Monster Hunter Nation

An Opinion on Gun Control, repost

Everything I need to say about mass shootings has already been said in this post from December 2012. I wrote it in response to Sandy Hook. It went viral and was read by over a million people. I also did a segment on FOX News about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzyuvl5Ry4g I am reposting it here now because the original link has 2,600 comments, so the page often doesn’t load correctly.

##

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 machine guns, suppressors, 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.

Oregon. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter confronted by permit holder. Shooter commits suicide. Only a few casualties.
Texas. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter killed immediately by off duty cop. Only a few casualties.
Connecticut. GUN FREE ZONE. Shooters kills until the police arrive. Suicide. 26 dead.
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 machine gun. 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.

How Authors Get Paid, part 2
My novel Into the Storm, now available in paperback

Leave a Reply

573 Comments on "An Opinion on Gun Control, repost"

Notify of
avatar

Austin
Guest
Austin
1 year 3 months ago

Still as relevant as the original posting. Mike Williamson also posted a relevant link earlier on the part covering the news media perpetuating the shootings.

Kind of like the idea of calling shooters Some Asshole. Very appropriate, though I’d prefer something a bit stronger.

BobtheRegisterredFool
Guest
BobtheRegisterredFool
1 year 3 months ago
I’d quibble. The media don’t help, but part of the cause is dopeheads developing delusional thinking. Sure, most of them are only harmful in ways that do not involve spree killing. Insofar as I’ve found stories that touch on this, the spree killers have recreationally abused marijuana or psychiatric meds, which I categorize similarly. Of course, this could also be understood as a complaint about the media. We have this problem more because we have not grappled with it much as a society. We haven’t grappled with it much in part because we as people do not understand the brain… Read more »
Austin
Guest
Austin
1 year 3 months ago
The thing is, drugs have been used for most of human history. Guns have been widely available to the American public since its inception and fully automatic weapons were legal and available for decades. Yet you didn’t see mass shootings often before the 90’s, and they were still rare until the last decade or so. Now, what changed? Drug use is about the same, so that’s unlikely. Guns availability has not increased, so that’s out. Mental health issues may be a factor, but they’ve been around for as long as humanity, so why didn’t this happen sooner? Loss of traditional… Read more »
BobtheRegisterredFool
Guest
BobtheRegisterredFool
1 year 3 months ago
Bullshit drug use has been the same over short term and long term history. Prehistoric use was heavily undistilled spirits and natural pesticides in plants. These pesticides were optimized for killing or sickening creatures enough like us that that it had some effect, and not enough that we flat out died. Though we did do a lot of dying, or at least inefficient breeding, as shown by the specialized enzymes developed in certain population. The advances in chemistry associated with the industrial revolution are a major change on the thousands of years scale. They made new substances available in large… Read more »
Ascher Goodrich
Guest
Ascher Goodrich
1 year 3 months ago
Hello Bob, sorry for the thread necromancy-I know I’m late to the party but I can’t help myself. First, Cannabis(Marijuana is a Mexican slang term) is no different now than it was in the eighties, the sixties, or thousands of years ago. It is literally impossible to cause a phenotype change on the level you are talking about in such a short amount of time, barring extreme use of genetic manipulation. The kind that costs millions of dollars. Second, trying to link the use of cannabis to both psychotic breaks and cold-blooded murder is iniquitous. There is no correlation between… Read more »
BobtheRegisterredFool
Guest
BobtheRegisterredFool
1 year 2 months ago
Ascher, thank you for further making my case. In reverse order, panacea is a mystical term, meaning a drug that treats all illnesses. The idea behind modern medicinal chemistry is that a specific illness is associated with a specific internal chemical state; introducing another specific chemical might alter the chemical state, which then might change the illness. A medicinal chemist cannot make a drug to treat every illness, because it would have to make very many different changes. Well, dead is a lot of changes, but that is assumed not to count. The human body is very resistant to chemical… Read more »
Ascher Goodrich
Guest
Ascher Goodrich
1 year 2 months ago
Wow Bob, I thought your name was ironic. Now I see it is entirely accurate. I was courteous and respectful in my response-I wasn’t arguing, my only intention was to inform you of a few things. Not change your opinion. You responded by calling names. Right back at you pal. 1. I don’t use cannabis. Never tried it and don’t care to. 2.Yes cannabis is composed of chemicals. So is the food you eat. So are you. The “OMG THAT STUFF IS MADE OF CHEMICALS” routine is tired. As if the only chemicals in existence are the ones you find… Read more »
TallDave
Guest
TallDave
1 year 2 months ago

Ascher — even aside from heartbreaking stories like the one below (can’t even imagine that father’s pain before trying medical marijuana) it’s now very well-established that our bodies produce “endocannabinoids.” That’s why the toxicity is so low, the compounds are remarkably similar. Any recreational drug can be abused but it’s much safer than alcohol or tobacco, which are both deadly poisons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocannabinoid_system

Ascher Goodrich
Guest
Ascher Goodrich
1 year 2 months ago

@TallDave- I’m afraid I don’t understand what your driving at… There is nothing wrong with the information in your links, I’m just not sure what the thesis of your statement is. Sorry, I’m probably just extra-dense today :D.

TallDave
Guest
TallDave
1 year 2 months ago

Sorry, I didn’t really have a thesis there, just thought you might find those links interesting.

Ascher Goodrich
Guest
Ascher Goodrich
1 year 2 months ago

@TallDave- Well I certainly don’t have a problem with information for the sake of information. In that case, thanks for the links! The wiki link was interesting and the youtube story nearly(that’s my story and I’m sticking to it) had me bawling.

John MD
Guest
John MD
11 months 23 days ago

Additionally, Ascher, THC neural receptors have been found in the human brain.
BobtheRegisterredFool claims the active ingredients in Cannabis are natural pesticides? Yes, he is a fool. What animal is going to create neuroreceptors for toxins/poisons?

John MacD
Guest
John MacD
11 months 23 days ago

Psychology is the study of behavior. Duh!
Yes, cannabis may contain substances that can treat mental illness IN SUFFICIENTLY INCREASED DOSES. Duh!
Alcohol is sufficient in commercial doses to cause violence and murder. Disagree? Read criminal history. Duh!

TallDave
Guest
TallDave
1 year 2 months ago

Mass shootings happened long before the 1990s. The main difference between then and now is people had the common sense to realize disarming everyone wasn’t going to help, so they tended to be limited by the proximity of armed response from civilians.

Also, you have to realize that even as late as 1915, a hundred years ago, most people still lived on farms. Population density is far higher today.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/mass-shootings-in-america-a-historical-review/5355990

supporter
Guest
supporter
1 year 3 months ago

you did not read or understand what the article said

BobtheRegisterredFool
Guest
BobtheRegisterredFool
1 year 2 months ago

Which article? How?

Zsuzsa
Guest
Zsuzsa
1 year 3 months ago

I remember after Sandy Hook there was a lot of talk about how it was time to stop publicizing the names of these killers, analyzing every bit of writing they ever did, and going over their personalities and motivations ad naeseum on cable TV as if they were the most important people in the world.

Then, what was it, two months later, the LA sniping attacks started. And the cable networks spent so much time going over the killer and his motivation that he actually turned into something of a folk hero.

TheWriterInBlack
Guest
TheWriterInBlack
1 year 3 months ago

What we should do, and what people will do, are two entirely different things.

