Self Defense is a Human Right

It doesn’t matter what your lifestyle choices are, there are evil people out there who want you to die for them. Evil doesn’t care about laws. In this particular case we are talking about a subset of ideologically inspired killers so motivated that they weaponize pressure cookers and regularly carry out gun massacres in countries where regular citizens aren’t allowed to own guns.

I already addressed mass killings and all the various regularly proposed gun laws in 2012 after Sandy Hook. This ended up being one of the most widely read articles ever written on the subject. If you want to have an in depth look at these events and how all the regular gun control proposals work, read this first:

And everything I want to say about the typical media/government response to these atrocities, I said after San Bernardino:

In the aftermath of Orlando, a friend began putting together a list of firearms instructors and regular gun folks who are willing to take anyone—and specifically anyone in the LGBT community—to the range and provide some basic instruction so that they can familiarize themselves with guns for self-defense. That list of instructors is here:

If you are an instructor and you would like to help, EDIT: 

Dear everyone: please Please PLEASE contact me via email at erin.palette@gmail.comwith your name, city & state, your best method of contact (email, cell#, IM, webpage, etc) and any other salient info such as instructor certification or if you are a business.Thank you so much!

She will get you on the list. 

That highlighted part above is the important bit of this post, and now I’m going to explain why I think what she is doing is a great idea.

When evil people attack, you can either be in a position to do something about it, or wait for somebody else to come and save you. Being armed and trained doesn’t guarantee your safety any more than wearing a seatbelt doesn’t mean you’ll live through a crash, or owning a fire extinguisher means your house won’t burn down, but it may help.

Please read that first link where I go into detail how mass shootings work and how they usually unfold. We see every time that the best way to end a mass shooting event is an immediate violent response. If that response comes from somebody already present, the body count is usually lower. If the response comes from the police, then there are usually more casualties simply due to the response time.

Carrying a gun isn’t for everybody. Those who decide to don’t need to be Navy SEALs, just speed bumps.

No one is naïve enough to think that merely having a regular person nearby with a gun is a perfect solution. This last event had a lone security guard present, but the attacker still got inside and killed people. Guards have a purpose. They keep the riff raff out, but when you are dealing with a motivated mass killer, a lone posted guard is just an obvious first target. This is where the concept of defense in depth comes into play.

Defense in depth is a military term. You don’t just arm your troops on the front line, because the enemy is going to try and go around where you are strongest, to get to the vulnerable areas behind them. So you also arm your support troops, so no matter where the enemy strikes, they meet resistance.

For us, it is awesome if the Feds nab a terror cell, or somebody tells the local cops about a psycho building a bomb and the cops arrest him before he can use it. But the government can’t stop everything. Evil will inevitably get through those lines and launch attacks. Then the next line of defenders is whichever unlucky bastard happened to be in the way.

Even then, nuts and bolts, once the attacker is past the guards a permit holder may or may not be in a position to help. Gun fights are chaotic. Every one unfolds differently. You can do everything right and still die. You can screw up, get lucky, and survive.  However, guns are a tool that provides options you would not otherwise have. When regular people do fight back during one of these events, they become an obstacle and a complication for the killer. At minimum they are slowed down. At best, the threat is neutralized.

Orlando is yet another example that Gun Free Zones are vile, stupid ideas. The intent is to prevent people from getting hurt. The reality is the opposite. Your feelings on the matter don’t change the results. The vast majority of mass shootings have taken place in areas where regular citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

I’ve seen a lot of people over the last few days saying that the “random good guy with a gun” is a myth. That is foolish simply because we have plenty of examples where a mass shooter was derailed or stopped by the intervention of a random person who happened to be near. Just in my home state alone, which is relatively peaceful, with low crime, a low population, and above average police response time in our urban areas, I can think of several instances where a killer was interrupted or stopped entirely by somebody other than the responding officers.

Sometimes these were regular citizens with concealed weapons permits (KSL shooting, mass stabbing at Smiths) and others they were off duty police officers in regular clothing going about their daily lives who responded first (Trolley Square, Salt Lake Library hostage situation) or even a parole officer who just happened to be at a hospital (Cache) for unrelated reasons, and ended up saving lives.

The identity of the responder doesn’t matter, just that there is one as soon as possible. The important thing is how much time elapses between the beginning of the massacre and the violent response, because that is time the killer is allowed to work unimpeded. In some cases the attack was in a gun free zone and the responders had to leave, go to their vehicles, retrieve a weapon, and then return (Pearl Mississippi, and if I recall correctly the Appalachian School of Law).

Traditionally the gay community has trended overwhelmingly statistically liberal in their politics, with a correspondingly low number of gun owners. But being unarmed also makes you easier victims for evil people. This has to change.

I don’t care what your personal beliefs are, or what your lifestyle is, self-defense is a human right. Take advantage of it. Please.

If you are responsible, and you’ve got the proper mindset, check Erin’s map, go get familiarized with weapons, seek out training, and then get a gun. If you live someplace where it is legal, get a concealed weapons permit and get used to carrying it everywhere you can. People like me are happy to walk you through the process. That way when something bad happens, you might end up in a position to help.

I had some buffoon sanctimoniously lecturing me yesterday that I must want people to live in fear. Quite the contrary actually, I want them to go about living their lives in peace, with the tools to survive if something bad happens. I have health insurance and smoke alarms, but I don’t live my life in fear of disease or fire. With proper training and practice, you can conceal a handgun as easily as you carry your car keys or cell phone. Make it part of your routine.

Fear is normal, and we have it for a reason. The problem is irrational fear that causes you to make bad decisions. You are right to fear murderers, because they exist. That is perfectly rational. Disarming all their potential victims because you are afraid one of them might potentially do something harmful is irrational.

