask the folks working at an Oklahoma food-processing plant how well that works out. That sociopath (without a gun, armed “only” with a knife he retrieved from home) was prevented from hurting more than two innocent victims by an employee carrying a gun for defense.

      By way of reality check, you trust your kids out in public, where I am walking with a concealed firearm. And to borrow an old line from Xena; “There are thousands more just like me.” Or more correctly twelve MILLION of us at last count, out in public, every day.

    8. Not only do you know nothing about firearms, teaching, or history, you also seem to know nothing about psychology.

      You claim that: “Placed in a school, with a sociopath carrying assault rifles would send any human into shock and fear for their lives and those around them. Therefore you cannot predict the response armed teachers are going to produce.”

      But it’s very easy to predict what people will do when faced with a threat, it’s a well known reaction called “fight or flight response”. It has worked with people for thousands of years, and also works for many other species.

      Thousands of years of evolution have developed this instinctive response, and training and experience can allow us to guide it.

      The decision tree for a lone person is simple: can I eliminate or subdue the threat? If yes, then fight. If no, then try to get away from the threat.

      When placed in a position where you are responsible for protecting others – particularly the young – the decision tree changes. While flight may remain an option for the children in your care, fighting to end the threat, or even sacrificing yourself in an hopeless fight to simply improve the odds of the children escaping becomes the preferred option.

      Even as DHS has embraced the evolutionary dubious “Run-Hide-Fight” response for adult workplaces, many schools cling to the suicidal “Shelter in Place” response to attacks in schools. “Shelter in Place” creates convenient “victim pools” as students cower in clusters on their classroom floors.

      So let’s get back to the “incentive” for a teacher to choose to go through extensive firearms safety training, expensive target practice, and carry an expensive firearm to work under a CCW for teachers plan.

      1) Protecting the young is an evolutionary necessity that is hard-wired into the psyche of all “normal”/”sane”/”responsible” human beings.

      2) Even absent that desire to protect the young, if there is a threat at my school, being armed allows me to protect MYSELF.

      For me, the incentive is to protect others, and to protect myself – in that order. For some teachers, the order may be reversed, but the end result will be the same.

      Because, whether or not I am allowed to be armed, recent history has shown that dangerously unstable criminals like to target schools (and other areas with a high density of “soft” targets, and a low density of potential armed adversaries). In fact, removing the “Gun Free School Zone” signs will cause some of these psychos to pause, because time and time again, we see that these psychopathic murderers carefully plan to be the only armed person in the situation, because they crave that power over others, and the possibility of encountering an armed teacher pours cold water on that fantasy.

      As to your argument about needing screening for teachers – I have had more background checks and screenings in my career as a teacher than I ever had in my previous career as a cop. Add to that the fact that teachers live their lives in a fishbowl, where they are constantly being observed, scrutinized, and second guessed by their employers, their students, parents, and the public.

    9. I know when I’m incredibly ignorant about a topic, I like to make broad, obviously incorrect statements based upon my wishful thinking, and then declare that my opinion is equally valid to that of the experts.

      Oh, wait. No. I don’t. If you’d like to read my resume on this particular topic, it is the first few paragraphs of the article above that you didn’t actually read.

    10. “I’d like to see it from a more logical perspective.”

      Sadly, that comment is the equivalent of “I want you all to see it from my limited perspective.”

      “Placed in a school, with a sociopath carrying assault rifles would send any human into shock and fear for their lives”

      No, it would send SOME into shock and fear. But then, that’s true of just having to stand in front of 30 teenagers, for some people. Not a logical argument, sorry.

      “You mention that it is not the gun, but instead the gun holder that is ultimately responsible. If that were the case, teachers would surely need to undergo medical checks, and to all be mentally stable
      and willing to carry a concealed weapon around young children, which would be an incredibly strenuous procedure”

      No actually, we do those things already, just to be here at all. And, since we are talking about volunteers, there should be no issue with accepting any extra training or screening.

      “I take your point that you cannot legislate against ‘evil’. But what we certainly can legislate against is said ‘evil’ carrying killing machines freely.”

      Yeah, sure we can. And we did. There are already mountains of laws about that, denying many evil and not-so-evil and even the very very good, the right to carry “killing machines” freely.