Bo
Guest
Bo
11 months 23 days ago
I know many police in my state (New Jersey) will side with the law-abiding gun owner. New Jersey, as you know, has some of the most Draconian laws in the nation. But if police ever do so, it’s usually in secret. For example, I’ve never seen a “letter to the editor” in the local paper written by a police officer, active or retired, extolling the virtues of sensible gun ownership or concealed carry for citizens of this state. They know where their bread is buttered, so they keep silent. Until that changes, and they announce they are on our side;… Read more »
Robin
Guest
Robin
1 year 3 months ago

Wow!!!

John R. Ellis
Guest
John R. Ellis
1 year 3 months ago

The way one channel (CNN) -alone- has fetishized, fixated on, and spread the fame 24/7 of the suspected killer since the news broke is no doubt even now spawning dozens of copycats. 🙁

Because the media doesn’t care about justice, it cares about getting as many eyeballs as possible.

Myrt
Guest
Myrt
1 year 3 months ago

Thanks for the re-post; I missed it in 2012. As a trained debater, I really appreciate having all the arguments in one place.

As a left-liberal turned libertarian, and from terrified of guns (do not underestimate the power of simple fear of guns among the anti-gunners) to an enthusiastic member of gun culture, I can understand both sides better than most. But you nailed it–the anti-gun position is either a fantasy or a power grab, fueled by ignorance and ideology in both cases.

Zsuzsa
Guest
Zsuzsa
1 year 3 months ago

Wow. This…it wasn’t the first thing that I read on this site, but it very well might have been the second. Bringing back memories.

Extremely sad that it has to be reposted, though. Both because of the tragedy that assholes keep killing other people, and because we’re forced to have the same argument after every single one of these mass murders.

Lawrence Jones
Guest
Lawrence Jones
1 year 3 months ago

And I’m wondering if you passed universal concealed carry laws for teachers, how much of a deterrent factor it would have. Knowing that they could run into armed resistance soon after opening fire. Of course we are dealing with individuals who are not right in the head to begin with.

JEOlson
Guest
JEOlson
1 year 3 months ago

This is good. He agreed 100% with me. The sole answer to a budding mass shooting, and what keeps it from meeting the definition, is IMMEDIATE counterfire. It matters not whether the defender is a civilian, security guard, or police officer. The incoming fire CHANGES the dynamic and forces the murderer to stop his killing and switch to hiding from the bullets aimed at him.

Jordan S. Bassior
Guest
Jordan S. Bassior
1 year 3 months ago

Which is one reason why even support troops (such as cooks) are armed. It’s not that the Army really thinks that a charge of the cooks and clerks will save the day in close combat (they generally carry pistols or rifles, and are not exactly marksmen); it’s that if they were unarmed, any enemy that fell among them could wreak fearsome execution upon them. Even small arms force the foe to close more cautiously.

Feather Blade
Guest
Feather Blade
1 year 3 months ago

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!”

And this is reason number one why Saturday morning cartoons should not be forbidden from using the words “kill” and “die”.

TheWriterInBlack
Guest
TheWriterInBlack
1 year 3 months ago

Stop. That’s just a euphemism for kill!”

If that’s what it takes.

Adam Lawson
Guest
Adam Lawson
1 year 3 months ago

Freak canoe accident…

I like that. I’m going to be liberal (hah) with my usage of it.

trackback
[…] Larry CorreiaThere were four mass killing attempts this week. Only one made the news because it helped the agreed upon media narrative.Oregon. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter confronted by permit holder. Shooter commits suicide. Only a few casualties.Texas. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter killed immediately by off duty cop. Only a few casualties.Connecticut. GUN FREE ZONE. Shooters kills until the police arrive. Suicide. 26 dead.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… Read more »
justanobody
Guest
justanobody
1 year 3 months ago
“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.” errr… that kinda represents a criminal failure on your side i think. totally agree with you on the sad puppies thing and i’m a liberal. but for gun control, you say that you’ve heard the arguments against guns and it sounds like you have simply chosen to ignore most of them and still use arguments that our side points out are fallacious. 1. criminals use automatic weapons. see how well a ban works? –… Read more »
A. Nagy
Guest
A. Nagy
1 year 3 months ago
1) The act of owning an automatic weapon causes harm to no one. Using a weapon improperly should be and is a crime just like murder is a crime. 2) Accidental shootings are a tragedy and that’s why I’m against mandatory gun ownership. Are you pro banning alcohol too because drunk driving kills way more every year and alcohol has zero positives at all? parts b and c) how many of these would be accomplished anyways with other means. Not to mention guns are more of a strength equalizer in struggles. 3) A form of tyranny is not providing proper… Read more »
justanobody
Guest
justanobody
1 year 3 months ago
1. according to that logic, you would be in favor of people owning and keeping NBC weapons as long as they don’t misuse them. just pointing out that that point alone is invalid unless you really do believe private citizens should own and keep NBCs. 2. alcohol has known benefits. i’m not necessarily in favor of banning all guns but i think it’s not above the pale to talk about it and put it at issue. 3. i don’t know what you’re trying to say here. as i amended in my response to correia, the bill of rights speaks to… Read more »
dgarsys
Guest
dgarsys
1 year 3 months ago

Please tell me exactly what that second amendment says. Please include in your answer, for full context, what a militia was considered at the time of writing, AND, what weapons were considered to be perfectly acceptably privately held. (Hint, even in 1812, there were privately owned warships with cannons….)

Also – make sure you interpret the right of the people/etc. in the second amendment the same way you’d interpret it in the rest of the amendments, and “arms” in a way that doesn’t suddenly allow us to ban computers because they are not mechanical printing presses.

Patrick Chester
Guest
Patrick Chester
1 year 3 months ago

No, don’t bother with his little nuclear strawman. He’s trying to get you to agree to a line so he can “negotiate” it down to a level he wants. It’s a sign that he’s incapable of arguing against ownership of regular weapons so he has to go to a ridiculous extreme to try to salvage his position. Because he’s so “reasonable” after all…

Either way, as soon as privately owned spacecraft become cheap enough, quite a few people will have an ability equivalent to nuclear weapons. Though I doubt
“justanobody” bothered to think that through.

justanobody
Guest
justanobody
1 year 3 months ago

you’re afraid of the “strawman” because you don’t have an answer.

ANSWER: if you pull a gun on a fed, you’re dead.

ANSWER: a gun is no defense against tyranny.

ANSWER: 2nd amendment is obsolete.

you want a defense against tyranny? NBC weapons would hold them off for a while….

snelson134
Guest
snelson134
1 year 3 months ago

Answer: Who’s going to pull a gun on a Fed? We’re going to emulate the Founders and shoot them in the head when they step out the front door for the paper, to go shopping, etc. How many times do you think that will happen until they decide the pension and bennies ain’t worth it? Every Fed still has to sleep, eat, etc., and there’s way more of us than them, as pointed out above.

Patrick Chester
Guest
Patrick Chester
1 year 3 months ago

No, I know you are an ignorant fool who thinks he’s clever.

Which is likely why you think your unsupported assertions are answers.

Nice of you to use the troll “wait a few days to make a ‘devastating’ response and hope no one sees it” method of counter-argument.

Doug Loss
Guest
Doug Loss
1 year 3 months ago

Guns are the ultimate defense against tyranny, as history has shown us over and over. You’ve heard of this “history” thing, right? And if the 2nd Amendment is obsolete, then the entire Constitution is. Neither is true, and you only look extremely foolish making the claim.

Torin3
Guest
Torin3
1 year 2 months ago

ANSWER: if you pul a gun on a fed, you’re dead.