In reality mass killing events are a statistical anomaly. The odds of you being involved in one are minuscule. You are far more likely to be a victim of regular, good old fashioned, non-news-worthy, violent crime, and in those cases a gun is often a great tool. Despite the breathless media coverage to the contrary, violent crime is at the lowest it has been in decades. Pull out a handful of urban areas and statistically America is as violent as Canada. You can guess what the gun control laws are like in those few urban areas.

Bad things will continue to happen. No amount of symbolic—ultimately useless—laws will change that. Like I said above, when bad things happen you can either be in a position to do something, or not.

I have seen a lot of wishful thinking, virtue signaling, and bad ideas bandied about over the last few days. Everything from banning guns (see the first link for details there) to more background checks (this particular psychopath had a clean record, went through multiple background checks, and even got through FBI investigations without being indicted, and was licensed by the government to be one of the armed people supposedly protecting you).

I saw some really outlandish ideas bandied about, including some from another author friend of mine (who will remain unnamed) how his tool for self-defense was a cell phone, which is an ironic statement in the wake of a case where the killer called 911 beforehand. Or how in the future to prevent crime you can take the bad guy’s picture and store it, then nobody will do anything bad because they’ll get caught. Only banks have cameras, yet they still get robbed. And in the case of mass killers, most of them are searching for infamy and think they are making a statement, so they’ll probably smile for the camera, then wait for you to upload it to Instagram, before shooting you in the face.

The Do Something crowd annoys me, because their suggested Somethings are either symbolic incompetent placebos which only harass the law abiding (NFA, GCA, AWB) or have the opposite effect and actually make the problem worse (Gun Free Zones, the multitude of regional regulations disarming law abiding citizens).

But the worst of the Do Something idea is the one where you want to block people from purchasing guns because they are on a secret government watch list. This is a horrible idea.

First and foremost, I thought liberals were supposed to be opposed to secret government watch lists to deprive people of their rights, compiled by unaccountable government employees, with no way to face your accusers, no way to get off the list, and absolutely zero due process. Yeah, I’m sure the government would never abuse such a power. Second, the DHS and FBI guys I’m friends with don’t want to block the legal gun purchases of somebody they have under surveillance, because then all a terror cell needs to do to find out if they are under suspicion is to go try and legally buy a gun. Third, the people who are supposed to end up on this list are suspected terrorists. Often planning and preparing for months in advance, and you think not being able to buy a gun in a store is a challenge?  And none of that stops the homegrown psycho with the crazy pet cause that doesn’t show up on a government watch list.

Whatever your politics, whoever you are voting for this next election, just imagine the hated other side wins. Would you want that man/woman to have the ability to deprive you of your rights because they put you on a secret list? If you’re thinking my sainted man/woman would never do that, but the crooked conniving presidential candidate on the other side would totally abuse such a power, then maybe it is a really stupid power to give anybody.

I hate to break it to you, but prohibited persons try to buy guns through stores all the time, and they get denied by NICS. It is a felony for a prohibited person to knowingly falsify information on a 4473 background check form. Yet the government almost never prosecutes them.

Don’t be naïve, people. You can’t solve evil. We live in a world with violent, awful people in it. And I’m not talking about somebody not wanting to bake you a cake. There are a dozen countries where homosexuality is punishable by death, and the militant, fundamentalist death cult contingent of a major religion thinks the holocaust was a nice warm up.

But I’m not going to dwell on the identity of this particular killer, because fuck that loser. Nobody should ever repeat their names. They want fame, don’t give them what they want. When you find yourself in one of these events, it doesn’t matter if the killer’s motivations are jihad, or racial purity, or his wife left him, or he hates his job, or the voices his head told him to kill people, all that matters in that terrible moment is doing what you need to do to survive, and if you’re capable of it, saving anyone else you can.

It isn’t about guns. Fools and power hungry charlatans make it about the tools. Evil men have killed with fire and fertilizer. They have used guns to kill with impunity in countries where only the government is supposed to have guns, and the only differences between those places and here was the time elapsed before the violent response.

They will continue to kill, because that’s what they do.

Global geo-politics are out of your hands. Most of us can’t do crap about the sad state of entire world. What you can do right now is see to yourself, your loved ones, and your immediate surroundings.

If you don’t have the right mindset to carry a gun, or you don’t think you could shoot somebody, that’s fine. It isn’t for everybody. We are all different. But don’t stand in the way of somebody else who can.

I know a guy who did two tours in Iraq, one of which he saw a ton of combat. He’s calm, rational, clear headed, and from what I understand, a pretty darned good shooter. He’s also homosexual. If this guy, or somebody just like him, had been a patron in that club that night, why on earth would you want that man legally disarmed? Spare me the typical he would just make it worse projection nonsense. No. He’s not you. He’s better than you are.

I’ve seen a lot of cowardly projection over the last few days. Don’t be that guy.  And don’t go the other way and be the macho warrior who would have rushed the killer with his bare hands, because you don’t know what the situation was, and you sound like a trash talking fool.

Regardless of whether you willing to carry a gun or not, at least go learn basic first aid. It is always useful. And after Paris, Boston, Mumbai, San Bernardino, dozens of others, and now Orlando have demonstrated these tactics achieve the desired results and get the coverage terrorists crave, this sort of thing is probably coming to someplace near you soon. When it comes to gunshot wounds and shrapnel from explosions it is all about direct pressure and tourniquets, so learn how.

But I was a firearms instructor, not a paramedic, so I’m going to write about what I do know, and that’s making speed bumps.

Hit Erin’s link. Get trained, get armed. You can’t count on anyone else coming to save you.

Signed Copies of Grunge

114 thoughts on “Self Defense is a Human Right”

  1. Dear everyone: please Please PLEASE contact me via email at with your name, city & state, your best method of contact (email, cell#, IM, webpage, etc) and any other salient info such as instructor certification or if you are a business.