      Of course, you mean to get rid of the machines, so that its impossible for the evil ones to get them, right?

      So knives, baseball bats, golf clubs, hammers, etc…ban those too, right?

      “I’ve never seen a gun in my life and I never intend to.”

      Wow. Just…wow. Remember that “limited perspective” I talked about earlier?

      Shakes head and sighs.

    11. Therefore you cannot predict the response armed teachers are going to produce.

      Actually, you can, because carrying a gun isn’t the huge psychological burden you’ve been conned into believing. And for sure you can predict the response unarmed teachers are going to produce, because we’ve already seen it. Dead teachers. And dead kids.

      1. Also, what’s the first active shooter in a US school you recall offhand? Columbine, right?

        Columbine happened NINE YEARS after the initial passage of the Gun Free School Zone Act, and THREE YEARS after it got reinstituted following the Lopez decision.

        FIVE YEARS after the implementation of the Brady Bill and YEAR after the NICS checks were mandated.

        FIVE YEARS after the “Assault Weapons Ban”.

        THIRTEEN YEARS after 922(o) went into effect, which effectively made actual assault rifles all but unobtainable for anyone but the wealthy.SIXTY-FIVE years after the NFA made getting actual assault rifles a long, involved procedure taking months before purchase is approved.

        Hmmm… In all the decades prior to that, why didn’t we have all these mass shootings in schools that are touted as a “rising problem”?

        1. “Also, what’s the first active shooter in a US school you recall offhand? Columbine, right?”
          Hate to be that asshat, but Columbine was just the first to get major publicity. School shootings have happened fairly regularly for a long time… the way they are covered by the news is all that has changed.

          Now, I , as a pro 2nd amendment liberal (yes we exist, and yes we are trying to get more vocal) I invite olliewindle to discuss the issue logically like he asked.
          So, a couple of questions for you Ollie:
          Are you a liberal? Because I have always felt that being a liberal meant you were big on equality. You CAN NOT have equality when you strip away peoples right to defend themselves. This is historical fact.
          Obviously you want to save lives, because you want to get rid of guns. So, next question. DO you support speed inhibitors on all cars, and a breathalyzer requirement to start them? (Cars kill about the same amount of people every year as guns do) Do you support making alcohol illegal? That kills 3 times as many people annually then guns. Tobacco? Do you want to make it illegal too? That kills 12 times as many people as guns. And before you point out that people kill themselves with booze and smokes, but kill others with guns? 61% of firearms deaths annually are suicide. SO If you answered no to any of those law changes I mentioned, then you might need to take a look at why you support gun bans, because it is obviously not to save lives.

          Speaking of saving lives, now. I Know that roughly 30,000 people dying a year from firearms is a tad worrisome. I get that. so how about the between 85,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year? (The Brady Campaign is even willing to admit the 85,000 number. The 2.5 million is from a peer reviewed study that holds up to scrutiny, but most people think the number is too high, cause it is a big fucking number)

          Logic is cold, unemotional. So logically, looking at the numbers? Guns are the least of your worries Ollie. And I highly suggest you seek out a basic firearms safety course in your area, so you are at least familiar with what you are debating about.

          Oh and one last thing? There has never been a school shooter with an assault rifle. Assault rifles are by definition automatic weapons, and crimes involving those are rare.. so rare that there have only been one or two crimes involving legally purchased automatic weapons since they were made heavily restricted in 1934.

  525. Nice post. I used to be checking continuously this
    weblog and I’m impressed! Extremely helpful information specifically the ultimate section 🙂 I deal with such information a lot.
    I used to be looking for this certain info for a very long time.
    Thank you and best of luck.

  526. While I mostly agree with your points, and the article is already rather old by internet standards, I’d like to raise an issue with the part on “Weapon-Free Areas”, mostly that you characterized what purpose they would theoretically serve, at least as far as sane proponents of it go.

    That is, they wouldn’t be there to stop gun maniacs for most part (save possibly in very few cases where everyone is screened and searched before getting in and the authorities doing so are armed to enforce such, but then it’s an airport, not a run of the mill gun-free zone), but theoretically to stop crimes of passion, or rather, reduce their damage.