While I’m sure the FBI would have everybody think this way, even they admit it isn’t true: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/hallhonor

William Underhill
Guest
William Underhill
1 year 3 months ago
Michael Williamson wrote an excellent article about how much of the left uses different interpretations to suit its purposes, and showed that by using the standard many of them advocate to ban anything more advanced than a musket, they effectively destroy the basis of argument in favour of gay marriage. Many of the more… enthusiastic… left crowd leapt upon that article as being PROOF HE’S A RACIST MISOGYNIST HOMOPHOBE HATER NAZI OMGWTFBBQ!!!! They completely missed the codicil wherein he points out that if they want to use modern interpretation of the Constitution in order to support gay marriage, they can’t… Read more »
snelson134
Guest
snelson134
1 year 3 months ago

If the Left weren’t dishonest hypocrites they wouldn’t be the Left.

justanobody
Guest
justanobody
1 year 3 months ago
i admit, that as a liberal it is amusing to be behind enemy lines. fyi, i totally agree with the sad puppies campaign and abhor the extremist left of radical feminist social justice warriors. i haaaate hypocrisy as well. but i seem to be the rare breed that acknowledges hypocrisy and stupidity on “my side”. rarely if ever have i seen righties call out other righties… i get why you guys write us off. we’ve done no less to you. and it’s true – we fucking hate you guys. it’s why wars will never end. people will disagree and it… Read more »
Doug Loss
Guest
Doug Loss
1 year 3 months ago

You’ve never seen “righties call out other righties,” eh? It happens much more frequently on our side than it does on yours. As for hate, we don’t so much hate you as feel contempt and pity for you. But we certainly won’t let you control normal people.

justanobody
Guest
justanobody
1 year 3 months ago
the thing with hermeneutics is that you can parse things down to meaninglessness. someone could write a clear sentence and in a hundred years, there’ll be assholes arguing what it means. i’m just reading the words i see and interpreting it as i do every other word. and whatever else militia means, the highly organized part seems to pertain non trivially. as for warships with cannons – you guys are great at getting off topic… i assume you don’t believe that we should own artillery and NBC weapons? so what’s the point about bringing that up? you guys accept that… Read more »
Doug Loss
Guest
Doug Loss
1 year 3 months ago

Setting up another strawman, are you? If the Founders were alive today, they would likely be upset that military ordnance is too expensive and resource-intensive for private individuals or groups to maintain.

Torin3
Guest
Torin3
1 year 2 months ago
i’m just reading the words i see and interpreting it as i do every other word. and whatever else militia means, the highly organized part seems to pertain non trivially. There you go changing words. It is ‘regulated’ as in ‘in good working order’. Also, if the ownership of arms were restricted to the militia, why does it say “the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms” instead of “the right of the MILITIA to KEEP and BEAR arms”? The Heller decision by the SCOTUS held that it was an individual right of the people, not an organization.… Read more »
TheWriterInBlack
Guest
TheWriterInBlack
1 year 3 months ago
1. according to that logic, you would be in favor of people owning and keeping NBC weapons as long as they don’t misuse them. just pointing out that that point alone is invalid unless you really do believe private citizens should own and keep NBCs. You already do. Not the “N” perhaps, but the “B” and “C”. Oh, the “B” may take a little work, but you’ve got it if you want it. That said, there is a qualitative difference between what most people think of as “NBC” and firearms. A firearm is no threat to anybody unless you put… Read more »
justanobody
Guest
justanobody
1 year 3 months ago

that doesn’t answer the issue. it just avoids it.

snelson134
Guest
snelson134
1 year 3 months ago

It answers it for those interested in answers. Trolls, not so much.

TheWriterInBlack
Guest
TheWriterInBlack
1 year 2 months ago

It answers it for those interested in answers

As Larry is wont to say, argument is a spectator sport. You’re not going to convince the “true believer” on the other side. You’re going to 1) lay out your arguments for those who haven’t settled into a “true belief” position and 2) hearten those on your side by showing that that they’re not alone.

Patrick Chester
Guest
Patrick Chester
1 year 3 months ago

according to that logic, you would be in favor of people owning and keeping NBC weapons as long as they don’t misuse them.

*snipped after the first strawman was hopelessly slaughtered*

Sad thing is, you think it was a clever and devastating response. Except your claim is like saying a free speech advocate wants everyone to have their own satellite broadcast network, because they don’t want “reasonable” restrictions on speech. Some other silly exaggeration that might panic the ignorant into jumping on your bandwagon, but breaks down rather quickly under mild scrutiny.

justanobody
Guest
justanobody
1 year 3 months ago

you’re as lazy as you are self congratulatory. christ, rarely have i seen such masturbatory self affirming rhetoric.

and EVERYTHING’S a strawman…

can’t be bothered to actually counter the logic… you just dismiss with labeling.

you’re not worth it.

snelson134
Guest
snelson134
1 year 3 months ago

When we see logic, we’ll counter it; For you, it’s mockery all the way down.

Achillea
Guest
Achillea
1 year 3 months ago

I’m as lazy as I’m self congratulatory. christ, rarely have you seen such masturbatory self affirming rhetoric.

and EVERYTHING’S a strawman…

can’t be bothered to actually counter the logic… I just dismiss with labeling.

I’m not worth it.

FIFY

Run along home, sorry little troll. Buh-bye.

Patrick Chester
Guest
Patrick Chester
1 year 3 months ago

Definition of STRAW MAN 1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted.

No, “everything” isn’t a strawman, just your lame attempts at arguing against ownership of weapons by claiming it means they want nuclear weapons. Or any other view you make up and attribute to your opponents under the mistaken belief that it’s a clever counterpoint.

Now continue with the flounce and exit and then come on back for more mockery.

Doug Loss
Guest
Doug Loss
1 year 3 months ago

Then go back to your leftist echo chamber and leave the normal folks alone.

Kristophr
Guest
Kristophr
1 year 3 months ago

Ah, you’ve brought out the Nuclear Strawman. Automatic loss, there cupcake.

That would be like attempting to make a 1st amendment case for snuff films.

justanobody
Guest
justanobody
1 year 3 months ago
people are quick to label their foils as strawmen around here huh? tip: godfrey’s law isn’t as ubiquitous as it is because it’s irrelevant. when people make sweeping, universal claims, a single exception undermines the entire position. usually, invoking the actions of hitler and nazis does the trick. here, the nuke stuff pertains because the ostensible point to the 2nd is self defense against tyranny. said it before, i’ll say it again – you pull a gun on a fed and you’re a fucking dead man. some defense. so cry your bitter little tears about strawmen wah wah… but 2nd… Read more »
snelson134
Guest
snelson134
1 year 3 months ago

Again, you betray your total inexperience with tactics. We won’t “pull a gun” on anyone. However, Mr. Fed has to sleep sometime. And unless you are believing that you can maintain order by saturation bombing (and we’ve pointed out why that is unlikely), you simply won’t be able to govern. Which is the point.

Patrick Chester
Guest
Patrick Chester
1 year 3 months ago

Yes, yes… only wise and noble folks like yourself can see the true state of the world.

Except the Emperor is still nekkid, little one.

Keep up the e.e. cummings act, since the shift key is so oppressing.

Doug Loss
Guest
Doug Loss
1 year 3 months ago

Amazing. You try to redefine Godwin’s Law (which you don’t even know enough about to name correctly) to fit your needs and evidently unknowingly make it apply to exactly what you’re doing. Are you really so un-selfaware as that?

redleg
Guest
redleg
11 months 21 days ago

Brother, Larry snipped your nuclear bomb strawman in THE ORIGINAL article. Reread it again please. You lefties lose whenever this is deployed. Man, I wish critical reasoning and logic was taught in schools.