    Please please PLEASE do NOT send me your volunteer information via Private Message! That way lies madness for me.

    Thank you so much!

        1. Sadly, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if it was. San Diego has one of the largest military populations in the country, and more importantly, the bases are right smack-dab in the middle of a large city, more highly integrated into the civilian population than any other place with similar numbers of troops. Considering that it is completely impossible for anyone, including active duty military, to get a concealed carry permit in San Diego, (unless they have a restraining order against an active stalker, work as a bodyguard for a movie star, or, most notably, contribute a significant amount of money to the sheriff’s re-election campaign) I can’t think of a more perfect combination of soft target and ideologically attractive target to a terrorist, anywhere in the country.

          On top of that, I know for a fact there have been numerous probing attempts on some of the bases here, some of them more complicated than the simple “car full of middle-eastern looking individuals tries to get on base and gives a silly story about taking a wrong turn” incidents that happen everywhere. That said, I don’t think that an attack, whenever it happens, is actually likely to be ON one of the bases: It’ll take place in a public space, to better take advantage of how highly integrated the military population is with the civilian population in San Diego.

          Oh, and did you all know that after several years of purposefully delaying, and during this delay refusing to honor the initial decision of the three judge panel which said that San Diego’s interpretation of “good cause” for issuing concealed carry permits was unconstitutional because it amounted to a de facto ban, the full ninth circuit court FINALLY decided to meet to rule against Peruta v. San Diego, in direct violation of both the Heller decision and common sense, JUST in time to potentially be brought to the Supreme Court before Scalia is replaced?

          Yeah, sure. THAT will help when the inevitable attack on San Diego happens…

          Seriously, I hate San Diego. I love the weather as much as the next guy, but I sure do wish that weather could be transplanted somewhere else…

  2. Orlando is yet another example that Gun Free Zones are vile, stupid ideas.

    I believe the word is “evil”.

  3. The “make it worse” line is ridiculous. How anyone can say that with a straight face after events such as Orlando or Paris is mind boggling.

    1. Just realized that’s ambiguous. People who say a concealed carrier will only make it worse are ridiculous. How much worse than completely at the mercy of a psychopath does it get? Even if he’s never hit, if he has to duck once or twice, that’s time he’s not leisurely mowing people down.

      1. “If confronted with overwhelming and superior force by an assailant who appears to be intent on killing you the only logical position you can adopt and the view you must adopt is that you are dead right there, right now… any act you undertake can only improve the outcome. It cannot make it worse, because the worst possible outcome has already happened.”

  4. Thanks for posting your blog. I’ll be honest – I’m not in total agreement, but I concur with 40 to 60 percent of what you’ve said. But more importantly, I like that you are actively trying to help people get the information they need to defend themselves. My biggest concern with any conceal carry is the “macho warrior” you mentioned near the end of your blog – the people who don’t bother to get any training and see themselves more like John McClane than a speed bump.

    1. Trust me, after teaching a few thousand people those people are out there, but they are a tiny minority.

      1. In fairness, macho types tend to not believe that they need instruction, so there’s sampling bias involved.

    2. Just curious, but how many documented cases of wanna be John McClain types making things worse do you have?
      Wouldn’t it make more sense to concentrate on actual problems before tackling possible problems?

    3. I’ve been around guns and gun people a long time and have seen quite a few people get their first gun and/or get their first concealed carry permit. Some of them, I took to the range myself and taught them how to shoot. Quite often, I would even say a majority of the time, there is a maturation that happens. I’ve heard many times from other people who also have observed this. The weight of carrying a weapon (meaning the mental weight, although I suppose the physical weight also helps as a reminder) makes a person start to think. With a gun, the stakes are higher. Even when a shooting is completely justified, it changes a person’s entire life. People don’t just realize that, they internalize it.

      Are there wanna-be John McClane’s out there? Sure, a few. Are there reckless a-hole’s out there? Yes, I won’t lie, and those same reckless a-holes drive on the same roads as you, and cars kill a LOT more people than guns do. However, those people are actually a lot more rare than you would think.

      While I’m not a fancy “Accredited Firearms Instructor” or anything, I’ve taught quite a few friends, neighbors, and family how to shoot. Some of whom carry every single day with no problems. I can tell you, handling a firearm isn’t some mystical, mysterious thing. Once someone knows (and follows) a few basic rules and the basic manual of arms for their particular firearm (loading, unloading etc.) there isn’t a huge learning curve or a lot of knowledge required to shoot or carry a concealed weapon safely and effectively. Yes, anyone who’s been there will suggest training, training, and more training preferably by accredited, professional instructors, but that isn’t because people can’t be safe and effective without it.

      Training gives knowledge about the legal aspects of carrying that will help keep a person from making a mistake and finding themselves on the wrong side of the law. That doesn’t mean unsafe or immoral. There are a LOT of stupid gun laws out there that aren’t always based in common sense. “Doing the right thing” doesn’t always keep one from accidentally stepping on one of these lines. Secondly, training gives competence and confidence. How to move through a threat area. How to use cover and concealment (and the difference between the two). How to safely fall back and remove oneself from a bad situation or position. These are not things that a person HAS to know in order to carry. These are things that might help someone survive should they find themselves in a bad situation. After all, isn’t carrying a gun for self defense all about survival?

  5. So very much this.

    I carry duct tape in my car. I’ve only ever needed it once – that time I needed it I was very glad I had it. I do not spend every moment I’m driving fretting that I might need it again. I carry a flashlight not because I’m afraid of the dark but because I can’t see in the dark.

    Also, I don’t know what I’d do in a bad situation like Orlando, but I’d like to think if my choices were “certain death or fight back” I’d choose the latter. I try to avoid Gun Free Zones. My odds are better armed.