    Or putting it another way, theoretically it would serve to stop someone from shooting someone else because they called their wife a whore or because they went from debate to heated debate to screaming fight to just fighting.

    The problem with that, of course, is that these can happen anywhere and, save rare exceptions, it isn’t more likely to happen in place A instead of place B, and the exceptions tend to be situational for what the person is doing there, not so much as merely the place.

    I mean, I’m sure most people, including gun owners, agree that you really shouldn’t be getting drunk while carrying, specially if you are even a bit of an angry drunk. While banning carrying everywhere that serves alcohol would be silly, inane and mostly pointless, a very good argument can be made for serving alcohol to people carrying.

    Similarly, and a good part for the same reasons as the above, nightclubs and overly crowded concerts are probably a very bad place to be carrying, specially if the person is there as part of the crowd and not one of the staff, with the combination of potential to acquire mind altering substances such as alcohol and any potential disagreement (both real or caused by misunderstandings) that can happen in such places. Of course, these kind of places pretty much ban all kind of weapons (and frequently potential weapons), and have bouncers to make sure of it, which helps with the “criminals won’t care for the sign either”.

    Not so similarly, but speaking of disagreements, I would also rather not have people carrying in places they are expected to debate and discuss subjects with others that might have diametrically opposed views, at least during the discussion, and the ones doing the debating (or at least being part of the discussion, even if not one of the major speakers). That is, debate clubs (for the ones speaking), the chambers of the Legislative (because it’s hardly unheard for lawmakers to get overly heated when two of them have diametrically opposed views), non-court officials in court, and so forth.

    Of course, that doesn’t stop someone else being armed in such place, so long as they are not the ones getting into the discussion, from court officials to bodyguards. And, at least in some of those, even just putting the weapon in a locked safe for the duration of the debate (or, at least I imagine, even a locked drawer if a safe is not available, at least for the few hours the debate takes place. Just really a speed bump to avoid the absolute heat of the moment), none of which fits what most proponents mean when they speak of “gun-free zones”.

    Again, I do mostly agree with your points, it’s just that the mischaracterization you made about the points of opponents weaken your own argument.

    1. Felius,

      You seem to have given this matter a great deal of thought. Thank you for that, The salient point that you seem to have missed is that people who legally carry firearms have a psychological tendency to moderate their own behaviour when carrying. A fellow who would have no qualms about taking a punch at another guy over an insult is much more likely to just let it slide when he is armed.

      That pistol on your hip (or under your shoulder, or wherever) is a constant reminder that you hold the power of life and death in your hands. That is a very sobering thought to sane people. The insane are not very predictable nor easily controlled.

      Thanks for your comments.

  527. Awesome article. I am a police officer and admittedly a “Gun Nut”. I stick my nose into every debate I can on these topics. One of the funnier things I had said to me by an anti-guns when he was referring to “assault rifles” was, “No one needs that kind of artillery!” At which point I had to explain to him why he was a moron. The FBI’s website is also a great tool for these type of discussions. Thanks again for the great article.

  528. I love your article.
    It is informative and to the point. It must scare the hell out of the anti-gun freaks because it is filled with the truths that they try to hide, like every country with a gun ban has violent crime growing beyond belief and that those bastions of Liberal Democrats are the worst places to live if violence scares you.
    I have spent over 25 years carrying CCW and, like most, have never had to pull my firearm on a living soul. Part of the CCW training should always be Situational Awareness (SA), which simply means paying attention to your surroundings. I don’t teach CCW classes, but may remedy that in the future as I become associated with a new group. What most anti-gun folks don’t understand is that I, and most CCWs, don’t want to have to use our guns anywhere except at the range. But what we don’t want more is to be a victim without the means of protecting ourselves or our loved ones or, if we so choose, another innocent being victimized.
    Thank you for your absolutely great article and your intelligent articulation of the realities of gun control: you can NEVER CONTROL CRIMINALS.

  529. I think allowing concealed guns on college campuses is the only way to stop school shootings. It will create hesitation or nervousness for a shooter, causing a greater chance of survival for the victims. Not just for teacher, students should be able to carry concealed guns with them on campus.

Leave a Reply to Rob Crawford Cancel reply

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