Jordan S. Bassior
Guest
Jordan S. Bassior
1 year 3 months ago
1. according to that logic, you would be in favor of people owning and keeping NBC weapons as long as they don’t misuse them. just pointing out that that point alone is invalid unless you really do believe private citizens should own and keep NBCs. In the long run, private citizens will own nuclear explosives, or even more destructive devices. Of course, the implications of energy that cheap also include human expansion across the Universe, so this is not necessarily a bad thing. In the short run, have you ever considered how expensive are nuclear weapons? How many people do… Read more »
justanobody
Guest
justanobody
1 year 3 months ago

lol.

in trying to be clever you condemn your own point by your own hand.

bravo.

justanobody
Guest
justanobody
1 year 3 months ago
oops didn’t finish point 5 – in which the 2nd amendment seems to pertain, whatever you have will not be enough. gun proponents think about this standoff in abstract terms but bring it to today’s reality. with the amount of arms and ammo that you have in your house right now, how long can you hold out against half a dozen swat teams and the the FBI? that’s my point. and as i also said to correia, looks at any guerrilla action anywhere in the world – the central point is NEVER about arms that the populace had on hand.… Read more »
TheWriterInBlack
Guest
TheWriterInBlack
1 year 3 months ago
in which the 2nd amendment seems to pertain, whatever you have will not be enough. The usual “lightly armed irregulars in the US cannot defeat the US military” generally presented by people who claim “the US military cannot defeat lightly armed irregulars overseas.” gun proponents think about this standoff in abstract terms but bring it to today’s reality. Actually, gun proponents understand today’s realities quite well. It’s folk like you who seem to have this strange idea that armed resistance to a government turned tyrannical would consist of gun owners lining up on one side of a field, the military… Read more »
Synova
Guest
Synova
1 year 3 months ago
Huh. The “what if they send the military to get you” question… (or SWAT teams or the FBI or ATF). Those people have to believe that you’re a nefarious criminal first. In some instances where people are isolated, either geographically or ideologically, from their neighbors, the “standoff with the FBI” has gone very badly. This was also before widespread internet. When information can be controlled *to* the agents it’s easier to convince them that you’re a Danger to America. But the vast vast majority of gun owners in the US aren’t isolationists. They’re gregarious Joes with neighbors and friends and… Read more »
Kristophr
Guest
Kristophr
1 year 3 months ago

If they send the military or police out to get me, they will find an empty house when they bust in the door.

Why should I take on the police or military? They aren’t the retards that voted for this stuff. He might want to scrape that Obama sticker off his car after they attempt confiscations.

Jordan S. Bassior
Guest
Jordan S. Bassior
1 year 3 months ago

Oh yes … if there was a program of mass gun confiscations, morally speaking there would no longer be any good reason not to kill, injure or vandalize the property of anyone who supported it — since by supporting it the people would have signaled that they were giving up on the US Constitution, which is the very same social contract which acknowledges their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What … they dont get that?

justanobody
Guest
justanobody
1 year 3 months ago

amendments happen bub.

i guess you’re just on the side where you’ll die for america and the constitution when it only gets interpreted the way you like…. supreme court be damned.

Jordan S. Bassior
Guest
Jordan S. Bassior
1 year 3 months ago

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the Second Amendment. With what particular interpretation of the Constitution on their part do you imagine I disagree?

Doug Loss
Guest
Doug Loss
1 year 3 months ago

Yeah, go ahead and try to repeal the 2nd Amendment. See what happens.

redleg
Guest
redleg
11 months 21 days ago

then amend away. Glad to see you finally decide to opt for a course of action I can endorse. I will vote against you though. You you favor a complete gun ban? That should go swimmingly.

justanobody
Guest
justanobody
1 year 3 months ago

then your guns have done exactly zero good against tyranny.

good lord it’s dense in here.

: P

Doug Loss
Guest
Doug Loss
1 year 3 months ago

Projecting again, I guess. You really have no idea what you’re talking about, that’s very clear.

justanobody
Guest
justanobody
1 year 3 months ago

then who are you afraid?

: P

Patrick Chester
Guest
Patrick Chester
1 year 3 months ago

Congratulations, that was almost English.

Synova
Guest
Synova
1 year 3 months ago

Also, I’m extremely lightly armed by community (here) standards, but I have more guns than I can shoot at once and more ammo than I can carry. (Not because I’ve got a lot, but because it’s freaking *heavy*.)

Doug Loss
Guest
Doug Loss
1 year 3 months ago

The other thing they always seem to assume is that the military would be completely under the control of the government in such a situation. I strongly suspect that many units would somehow decline to take the field, and not a few would openly side with the American people against the government. After all, they all swore to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, not to protect and defend the government against the citizens of the country.

Jordan S. Bassior
Guest
Jordan S. Bassior
1 year 3 months ago

The usual “lightly armed irregulars in the US cannot defeat the US military” generally presented by people who claim “the US military cannot defeat lightly armed irregulars overseas.”

Indeed. Why do the very same type of troops become invincible abroad yet ineffectual on American soil, in the minds of the Left?

Patrick Chester
Guest
Patrick Chester
1 year 3 months ago

Worse: It’s exactly in reverse. Lightly-armed irregulars here in the US could do horrible damage, especially if they’re US citizens and/or are even former US military. The factories, depots, etc. that support our military could be badly damaged.

Lightly-armed irregulars overseas don’t usually have that sort of reach.

justanobody
Guest
justanobody
1 year 3 months ago

you’re arguing my point.

how many of those lightly armed irregulars had arms to begin with?

how many of those lightly armed irregulars could hold out for any amount of time without regular influx of munitions from friendly interests.

the gun nuts claim having arms ON HAND is important for some reason.

i’m saying that it is NOT important. if irregulars are going to have a chance, having guns on hand meant NOTHING.

having munitions smuggled to them regularly means EVERYTHING.

Jordan S. Bassior
Guest
Jordan S. Bassior
1 year 3 months ago

the gun nuts claim having arms ON HAND is important for some reason

The reason is that guns owned but physically-unavailable to oneself do one no good when one is fighting to defend one’s life.

redleg
Guest
redleg
11 months 21 days ago

Now you are arguing that our military and police would have to impose martial law on the people themselves. Now you will have to protect your own supply lines, when you cannot trust your own citizenry. The military problem just became more difficult. And we thought the Iraqis were hard?

justanobody
Guest
justanobody
1 year 3 months ago

you avoided my last points –

how long can you or ANY resistance hold out without arms coming in from friendly interests?

if they’re shipping in ammo, they’re also shipping in guns.

you guys make it seem like having guns ON HAND is important. when every revolution anywhere in the world for decades has proved that’s not the case.

snelson134
Guest
snelson134
1 year 3 months ago

No, what every revolution anywhere in the world has proven is that weapons are already and always available, because you’ll never take them ALL.

Doug Loss
Guest
Doug Loss
1 year 3 months ago

You clearly have no understanding of how such things work. It’s not even worth trying to pound understanding into your head; you would just reject it out of hand.

TheWriterInBlack
Guest
TheWriterInBlack
1 year 2 months ago
you avoided my last points – how long can you or ANY resistance hold out without arms coming in from friendly interests? And you ignore the fact that there are more armed citizens, with more ammo, then all the militaries of the world combined. And those armed citizens have enough weapons to arm every man, woman, and child in the US. (And I provided links at the time. Go uptopic and find them.) Just for giggles once in a discussion about ISIS and their threats (71 “trained soldiers” in the US? Color me quaking in my boots) I compared those… Read more »
TheWriterInBlack
Guest
TheWriterInBlack
1 year 2 months ago

Wups. My mistake I looked up the links but I didn’t include them in the post. Most estimates of firearms owners in the US come to about 80-90 million, owning between them upwards of 300 million firearms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel

The total number of all the militaries, military reserves, and paramilitary forces of the world combined is under 64 million.