  6. The gun is a tool for more than just speed bumps in mass shootings. I now carry due to an incident in my life where if I was carrying, an encounter would have turned out different. I entered the parking lot of a bar and two guys had beat another guy unconscious and was kicking his unmoving body. They have proven they are perfectly willing to go 2-on-1 and beat a guy unconscious and I was not much of a fighter so I had to walk away hoping the bar’s bouncers were going to do something.

    If I was carrying (no I would not go in waving a gun) I would have been more confident that I could confront them, try to difuse the situation and IF they decided to make me unconscious man #2, dropped back and used the tool that is a gun.

    I regret to this day not doing anything and I will likely never find myself in another incident where a gun will be needed, but I carry as often as I can and keep my gun nearby when I cannot carry. I follow all the laws concerning concelled carry and I visit the gun range 2-3 times a month to maintain compentance.

    I suggest everyone consider the advice given by Mr. Correia.

  7. The problem IRT carrying at that club is that here in Florida if an establishment generates 50% or more of its revenue from the sale of alcohol, it is illegal to carry a firearm into said establishment including by people with a CCW license. Personally I tend to disregard such niceties if I am out and about, but there it is. Consequently in theory, the only guns coming into that club would be carried by people with bad intent.

    1. That law needs to go.

      My state’s law is a lot more reasonable. Same basic rules of intoxication for carrying a gun as driving a car. There is no reason the designated drivers should have to be disarmed.

      1. One of the things I like about Indiana is that the list of no-go places for people with guns is very small and “no guns allowed” signs do not have force of law. (I generally honor them–they don’t want my gun? They don’t want my money.)

      2. Very much so. I don’t drink, but I have DD’d a *lot* over the years. There’s only a bare handful of times, had things gone another way, that it *might* have been needful. But, like trying to loosen a bolt with pliers, the right tool for the job makes a world of difference. The training to use said tool effectively is a good investment.

        There’s really no downside I can think of. The arguments against it don’t add up to much more than “it makes me feel icky” and “but bad people might carry guns in there!” To which I reply “icky or dead?” and “and people intent on causing harm would pay attention to that law, the same as the law that says it’s illegal to murder people? Pull the other one.”

      3. That law needs to be disobeyed. Unless a venue has armed guards and metal detectors, I’m packing.

  8. From “An Opinion on Gun Control”:

    “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.”

    Could you cite your reference or source of data for this?

    1. Which is why our “honest, transparent” government changed the definition of “mass shooting” to requiring a body count of 3 or more. Gives them the instant talking point that “civilians don’t stop mass shootings.”

  9. “What motivated those Japanese pilots may never be known, but the attack on Pearl Harbor clearly shows it’s time for a serious conversation about banning private aircraft in America.”

  10. So, if anyone under investigation by the FBI shouldn’t be allowed to buy a gun, why should someone under investigation by the FBI be allowed to become president?

  11. Are you going to have a RSS feed here? Or at least a e-mail notification that you have posted.
    Have not been here since the switchover. Thought you were busy. Was reading Erin and she said that you mentioned their “Blazing Sword” project. So I clicked over and saw that you have posted several times since March 17, but none have appeared on my RSS feed.

  12. “First and foremost, I thought liberals were supposed to be opposed to secret government watch lists to deprive people of their rights, compiled by unaccountable government employees, with no way to face your accusers, no way to get off the list, and absolutely zero due process.”

    I can count the so-called liberals I have met who have that belief without running out of fingers on one hand. If you don’t fall into lockstep with their beliefs, most of the ones I’ve encountered will go off on you about how you should be in jail for not believing what they mandate, and if not yet in jail, you should be monitored by the government.

    On top of that, I can’t think of a single one of those so-called liberals that will admit you should have the right to defend yourself unless they have already been on the receiving end of extreme violence . Some of those people have told me (or screamed and sprayed at me) that I should have gone to jail for applying fist to stomach when someone swung on me.

    While we all have the right to self-defense, the rabid liberal sheep think we should be forced to completely rely on THE STATE for our defense.

  13. I’m with you about watch lists. Give the government power to ban people on a watch list from having guns, and anyone who votes Republican or reads a pro-gun blog will soon be on that watch list. Indeed while we’re at it, we need to do away with the no-fly list and parts of VAWA, too. First convict someone in court, THEN you can start taking his rights away.

    What has mostly gone unmentioned, though, is that the killer was a licensed security guard. Did his employers do a poor job of vetting him, or was this a first offense?

    1. Totally with you there. Got into a debate with a foaming-at-the-mouth liberal the night before the massacre occurred.

      First he made some comment about “good luck fighting a tank with an AR-15”

      I mentioned how useful a tank is after you find a way to blow the tracks.

      He moved on to “easy to buy” machine guns.

      I corrected him by referencing the NFA, and the obscene amount of paperwork and waiting required to purchase regulated items.

      Then he made a remark about how registration was “common sense”.

      I pointed out that government lists are prone to abuse. Nixon with the protesters and the IRS with the tea partyers as examples.

      His reply? “You must think 9/11 was an inside job”

      At no point was I rude to this person. I backed up every statement with a source. And that was his reply after getting shut down. Not even sure where to categorize his conspiracy theorist comment on Mr. Correia’s “Internet Arguing Checklist” but I am sure it fits somewhere in there.

      1. Yeah, my response to the “fighting a tank meme” is two fold: 1) I won’t be shooting at the tank; I’ll be hunting the bureaucrat who ordered it out, and 2) if they think using tanks, missiles, and artillery against their next-door neighbors is a good idea, they will find out what “collateral damage” really means.

      2. 1. SJWs Always Lie
        2. SJWs always double-down.
        3. SJWs always project.

        If you haven’t yet read Vox Day’s “SJWs Always Lie”, do so, and you’ll immediately understand how-and-why this happens!

      3. “Justify the Moon Ferrets” Which I think is a subcategory under either “Disqualify that Opinion” or “Make Shit Up” I haven’t found the source of that particular part and google has not been up to the task.