Shadowdancer
Guest
Shadowdancer
1 year 2 months ago

Yeah, there was a good reason why Japan didn’t want to invade the US mainland.

And Australia was too far.

Patrick Chester
Guest
Patrick Chester
1 year 2 months ago

Our Sun Tzu wannabe also fails to consider the concept of resupplying from the enemy’s fallen.

Then again, he seems to attribute superhuman powers (“if you pull a gun on a fed, you’re dead”) to the government side, so I’m sure he dismissed the idea with a sniff.

Maybe he’ll give drones the powers of the Insight Helicarriers from Captain America: The Winter Soldier next?

snelson134
Guest
snelson134
1 year 2 months ago

To ignorant lefties, guns are magic wands: you wave one and everyone obeys your will. That’s a prime reason why universities and schools have high casualties from mass shootings: they’re gun-free zones, run and populated by lefties who see the magic wand and obey the command to wait to be killed.

Achillea
Guest
Achillea
1 year 2 months ago

Our Sun Tzu wannabe also fails to consider the concept of resupplying from the enemy’s fallen.

It also ignores the concept that guns really aren’t that difficult to make. And I’m not talking about using an expensive, high tech 3D printer with special ‘toner.’ Ammo is even easier, and there are also a lot of reloaders in the US making it even now.

redleg
Guest
redleg
11 months 21 days ago

They can fight for a pretty long time what what is on hand, especially as the military and police use calibers very similar to what we own. What was your point again?

Wil
Guest
Wil
1 year 3 months ago

Regarding guerrilla warfare, you had forgotten that the most simplest way to get regular arms shipment is from the inside especially when both the military and law enforcement personnel are supplying not only the weapons but also the training and the critical intelligence and these scenario will be the obvious case here if it ever happens.

Here is the supreme irony of your post, it will be the US government and not the gun rights supporters who will have a problem with third party arms shipments even when the former are well armed to begin with.

snelson134
Guest
snelson134
1 year 3 months ago

“with the amount of arms and ammo that you have in your house right now, how long can you hold out against half a dozen swat teams and the the FBI?”

Alone, or with a Lexington and Concord’s worth of friends and fellow supporters. One BIG reason the Feds backed down at the Bundy’s is that unlike Waco and Ruby Ridge, the word had gotten out and several hundred people with guns were on the way.

Chris Scena
Guest
Chris Scena
1 year 3 months ago

Mr. Correia, I have missed your epic rants. I eagerly await your published work, but know how much your fans enjoy your take down of trolls and tools. Much appreciated.

Wil
Guest
Wil
1 year 3 months ago
Larry Justanybody conveniently forgot that blue states like California, Illinois, Missouri, Vermont, New York , Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Virginia among others are actually Red States being ruled by people in blue cities and suburbs in those states. Hell, cut the water, food and energy supply of LA, San Francisco and Silicon Valley and deny them the use of air and water space and they will be screwed in less than a month . Cut off Manhattan and Staten Island from the rest of New York City by destroying the bridges, tunnels and denying them the use of airports… Read more »
David MacKinnon
Guest
David MacKinnon
1 year 3 months ago
Thank you Larry! Once again your powers as a word-smith explain SO much more clearly my standard reply of, “Who is gonna bell that cat for ya, Tinkerbell?” Just because one side has all the top brass in their pocket doesn’t mean what they think it means. The American fighting man (and woman) isn’t some third world peon with a gun, blindly obeying el heffe’s demands. The term is CITIZEN soldier (or cop, FBI SWAT team member, National Guardsman, ect). Often one who sees past the PC BS, and has no more tolerance for bullies and tyrants that the rest… Read more »
Kristophr
Guest
Kristophr
1 year 3 months ago

They might get a few folks who try to have a front yard Alamo, but everyone else they target will disappear. And then the carnage will really get under way.

These unarmed idiots do not realize that the rule of law protects them from ME. They should think long and hard about abrogating the law for their political ends.

Jordan S. Bassior
Guest
Jordan S. Bassior
1 year 3 months ago

Minor side-point: My Little Pony is mostly conservative, rather than liberal. The “derpy-eyed unicorn enthusiasts” are very likely to be part of the same gun culture as yourself, especially since they also tend to be fen.

Jordan S. Bassior
Guest
Jordan S. Bassior
1 year 3 months ago
In real life, the people who would have to go door to door in places like Texas and Utah enforcing this hypothetical confiscation law are all like, nope, ain’t gonna happen. I’m calling in sick. I’m calling in sick FOREVER. Yes, most of the gun owners would turn in their weapons, because they want to keep on living. The weapons which the government knows about. Of course, the gun owners who were the most suspicious of the government would have guns the government didn’t know about. How would the government propose to find them? Warranted searches? Warrantless searches? Torture the… Read more »
snelson134
Guest
snelson134
1 year 3 months ago

Admittedly, Larry, Obama is well aware of those facts about the US military, which is why he’s trying (and succeeding, to a certain extent) to change that by purging the officer corps of any officer who displays any belief in something other than Comrade Obama, discharging US citizens, and at the same time allowing illegal aliens to join the military. As John Ringo would put it, he’s changing it into a regime protection force.

justanobody
Guest
justanobody
1 year 3 months ago
just one point and i’m done here. you are not amenable to rational discussion. you are so entrenched and so passionate in your beliefs, that nothing contrary to your ideology gets through. sound familiar? it’s the exact same thing as the radical feminist left wing social justice warrior brigade. passion is not an ally to rationality. you see it pretty clearly in your enemies. do yourself a favor and turn the lens honestly on yourself as well. as i said before – we are enemies. we will always be enemies. you are useful to me in the fight against the… Read more »
Patrick Chester
Guest
Patrick Chester
1 year 3 months ago

just one point and i’m done here.

Doubtful.

Doug Loss
Guest
Doug Loss
1 year 3 months ago

Wow. You pretty much exactly describe yourself and your cohort, and then attribute that description to the rest of us. This is about the most classical example of psychological projection I’ve ever heard.

justanobody
Guest
justanobody
1 year 3 months ago

can’t help myself, last dig on the way out:

“but everybody in the military swears an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from enemies foreign, and DOMESTIC. So, how do you think members of the US military (who again, are overwhelmingly not progressive statist gun control enthusiasts) are going to react when given the order to go blow up American citizens because they are not complying with a law that violates the US Constitution?”

that’s an argument for you not needing guns in the first place you twit.

😛

Jordan S. Bassior
Guest
Jordan S. Bassior
1 year 3 months ago

Absent the guns, the order would be “take them into custody,” something far more morally-palatable to the troops in question.

snelson134
Guest
snelson134
1 year 3 months ago

No, it isn’t. It’s an argument that we already have guns, because it’s our Constitutional and inherent right to do so, and your kind will NEVER manage to take them away. Now, run back to momma’s basement, pajama boy.

Patrick Chester
Guest
Patrick Chester
1 year 3 months ago

can’t help myself, last dig on the way out:

Doubtful.

Doug Loss
Guest
Doug Loss
1 year 3 months ago

I’d like to think you can’t possibly be stupid enough to believe what you just said. But the evidence is that you can.

Achillea
Guest
Achillea
1 year 2 months ago
that”s an argument for you not needing guns in the first place you twit And there’s the pathetic little wannabe dictator we all knew was hiding right below the surface. The mask is off now, Nobody, LET YOUR FASCIST FLAG FLY. It’s amazing how fast it got from ‘you’ll never stop an oppressive government with your guns’ to ‘how dare you stop an oppressive government with your guns.’. It’s almost as if it was being dishonest all along. Jeremy, Bugmaster, any other trolls or antigun lurkers, this is why you get such a limited amount of rope from even the… Read more »
snelson134
Guest
snelson134
1 year 3 months ago

I’ve noticed that our troll hasn’t engaged your response.

Achillea
Guest
Achillea
1 year 3 months ago

I’ve noticed that our troll hasn’t engaged your response.

Of course not. It’s stamping its feet and running away crying because it didn’t get its way. Poor widdle twollikins. Awww.

Patrick Chester
Guest
Patrick Chester
1 year 3 months ago

I’m sure he’ll wait a whole month next time to make some “devastating” retort and show us all.

Kristophr
Guest
Kristophr
1 year 3 months ago

So exactly where did ISIS and the Taliban in Afghanistan get weapons? Santa Claus? How is that tanks and bombs thing vs. guerrillas idea working out there?

Someone will always sell weapons.

redleg
Guest
redleg
11 months 21 days ago
As he again brings back to the original article, for the the first day your confiscation of firearms will go quite nicely. Day 2 might be a different story. Assuming all the police are hob-nailed fascists, the word will eventually get out as the government is not as all seeing as you might imagine. When SWAT teams start disappearing, brother cop might reflect on the hazards of his chosen profession. On day 2, the citizens will have machineguns too. How many Americans are you willing to kill to achieve this fantasy of yours? And have you spoken to a therapist… Read more »
Adam Lawson
Guest
Adam Lawson
1 year 3 months ago
Hoo-boy. 1. Criminals actually don’t often use automatic weapons, that was one of the points. But there’s a big difference in laws banning possession of something ( so very hard to enforce; see the drug trade/war, which is a HUGE waste of resources), and banning an act *against another person*. If you can’t see and recognize that, go ahead and stop reading. 2. Gun deaths, counting murders, accidents, and suicides, are roughly equal with car deaths in the last year data is available (or was, when I had this argument a month ago). Cars aren’t even guaranteed in the constitution,… Read more »
justanobody
Guest
justanobody
1 year 3 months ago
” But there’s a big difference in laws banning possession of something ( so very hard to enforce; see the drug trade/war, which is a HUGE waste of resources), and banning an act *against another person*.” that’s not as good a point as you seem to think it is. the gun propo argument is talking about the futility of illegalizing something that people are still going to do. you’re hung up on semantics but we can make the law behavior based – acquiring and keeping a gun. there. now it’s on the same level as murder. so according to you… Read more »
The Phantom
Guest
The Phantom
1 year 3 months ago
You seem very devoted to the idea that all of us who own guns are wrong, and you who do not own one are right. Has it not occurred to you to wonder why socialist governments the world over keep coming back again and again and again to banning guns, a prohibition that even the Japanese on their island cannot make stick? Why do they keep doing something that has never worked and in principle cannot work? I propose to you sir that instead of thinking up new rules lawyering arguments, maybe you should THINK about why your government is… Read more »
Patrick Chester
Guest
Patrick Chester
1 year 3 months ago

You seem very devoted to the idea that all of us who own guns are wrong, and you who do not own one are right.

…and he must save people from the tyranny of grammar as well.

Adam Lawson
Guest
Adam Lawson
1 year 3 months ago

Clearly, there is no productive solution to our disagreement. You are hung up on some odd details; I was saying banning possession of an item is hard to enforce and also not the same sort of crime as a crime against a person. There are different types of laws. But it appears we are stuck on this point.

Good luck with your debating.

justanobody
Guest
justanobody
1 year 3 months ago
dammit, didn’t finish. sorry. “And the naivete on the other side is that the government is peopled with people who are intrinsically good and responsible.” this is not the case. as i argue with correia, the notion of “trust” usually lies with conservatives, not liberals. conservatives trust that people are capable of gun ownership. conservatives trust in the free markets. on the other hand liberals don’t TRUST the government. we believe it has its place but as set out in the constitution, it has to be checked at every turn. the government is not filled with good wholesome people. but… Read more »
Sjonnar
Guest
Sjonnar
1 year 3 months ago
Perhaps people insult you and are snide because they are tired of your condescending attitude. You have made liberal (pun not intended) use of logical fallacies in your arguments, (one example: “you’re saying there’s no point in banning because people hellbent on breaking that law will break it anyway. in that case, why have any law according to your reasoning?” This is a logical fallacy called reductio ad absurdum. Also, Synova answered this question, without even calling you out on the fallacy. Did you bother to read her answer?) and have on several occasions repeated questions that others have answered,… Read more »
Feather Blade
Guest
Feather Blade
1 year 3 months ago

This is a logical fallacy called reductio ad absurdum.

Actually the reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate rhetorical device that enables one to force one’s opponent to admit the foolishness of his own position, by running it out to its logical(ly absurd) conclusion.

The rhetorically inept who attempt this tactic usually end up creating a strawman instead, as we see above.

Kristophr
Guest
Kristophr
1 year 3 months ago

Rhetoric and Logic are two entirely different things.

A competent rhetorician will try to undermine logic that disagrees with his side.

Feather Blade
Guest
Feather Blade
1 year 3 months ago

Rhetoric and Logic are not completely different things.

Logic enables one to construct strong arguments that are congruent with reality.

Rhetoric enables one to express those arguments in a winsome and convincing manner.

That aside, the point I was trying to make is that reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy.

Inkstain
Guest
Inkstain
1 year 3 months ago
Mr. justanobody, You sir have me completely confused. You say liberals distrust the government. Why then do they continue pushing forth policies that expand the size and scope of government? You say you hold the government accountable. Can you please elaborate on that? Exactly how? Because from what I’m seen, the bastions of liberalism (big cities) are utterly corrupt cesspits. An armed person can directly defend himself against most forms of physical aggression he may encounter. Thus, he has a certain amount of personal sovereignty. Conversely, an unarmed man must appeal to the state for protection. Why do you prefer… Read more »
Adam Lawson
Guest
Adam Lawson
1 year 3 months ago
“conversely though, just because the govt. has nukes does NOT mean that the citizenry should.” This is a straw man. None of us are saying that. “and is that CAUSED by more people owning guns? or not? and if not, doesn’t that just mean that one of the rationales for owning gun is becoming less rational?” Civilization as a whole has little to do with individual gun rights. However, individual safety is proven to be improved by them. “again, the 2nd amendment is not about ” The government has said 2A is about an individual right to keep and bear… Read more »
rocinante
Guest
rocinante
1 year 3 months ago

@justanobody (if you’re still paying attention): If you don’t like our arguments for private gun ownership, try this guy’s: http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html

A lot of his arguments are the same as ours, but his have a nice left-wing flavor. There are also explicitly left-wing appeals in it. I particularly liked, “The problem with radical right-wing populism isn’t that it’s radical, or populist. and the little cartoon at the top of the article tells you right away where he’s coming from.

rocinante
Guest
rocinante
1 year 3 months ago
rocinante
Guest
rocinante
1 year 3 months ago
Consider this: Some of us have been having this conversation for thirty years. You show up with the usual collection of tired strawmen, shopworn fallacies, and badfeels about guns and are disappointed that you aren’t shown more respect? Where in the world (or the Internet) can you show up with a lack of experience in debating the topic and a lack of basic knowledge about it, and expect your words to be treated as brilliance and wisdom? Believe me, what you got here was mild in comparison to what you’d’ve gotten on any half-dozen gun blogs. In a way, you… Read more »
Bibliotheca Servare
Guest
Bibliotheca Servare
1 year 2 months ago

My favorite part? You just accurately described justanobody’s behavior…and it (his/her behavior) matches up perfectly with the definition of (delusional though the term is) “mansplaining” as described by those same lesbian radical feminazis he claims to despise! Delicious! If the “Dunning-Kruger-effect” wasn’t so much malarky, I’d call him/her a perfect illustration of it! Awe inspiring ignorance from this dude/gal. Truly delightful, if one can get past the understandable irritation it causes.