    2. He was a Muslim. His employer, who had to vouch for him, and employ him, knew that if they refused to vouch for him and keep him employed despite a history of unstable conduct, that a whole posse of people, led by CAIR, Obama’s DOJ, and the EEOC, would accuse them of Islamophobia and put them out of business.

      Every one of them should be prosecuted as accessories.

  14. > Nobody should ever repeat their names. They want fame,
    > don’t give them what they want.

    You know how the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has a list of names ready for hurricanes? The FBI should have a list of code names for mass shooters that people can use instead of the shooter’s real name. And the code names should be insulting, like “Dumpy Limpwick.” And a list of ten names should be published in advance in random order, so the shooter can’t know which of the names will be assigned to him by the FBI after he carries out his attack. But he will know that there’s a chance he’ll be immortalized as “Turdface McStupid” instead of his real name.

    1. I had a similar idea, but thought to apply it more generally. Why? So the innocent aren’t permanently tagged with an accusation. Newspapers love to publish the salacious accusation on front page 1A, but acquittals go on page 7D, between lotto numbers and obituaries.

      My idea would go like this: in any felony crime, the crime itself would be tagged with a two word code phrase, issued by a computer system run by the FBI. (Why FBI? To ensure uniqueness across the country.) For example, a specific crime might be tagged Middle-Trout.

      As the investigation unfolds, the police would assign pseudonyms to the roles in the crime: perpetrators, suspects/accused and victims. For example, the policy investigating a murder coded Middle-Trout have identified a victim, coded Bucket Middle-Trout, who was killed by a single perpetrator, Transistor Middle-Trout, and assisted by an accomplice, Shelf Little-Trout. When the name of the victim is known, the police can release the information that Bucket Middle-Trout was in fact Joe Somebody. The name of a victim might not be released to protect their identity or keep unwanted media attention from their family. These code names are for roles in the crime.

      Meanwhile, the police make some arrests, coded Apple Middle-Trout, Lever Middle-Trout and Mercury Middle-Trout. One of these is surely innocent, and it would be of no public benefit for their real name to be released as a suspect, just to be dug up in a Google search years later. Eventually, Lever Middle-Trout is released. Prosecutors then have the task of proving before a jury that Apple Middle-Trout is in fact Shelf Middle-Trout, and Mercury Middle-Trout is in fact Transistor Middle-Trout.

      Both Apple and Mercury Middle-Trout are found guilty. Mercury was nailed dead to rights, but Apple’s conviction is eventually overturned on appeal. He must be set free, and that is how the system is supposed to work in this country: Innocent until proven guilty. And if the proof of guilt cannot be maintained, with full protection of due process, then nothing should remain attached to the accused, including the salacious front-page news report of his arrest.

      An anonymizing system would go a long way towards preserving due-process rights for accused, and full relief for the acquitted. It would also provide a fame-denying system to the sick bastards out there saying, “Most deadly mass slaying in US history? Let me just update my spreadsheet. We’ll see about that!”

  15. There is no honorable debate over any of this anymore. That ended with Algore in the 2000 election. Barry is bringing the gun control zombie back now because he’s a lame duck with nothing to lose, He’s jazzed some life into it’s shambling corpse in the hopes he can get it to pull his little red wagon just a little farther, or maybe it’ll bite Hillary on the ass. I think the guy hates her.

    These days the new push is to shut down any speech about it. Reddit, Twitter, even jolly old fat Santa Claus looking guy is banning people for posting links like this one:

    Imagine, gay people who -aren’t- blaming straight white men for Orlando! Better shut that down right away!

  16. I propose we have an empirical study to determine how many firearms is too many. I’m looking to get a grant from the CDC for materials. Any volunteers for test subjects? You have to live in a location that would allow the empirical “testing” to take place.

    1. I remember a study in JAMA where the guy counted the guns in households, trying to prove a dosage response. More guns in the same house was supposed to increase the risk of a shooting there.

      Paid for by the usual suspects, no doubt.

  17. Always assume everyone in government hates your guts and cede authority over your life accordingly.

  18. I’m sorry, I have to strongly disagree. Anyone that has undergone an FBI investigation must be stripped of all civil rights. They are not allowed to speak freely, nor do they enjoy any rights under the Fourth or Fifth amendments and they must be barred from any government employment of any kind, and if they are currently so employed they must be dismissed with the loss of all benefits. They cannot own any device capable of accessing the internet and if they ever attempt to do so, they are subject to life imprisonment. They cannot receive any governmental benefits, including social security, medicare, or say any retirement or security benefits from a spouse’s prior government service. And of course, they cannot be permitted to hold or run for any elected office. Let’s see how that plays out.

  19. Larry, excellent points as always. It’s unfortunate, but there is no way to stop an event like this from beginning, but there is a way to end it quickly. More people need to be armed, capable, and willing to defend themselves and those around them.

    Self defense is a human right, and also a responsibility. You cannot depend on law enforcement or the government to keep you safe. They cannot be everywhere, and they can also drop the ball and do so with disastrous results.

    Stay safe, everyone.

  20. Why hasn’t anyone in the media considered the following? We pass this law making watch lists effective gun bans, without judicial review. Donald Trump gets elected. He decides day 1 to fiat that ALL Muslims should be on the terrorist watch list, for like 5 years while we find out which ones are OK. Isn’t that a very possible scenario?

    1. The Democrats are not serious about the law actually passing. Its a stunt. They intend to lose, and then use this in the election campaign.

  21. Looks like you got linked to by the Blog of Eternal Stench:

    “Harold Osler on June 15, 2016 at 8:15 pm said:

    1)–I’m sick and tired of ammosexuals trying to reframe this horror. It’s not about self-defense or hunting rifles or target pistols or whatever the red herring they try to throw out there.
    It’s about the fact that these weapons only have one use and that’s to kill as many people as possible. The only reason to have one is to kill as many people as you can. Either that or you get a hard-on when you shoot it off.
    And why do they get to decide what kind of world I live in?”