Shawna
Guest
Shawna
1 year 3 months ago

Seriously, dude, what is it you have against capital letters?

JohnDoe
Guest
JohnDoe
1 year 1 month ago
You know… one day you people will come around and say that knowing martial arts is bad because you learn how to hurt people. Because fuck all the benefits exercising has. Why don’t you people ban needles? I mean, it’s not so difficult to kill a person with a needle. There is an insane count of possibilities how to cause permanent bodily harm or death to a human. Even with your bare hands. It’s actually a lot easier than pacifying someone without doing damage [ pain is not damage, pain is just pain ]. I consider using a gun cheating,… Read more »
Avalanche
Guest
Avalanche
10 months 9 days ago

“i trust the government with fire-arms like i trust the government with nuclear weapons. i don’t. and i hold them accountable for their actions.”

You’re going to “hold them accountable”?! HOW?! But threatening to vote against them next time?! By writing a sternly worded letter? A nasty editorial in the NYTimes?!?! Do you not get (well obviously not…) that “holding the gov t accountable” is the entire actual POINT of the 2nd Amendment?!

BobtheRegisterredFool
Guest
BobtheRegisterredFool
1 year 3 months ago
Yeah right, justanobody. White supremacists in Baltimore just took advantage of the disarmed population there to freely burn property whose loss disproportionately impacted minorities. History and prehistory tells us in all empires that disarmed minorities get treated such. The only way to arm minorities is to arm everyone. The armed populations in the United States more than offset the spree killers because a) political factions are limited in the areas they can carry out atrocities b) the scope of atrocities is limited by what they can pass off as just c) they can’t go too overboard because otherwise their victims… Read more »
justanobody
Guest
justanobody
1 year 3 months ago

if you genuinely believe that the reason there are not genocidal atrocities in the u.s. is because of private gun ownership….

good luck to you.

dgarsys
Guest
dgarsys
1 year 3 months ago

It may not be the reason, but the history of populations that don’t have arms, and what happens to them when they’re disarmed (especially when the government goes out of their way to disarm them) is… educational.

See hitler and jews (note the cries of panic in the warsaw ghetto uprising that the jews were actually armed…). See the history of gun control regulation in large northern cities (hint – it was to keep those blacks from having weapons…..)

Massacring a population is much easier when one side has all the weapons.

Synova
Guest
Synova
1 year 3 months ago

It’s probably less of a cause and effect and more of an indication of non-concurrent conditions. The *condition* of widespread gun ownership by citizens is concurrent with the *condition* of not having a tyranny. The citizens with their personal armories aren’t fighting off genocidal atrocities because “personal armories” and “genocidal atrocities” can’t happen in the same social/political space time continuum.

BobtheRegisterredFool
Guest
BobtheRegisterredFool
1 year 3 months ago
That may be part of it, but a heavily armed populace is no bar to endemic genocidal warfare. The latter might be said to be the typical state of mankind. I think the real issue is our low level of grudges. It was never politically expedient for the Democrats to get rid of populations, as opposed to keeping them in line. They use abortion, welfare, and when they did terroristic killings, they were more specific than genocidal. That doesn’t exactly make the Balkans. As for the Indians, they no longer have stomach for anything more offensive than whining, and it… Read more »
Joe in PNG
Guest
Joe in PNG
1 year 3 months ago

Not just the Jews. How many liberal, pacifistic, politically neutral counties were invaded during WW2? How many partisans had to make do with pretty much any bodged together weapon they could lay their hands on?
It is rather interesting to count the total number of First World countries who have not been invaded, besieged, suffered a nasty civil war, or been under a tyrannical government in the last two hundred years.
The answer is pretty much just Switzerland… and they have lots of guns.

Synova
Guest
Synova
1 year 3 months ago

Or if you’re Finland you just need that one guy with a gun.

TRX
Guest
TRX
1 year 3 months ago

Simo Hayha, aka “The White Death.”

700 to 740 kills, depending on who’s counting. In under a hundred days.

Hayha and other (sadly almost unknown) Finnish snipers didn’t stop the Red Army cold, but their efforts certainly demoralized it enough for Finland to keep existing as an independent nation.

Unless you meant Karl Mannerheim, under whose direction the Finns bitch-slapped the Red Army so hard that teeth in the Kremlin rattled…

Synova
Guest
Synova
1 year 3 months ago

I was thinking of Simo Hayha. I’ll have to look up Karl Mannerheim.

Bibliotheca Servare
Guest
Bibliotheca Servare
1 year 2 months ago

I’ve got to look them both up, I’m ashamed to say. Looking forward to reading about their exploits! This Simo fellow sounds like Rambo/Earl Harbinger only real! (Nobody tell Earl I said he wasn’t real. I like my head *connected* to my body, tyvm) *rubs hands together*

Patrick Chester
Guest
Patrick Chester
1 year 3 months ago

It’s also interesting to note how the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, starting with a handful of pistols, ended up causing so much of a ruckus it took multiple divisions to bring them down.

Something a military genius like “justanobody” might want to think about.

TheWriterInBlack
Guest
TheWriterInBlack
1 year 3 months ago

if you genuinely believe that the reason there are not genocidal atrocities in the u.s. is because of private gun ownership….

Ah, the “It can’t happen here” argument.

http://thewriterinblack.blogspot.com/2015/02/it-cant-happen-here.html

BobtheRegisterredFool
Guest
BobtheRegisterredFool
1 year 3 months ago
Do you say that there are no genocidal atrocities in Germany, because the camps were shut down seventy years back? I submit to you that if I have one mass grave filled with US person minorities incident in the United States during a similar time frame, that you are full of shit. Which is to say a bit over ninety years back, the Democrats did it, the city was quietly frightened into the 1980s, and every bit of Democrat ‘skepticism’ reminds me of Holocaust denial. Except that the Nazis are not only willing to concede that such things happened when… Read more »
Guest
Robin Munn
1 year 3 months ago

BobtheRegisterredFool,

Which incident are you talking about? I’m more or less familiar with the internment of Japanese Americans under FDR, but that doesn’t sound like what you’re describing (the “the city was quietly frightened into the 1980s” line in particular doesn’t sound like the Japanese internment is what you’re talking about). Could you link to a description of the incident you’re referring to, or explain it a bit more fully?

Peter O
Guest
Peter O
1 year 3 months ago

Robin, I think Bob may be talking about the Tulsa Race Riots of 1921. Killed somewhere between 39 and 300 people (including several of the initial white rioters before black defenders were driven off) and bascially wasn’t recorded officially until a few years ago.

BobtheRegisterredFool
Guest
BobtheRegisterredFool
1 year 3 months ago
Robin, Peter is correct. I once met someone looking for the mass grave. The Democrats owned the state then. A major figure in the internal politics of the Oklahoma Democratic Party, Gene Stipes, joined in the thirties. When he was forced out by federal indictment last decade, he had the pull to be sentenced to community service advising the state legislature. This was around when the state government officially admitted what happened. Peter, I once found a LGBT SJW, possibly a third wave feminist, who claimed thousands. I also heard, via an unreliable source, that both sides were initially armed,… Read more »
Sjonnar
Guest
Sjonnar
1 year 3 months ago

Quite a many of us do believe that, yes. After all, ’twas a liberal president that put over a hundred thousand American citizens in concentration camps.

Morgan
Guest
Morgan
1 year 3 months ago
“1. criminals use automatic weapons. see how well a ban works? – murderers murder. shall we not ban murder then? outlaws will be outlaws… so let’s not have any laws.” Criminals use automatic weapons or “assault weapons” in about 2% of gun crimes. You can claim this is because the ban works, but I have found little evidence that automatic weapons were used in more than about 5% of crimes before they were regulated. Handguns represent the vast majority of guns used in a crime. “2. sure, guns are used in self defense. – how many legally owned guns are… Read more »
TheWriterInBlack
Guest
TheWriterInBlack
1 year 3 months ago
1. criminals use automatic weapons. see how well a ban works? – murderers murder. shall we not ban murder then? outlaws will be outlaws… so let’s not have any laws. We have laws to punish things that we consider “bad”. Murder is bad so we, as a society decide to punish murder. In a best case, the threat of punishment for murder will deter some people from trying and we have less murder. However, once you have murder being illegal passing additional laws against things that aren’t themselves bad (having an automatic weapon is not bad it is only what… Read more »
Richard McEnroe
Guest
Richard McEnroe
1 year 3 months ago

I have a Soviet rifle and Yugoslavian pistol; they haven’t me Commie yet. Probably won’t turn me into a mass killer either.

Richard McEnroe
Guest
Richard McEnroe
1 year 3 months ago

Haven’t TURNED me Commie yet…

Sjonnar
Guest
Sjonnar
1 year 2 months ago

There’s an edit function now, but you have to reload the page to see it. Gives you five minutes to fix any typographical or grammatical errors you notice.

Av willis
Guest
Av willis
1 year 3 months ago
Regarding point 2, the original draft was actually surprisingly conclusive That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purposes of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the… Read more »
Linoge
Guest
Linoge
1 year 3 months ago
“1. criminals use automatic weapons. see how well a ban works? – murderers murder. shall we not ban murder then? outlaws will be outlaws… so let’s not have any laws.” Oh FFS. I suggest you investigate the difference between malum prohibitum laws and malum in se laws before you go and make a further ass of yourself. Murder is a demonstrable, measurable harm to another human being. Simply owning a piece of metal configured in a certain fashion is not. Given you can’t seem to grasp the difference between those two concepts, there’s hardly any point bothering with the rest… Read more »
PavePusher
Guest
PavePusher
1 year 2 months ago
1. How often? This is a statistical concern? Show your data, prove it’s a danger… THEN we can talk. 2. You can actually look these stats up, but you are too lazy or stupid to do so. Google WISQARS (CDC data), DOJ data or look to any of the pro-gun pages citing actual studies and raw data. Here’s a good one. http://www.gunfacts.info/ Now do your own homework. 3. It is “the right of the people”, not a right of the militia. “well regulated” applies to the militia, not “the right of the people”. Membership in a militia is neither a… Read more »
PavePusher
Guest
PavePusher
1 year 2 months ago
Christopher M. Chupik
Guest
Christopher M. Chupik
1 year 3 months ago
Zsuzsa
Guest
Zsuzsa
1 year 3 months ago
Thanks for the link. That may be one of the most hysterical things I’ve read in a while. Someone desperately needs to fisk that. I know that our esteemed host is busy writing things that will actually get him money, but if he feels like taking a break to shoot some fish in a barrel, it’s a target-rich container. Or if someone else felt like doing some fisking? Seriously, any article whose first sentence is a dramatic statistic and whose second sentence is, “Just kidding, I totally made that up, but you should act as if it’s real anyway” is… Read more »
Feather Blade
Guest
Feather Blade
1 year 3 months ago

Actually… I think I’d like to see Hollywood try that.

They’ve got the cultural hegemony and the person to person influence, let’s see if they can actually do it.

I bet they can’t. And if they can’t in a tyrannical, perverse cesspool like Hollywood…

red vector
Guest
red vector
1 year 3 months ago
I know this is off topic but it’s linked together. Just three months ago a white cop shot a black man in the back in North Charleston SC and last week a disgusting little prick slaughters 9 people in a church a few miles away in Charleston SC. If this had happened in any other state there would be burning, looting, and destroying public property. But it didn’t happen. Why? Because unlike the people of the other cities whose instinct is to turn to hate and to destroy their neighborhoods and businesses we the people of SC chose another path.… Read more »
Bibliotheca Servare
Guest
Bibliotheca Servare
1 year 2 months ago

Damn. Nicely put. I don’t know if NC is anything like SC, but I’m moving to North Carolina soon, and you’ve just made me feel even more confident that I’m going to enjoy living there. Thanks.

STW
Guest
STW
1 year 3 months ago
I’ve a friend who is a retired forensic psychologist and has spent time as a beat cop and working as a profiler and for the DEA. He does understand the mental health issues and does what he does with that knowledge. He carries a 1911 and his truck gun is a short barreled AR in 6.8 SPC with a suppressor. He spends thousands of dollars yearly on ammo, training, and equipment even though he’s almost 70. His actions speak a lot louder than the words of a lot of naysayers. That’s good enough for me.
Joe in PNG
Guest
Joe in PNG
1 year 3 months ago
Sad sack little loner losers trying to make a mark by killing people is nothing new. Most famous political assassinations and attempts were done by sad sack little losers looking for fame- all the way back to Czar Alex III and before. The thing is, the political types are now better protected. Thus, the losers now have to go with quantity over quality, and shoot up a school, bomb a footrace (or subway), or run a car into a crowd. What do we then do? First, you got to protect yourself. And sorry to tell you sunshine, you are responsible… Read more »
Guest
Draven
1 year 3 months ago

Unfortunately,. there are people who believe we can nerf the world, and if we wrap everything in bubble wrap no one will be hurt ever again.

Kevin Findley
Guest
Kevin Findley
1 year 3 months ago

Defeating bubble wrap is easy. Cut a notch into your baseball bat and insert a length of sharp, rusty metal. Slices right through the wrap and smacks the thumb-sucking SJW right in the noggin’.

The point is that the justanobody types will always be with us. You can lead a horse to facts but you can make him stop covering his eyes and ears and going NAH NAH NAH NAH once you get there.

Ad Astra
Guest
Ad Astra
1 year 3 months ago

And if you wrap someone in enough bubble wrap to protect them from everything they will suffocate and die. A rather apt analogy I think.

Archer
Guest
Archer
1 year 3 months ago

I read this the first time, back in 2012.

It hasn’t lost any validity for being two-and-a-half years old. The arguments for increased government control (of everything, not just firearms) haven’t changed. We’ve heard them all. Luckily, the counter-arguments haven’t, either. Why should they? Facts are facts. What is true today will be true tomorrow, the next day, or any time there’s a mass murder by an armed psycho in a Gun Free Zone.

(BTW, Mr. Correia, I finally got around to reading MHI. Epic. Looking forward to the rest. Thank you for writing!)

trackback

[…] and I can’t find who came up with it — my most recent encounter with it was over at Larry Correia’s place in the comment section. Now, of course, getting journalists and talking heads to quit bloviating […]

Christopher M. Chupik
Guest
Christopher M. Chupik
1 year 3 months ago

On a related note:

http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/11/british-police-calling-for-knife-ban/

Britain bans guns, gets knife violence, now wants to ban knives. I expect an epidemic of fist violence in the near future, followed by calls for stricter hand control.

Patrick Chester
Guest
Patrick Chester
1 year 3 months ago

It’s sad when life starts imitating a Monty Python sketch.

Zsuzsa
Guest
Zsuzsa
1 year 3 months ago

It used to be called “satire.” Now we refer to it as “prophesy.”

Patrick Chester
Guest
Patrick Chester