    “David Stever on June 15, 2016 at 9:08 pm said:

    I just watched the latest (post Orlando) episode of Samantha Bee’s show this week, and the Ammosexual responses are just sick. Americas love affair with high powered weaponry exists nowhere else in the world because we’re the only ones cursed with the NRA, which I now suspect is allied with right wing Saudi elements.”

    “Gary D on June 15, 2016 at 9:46 pm said:

    Three Fifths plus Three.

    Larry Correia is an ass. The Orlando nightclub had armed security present at the time. When a good guy with a gun goes up against a bad guy with a semi automatic converted military rifle with an extended magazine Larry’s outcome is 49 dead and 50+ wounded. “

    1. Me, I’m more interested in these “right-wing Saudi elements” the NRA is supposedly in league with. Namely, why the hell a bunch of Saudis would have much interest in the 2nd Amendment. I mean, they call us paranoid?

    2. The third one is the one that REALLY pisses me off. The first two are annoying, but they’re just knee-jerk attacks against their hated outgroup, and while I might be offended because I am part of that outgroup, the proper response to that is simply having a thick skin and shrugging it off.

      But the third one is just sheer denial of reality. There are NUMEROUS reports of survivors being able to flee because they heard the first few shots. That guy may not have STOPPED the attack, but there is no doubt that the extra seconds or even minutes he bought saved a few lives. Framing that as “the outcome of a good guy with a gun going up against a bad guy is 49 dead and 50+ wounded” is intellectual dishonesty at it’s finest: The outcome of him NOT doing that would have been even MORE people dead!

      I’ve seen some cogent arguments from people I respect that allowing concealed carry in that establishment probably wouldn’t have helped much, and they’re not wrong: A crowded nightclub filled with people panicking, trying to shoot at an attacker you don’t know the location of, with the only light being strobes that fuck with your night vision, while your opponent can just shoot randomly at any target to achieve his objective of mass-destruction, is a terrible position to be in, tactically speaking. But the guy outside WAS in a better tactical position, and DID save lives! This isn’t a case of “more guns wouldn’t have improved the situation,” it was a case of “more guns DID improve the situation.” I have no doubt in my mind it could have been worse.

      (Also, theoretically if one of the dozens of people who were holed up in the bathroom for three hours had been armed, they would have had several opportunities to set up a decent ambush. He wasn’t watching them the whole time: Most of the time we was outside the bathroom door, keeping an eye on the police. Apparently he only actually went in when he heard one of their phones go off. Admittedly, it’s highly unlikely that a DD, who also just HAPPENED to be armed, would have been in the bathroom at the time, both because as a DD he wouldn’t need the bathroom as badly as most patrons, and because as someone obviously concerned about personal safety, he probably wouldn’t have fled to a place where he knew he’d be cornered, but it’s still possible, and it’s at least one place in that nightclub where an armed civilian wouldn’t have been at a crippling tactical disadvantage.)

      I’m kind of going off on a tangent here, though. The fact of the matter is, that third quoted statement is just despicable.

    3. I carry firearms in order to kill assholes who initiate the use of deadly force on others as quickly as possible. Harold apparently thinks that this is somehow evil. I guess he just likes to side with psychotic mass murderers.

      I don’t live in fear, I want murderous bastards to live in fear of me.

  22. I’m assuming you mean for the employees of the club to be armed rather than the patrons, seeing as alcohol, guns and potential beefs with real or perceived rivals are never a good mix. Allowing another armed employee or so is something I would agree with. Hell, get a second(or third) armed bouncer if the owners are going to be on the fence.

    I’d be a bit wary of having the patrons carry their weapons in a club or bar due to the aforementioned influence of alcohol and other factors that make people go stupid. On the other hand, I’ve heard of an idea where a person with a concealed carry could have his/her weapon in exchange for not being served alcohol.

    1. My home state’s laws make a lot more sense than Florida’s. You can carry where they serve alcohol, but the same intoxication rules apply to carrying a gun like they do driving a car. There are plenty of people in clubs who aren’t intoxicated. Several states are like this, yet we’re not having a bunch of permit holders getting wasted and shooting people over “beefs”.

      So your wariness is great and all, but how about we quit using every potential quibble that makes somebody somewhere nervous, to disarm more law abiding people.

      1. Good point there Larry. Part of my opinion is molded by the gun laws in my state. Over here in Texas, it’s a felony to bring a gun into establishments that make 51% of their revenue from alcohol. I assumed that most states(that aren’t New York or California) had the same or similar laws. Glad to hear that allowing concealed carry in bars and other similar businesses actually works both in theory and practice(though I do want to facepalm for not realizing how it’s implemented in other states before writing my previous comment).

        1. Believe it or not, NY state law doesn’t prohibit carrying in an establishment that serves alcohol. Some municipalities do, but it’s not a statewide thing.

          I guess they figure with all the things we have to do and requirements we have to meet just to own a handgun, they can trust us.

          (Man, that was hard to write with a straight face.)

          1. The hidden assumption is that if you’re in a place that serves alcohol, you’re going to get drunk.

            Non-drinkers apparently don’t show on legislative radar…

          2. Originally, in NYC, only people with good connections to the ruling machine got permits. So of course they made it easy for permit holders.

        2. Many states do NOT have such laws. And in fact, we are slowly getting those laws removed from the concealed carry statutes.

          1. And until we do, ignore them. “Concealed” means they don’t know you have it without metal detectors and armed guards.

      2. So your state has some easy-to-follow rules and simply expects people to be responsible adults?

  23. California doesn’t restrict CCW in bars either. (Though the issuing authority could add that restriction to the actual permit.)

    It’s not a matter of trust for us either, it’s racism. The law was put in place in the 1920s to prevent Chinese and Mexicans from legally carrying. Since permit issuance was (and still is) discretionary, they wanted it to be as unrestricted as possible — for the right people.

    1. Massachusetts is the same way.
      As is New York (if memory serves, it’s been 9 years since I lived there).

      It’s amusing that plenty of the May Issue states are exactly as you say “as unrestricted as possible — for the right people.”

  24. If you’re going to ask others to educate themselves, then please follow your own advice when it comes to sexual orientation. Being gay is not a “lifestyle choice”. I’m gay. I’m guessing that most of the 50 people that were killed in Orlando were gay. (Believe it or not, heterosexuals go to gay clubs for a variety of reasons, so some of the victims might not have been gay.) And I can tell you without question that my lifestyle is radically different from those 50 people who died. How do I know? Because I’m 45 years-old, and I’m usually in the house for the night by 8 PM, even on the weekends. The 50 people who died were all out at a club late Saturday night/early Sunday morning. My back could never handle that. THAT’s a difference in lifestyle choices.

  25. Slightly off topic. But I remember my university got sued awhile back. Some members of the student body felt unsafe and wanted to be able to carry handguns onto the university grounds, but the university naturally said no. Now at the end of ruling the court said that the students could keep their guns in their car but not bring them on campus. Dear, God, the secretary to the dean gave a stupid response to this. I will paraphrase “We of regret to inform the student body (including the people that sued us, yes we sent you this e-mail as well to be patronizing.) that we lost a court ruling related to the second amendment. Students will be able to legally bring fore arms on campus, but do not worry the students can’t legally bring their fire arms out of their vehicles. Rest assured we will appeal this decision to ensure that fire arms are not allowed on campus at all, because we all know ‘Gun-Free Zones’ work.”

    Stupidest drivel I ever read. Also, what kind of ruling is that? Sidenote: I heard a rumor that some students actually carry a handgun on them anyway out of spite for the ruling. Cause let’s be honest, if you know how to you can easily conceal that. Actually scratch my earlier what I said in the first sentence, that is not the stupidest mass e-mail they felt they had to send out to everyone. There was another, but it was not gun related so not gonna discuss it.

  26. Serious question here: I have thought about buying a handgun for home defense. (Concealed or open carry isn’t for me. I live in Houston. If I’m out of the house, I pretty much assume there’s going to be somebody close with a gun who’s a much better shot than I am. My job is to get down until the shooting stops and then get up and help as many people as I can.) My problem is that I can’t figure out how I would secure the gun (from visiting children and, for that matter, adults) while still making the weapon easily accessible in the event of a home invasion. The best I can come up with is literally putting a gun safe on my nightstand. How do other people handle this?

    1. While I’m not an expert, what occurs to me is: if you’re carrying the gun, then it’s secured from visiting children and adults. If you don’t want to carry it outside the house, that’s your choice, but your reasons (“there’s going to be somebody close with a gun who’s a much better shot than I am”) don’t apply when you’re at home. Unless you routinely get visitors who also carry, you’re going to be the ONLY person close to you with a gun. So when you’re away from home, lock the gun in your safe. But when you get home, first thing you do is get the gun out of the safe, check it, and put it in your concealed holster. Then it’s: a) secured from mishandling by your guests, and more importantly, b) AVAILABLE to you at a moment’s notice if you suddenly need it. If you happen to be in the living room when a home invader breaks into your bedroom window, that gun in the safe on your bedside table might as well still be in the gun store for all the good it’s going to do you. But if you got it out of the safe first thing when you got home, then you ALREADY have it with you when the home invader shows up — and there’s no chance that he’ll end up cutting you off from the room where your gun is stored.

    2. Quick open lock boxes are common, and most well stocked guns stores will have some you can check out. I’ve been using the same AmSec (I think that is what it is) pistol box for years. You want one with a finger button combo, rather than a key, because you won’t find the key when you need it.

  27. Frank,
    Nightstand safes are the easiest and best way to keep a firearm accessible and away from inquisitive fingers. There are several models. Academy and any gun store will have several. Gun stores will typically have better informed employees that can discuss the pros and cons of the different versions with you. Can’t help with any recommendations since the only children that come to my house are relatives and they are all old enough and know better than to touch a firearm without adult supervision.

    Although I would actually recommend a Shotgun for Home Defense. They have much higher utility and are better suited to the limited ranges and avenues of attack inside a home. They also do not suffer from overpenetration like many pistol chamberings. There is a reason that many Special Forces, Marine and Police Swat teams prefer shotguns for interior and urban fighting.

  28. same time. (Someone can probably help me here.) Second is the recoil–I really do have a bad back (two neurosurgeries that didn’t go well), and I worry about a back spasm from the jerking that the recoil would give. If that happens, I’ll literally fall to the floor. I know from a bizarre experience that I will panic during a home invasion. I woke up one night and THOUGHT I saw someone in the apartment, and I was frozen in terror, so I need something I can get to with minimal effort. What I’m looking for is something that’s serious enough to scare off an unarmed (or even armed) invader. If I get into an actual firefight, then I’m probably a goner.

    1. The first part of your comment, before the words “same time”, got cut off somehow. If you remember what you wrote, could you repost it?

      1. Oops. I said James, Larry, and Robin, thank you for the advice. But Robin, as for the shotgun, how do you secure it and have it ready at the same time?

        1. That one I don’t know the answer to, so I’ll defer to people like Larry who have far more experience in firearms than I do.

    2. Carry as much gun as you CAN shoot. Get a small .22 pistol. Seriously. Then put it in your pocket in a pocket holster. If you are carrying it, untrusted people cannot get at it.

      No knock down power, but a quarter inch hole in the chest will make most felons go somewhere else, and probably die. Six .22 rounds in the chest will shut down most folks, or at least make it easy for an arthritic grandma to walk quickly away from them. Six rounds in the face will probably just kill them on the spot.

  29. Observations from a left-wing nutcase: Okay, so I’m pretty much as far left as you can get, and I’ll offer some observations from my viewpoint. I live in Houston. I assume that a significant number of people have a concealed firearm, even if they don’t have a permit. I pass hundreds of people every time I’m out and about, so it’s likely that I pass several people with concealed handguns every time I leave the house. In addition, Texas allowed people with a concealed weapons permit to open carry as of the first of January.

    Here are my observations: (1) Aside from uniformed members of either security or law enforcement, I have NEVER seen anyone open carrying a handgun. Not even once. I would imagine it’s more common in rural areas of the state, but it just doesn’t happen in the city to a significant degree. (2) I have never seen ANYONE unholster a firearm in public. Not even a law enforcement officer. I know that it happens, but in over 10 years in Houston, I’ve never seen it. My conclusion from this is that even though guns are practically an embedded part of Texas culture, it doesn’t seem to cause many problems inside the city. I don’t cower in fear every time I leave the house because I’m afraid of getting shot. On the other hand, Houstonians are HORRIBLE drivers, so I worry about getting in a car wreck pretty much every time I drive. My personal belief is that Texas should’ve stuck with riding horses and should have banned automobiles within the state. THAT’s where my big fears are.

    1. Texas for historical reasons has banned open carry of handguns. Just this year, concealed carry permit holders can begin open carry. That’s why you don’t see it.

      1. SPQR, you can open carry if you have a CHP already. The biggest reason that law was passed was so anti-gun zealots couldn’t call the cops if they spotted your concealed gun.

      2. SPQR, no what I’m saying is that it’s now been legal for almost 6 months. Not a huge length of time, but still a significant one. I STILL haven’t seen ANYONE out of uniform open carrying. I haven’t even HEARD of a case of someone open carrying inside the city center (i.e., inside the inner beltway).

        1. As far as I know, open carry has been legal in Washington state since before statehood, but I’ve never seen anyone other than a gun store employee do it.

          It’s mostly a hassle factor, in my opinion. Open carrying attracts busy bodies to get up in your business and who needs that? Drape a shirt over it, go about your business, and call it good. Much simpler.

  30. Apparently, according to our self-proclaimed moral betters, our only option for dealing with an attack is to lay down and die, because someone with a gun is invincible and attempting to fight back is impossible.

    1. Well, they do extol Gandhi, who recommended that Germany’s Jews commit mass suicide in order to prove their moral superiority.

      1. There was a short story that had the German Army marching on India and Gandhi having people try peaceful resistance. Ended very badly as you can imagine.

  31. Lost several comments about Ayers to the switch to a new comment system.

    Ayers chiming in on gun control this time may indicate 1) this time they think they have the excuse 2) or at least a free hand 3) the possibility that killing a significant fraction of Americans is the real goal of gun control.

      1. Did you get blocked? Or even better a “you don’t have a lot of followers so you’re worthless” followed by a block? 😉

  32. Spreading the map link everywhere I can. Thank you. I wish it wasn’t necessary, but if anything, the last few years have taught me it very much is.

  33. Hey Larry, great article, I tried to post this comment a few days ago but was having issues with java or something.

    As a bit of background I’m a former CCP holder from the state of Florida (Miami) who carried daily for nearly a decade in the 90’s and used to shoot at least 100 rounds a week to stay proficient. I’m not an instructor and never was, but I do have experience carrying in daily life and I’ve been shooting since I was a toddler.

    In the articles you’ve published on gun ownership you have covered a lot of topics, but one I can’t recall seeing (which I would love to see your take on BTW) is on what I believe to be one of, if not the most important skills to learn if one is going to be carrying, other than basic safe handling and marksmanship. I’m speaking about situational awareness.

    And In that respect Larry, as a former daily carrier, this shooting would have been a nightmare IMHO. I’ve never been to Pulse itself, but if its like every other nightclub in Florida it would have been a S.A. disaster. Loud music, flashing lights, large crowds of closely packed people. I like to think I still would have managed to be a speedbump, but the situations just reads nightmare to me.

  34. Here’s an idea.

    Gays in Orlando organize a “civil disobedience” day, wherein every gay person who can, shows up armed, at the Pulse, and consumes one beer. Let’s see the rulers try to stop that! What cop would try to arrest anyone there?

    Drinking a beer is not a legitimate excuse to disarm people. Going to a bar is not either. Mass disobedience will fix this problem.

  35. Thank you for trying to educate people.

    My biggest fear about all of this is an escalation towards other means such as explosives.

  36. Were I in charge of a venue such as Pulse that catered to a large number of people I would arrange for either considerable armed security or make a simple offer. Any ccw permit holder who identifies themselves as willing to be designated security gets free soft drinks and whatever basic food choices my establishment offers.

    1. Problem is that State law forbids conceals carry because it’s a bar (>50% of revenue from alcohol).

    1. Huh? I didn’t know Good Reads copies my blog posts. That’s weird. I don’t really go there ever.

      1. It says “Larry Correia isn’t a Goodreads Author (yet), but he does have a blog, so here are some recent posts imported from his feed.” As I understand it this is plagiarism. They have the whole text of the blog post up. I didn’t think they were allowed to do this without the author’s permission. You have about 1800 followers.

        1. It isn’t plagiarism, because it is clearly attributed to the authors. However, that is sleazy. So rather than post the first part and a link to the original content like most places do, there is no incentive for the reader to click the link and go to the author’s page (where authors supplement their income with advertising or Amazon links, or increased traffic would raise their rank in searches), and instead Goodreads keeps the traffic for themselves.

Leave a Reply

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