I’m not a big gun owner and I’m not part of the gun culture. So why, then, do I frequently post about the issue of gun control?
Mostly because I believe in freedom and the Constitution.
But I also appreciate facts and analysis and I know that law-abiding citizens are safer and criminals face greater obstacles when good people have the right of self defense.
Last but not least, I think there’s a non-trivial possibility that the United States will suffer some sort of social chaos and/or breakdown of law and order because of the damage caused by reckless fiscal and monetary policies. As I explain in this interview on NRA-TV, that’s when firearms ownership can mean the difference between life an death.
But now it’s time to get some analysis from Larry Correia, a real expert. Here’s some of his background, which may help explain why his article has been viewed more than 1,000,000 times and attracted about 2,500 comments.
I owned a gun store. …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. …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… I have certified thousands of people to carry guns.
Here’s what he has to say about stopping massacres. In this section, he’s specifically talking about the value of armed teachers, but the message obviously applies more broadly.
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. …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. …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.
In this passage, you can see that he’s not overly impressed by “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.
Sort of the same message as this humorous video.
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.
You probably won’t be surprised to learn that the Aurora theatre was a gun-free zone.
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. …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.
He then deals with the issue of “semi-automatic” weapons. He first explains that these weapons are not machine guns, notwithstanding the inane/biased commentary in the press.
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.
Anti-gun zealots often use “assault rifle” as a pejorative, and they probably are similarly clueless in thinking that such weapons are machine guns. Correia addresses some of the specific issues of these weapons.
…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. …The US banned assault rifles once before for a decade and the law did absolutely nothing. I mean, it was totally, literally pointless. …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.
Here are a couple of examples he discusses.
For example, flash hiders sound dangerous. …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. …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. …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.
One of the big issues in the gun-control debate is whether there should be limits on the number of rounds in a magazines.
…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. …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. …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. …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.
He then responds to the assertion that magazine limits will make life more difficult for bad guys.
…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.
So what will happen if the government imposes a new magazine restriction?
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 [the 10-round limit] did was make magazines more expensive, ticked off law abiding citizens, and didn’t so much as inconvenience a single criminal. …So you can ban this stuff, but it won’t actually do anything to the crimes you want to stop.
Correia closes with some remarks on the importance of self defense.
…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.
Which then brings us back to the key question: If gun control does nothing to stop bad guys, and it makes life more dangerous for good people, why do so many politicians want to undermine our constitutional rights?
I don’t think American politicians have the same evil motives as some of the world’s most reprehensible dictators, all of whom supported gun control as a way of controlling – and in many cases slaughtering – their people.
Indeed, I suspect some of them simply are unaware of the facts that Mr. Correia provides in the article.
Last month, I posted an article by a leftist who openly admitted that gun control was impractical. Our goal should be to help more people on the left reach this logical conclusion.
But since life shouldn’t be totally serious, here’s some gun control humor – including links to several additional jokes about the issue.
[…] discussed more than 10 years ago, these guns function the same as ordinary rifles. The only difference is that they look scary to […]
[…] main argument during the program is that gun control simply does not work. Such laws might deter law-abiding people from owning guns, but bad people – especially the […]
“The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. ”
I would really love to see where he got those numbers. Those said numbers, 14 and 2.5, do not seem to be correct. Facts matter. If they are correct, I would love to cite his sources. 🙂 Honestly, even if it is 5 and 2.5 instead of 14 and 2.5, it still carries its point home and would still be an important difference, but the numbers have to be correct or one will just get dismissed.
https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/active-shooter-events-from-2000-to-2012
[…] main argument during the program is that gun control simply does not work. Such laws might deter law-abiding people from owning guns, but bad people – especially the […]
[…] main argument during the program is that gun control simply does not work. Such laws might deter law-abiding people from owning guns, but bad people – especially the […]
[…] main argument during the program is that gun control simply does not work. Such laws might deter law-abiding people from owning guns, but bad people – especially the […]
[…] like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] written extensively about gun control, but mostly because of practical and moral objections to the notion that government should have the power to disarm law-abiding […]
[…] just like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) […]
[…] don’t even own any “assault weapons,” much less one with a high-capacity magazine. But I definitely don’t want the government to restrict my freedom in case circumstances lead […]
[…] this isn’t just an issue of bad policy (I strongly recommend this column if you want to learn more about the senselessness of proposals to impose gun […]
[…] written extensively about gun control, but mostly because of practical and moral objections to the notion that government should have the power to disarm law-abiding […]
[…] It’s likely that the noncompliance rate isn’t actually 100 percent, but it is very heartwarming to see such widespread disobedience. Especially since magazine limits are a truly inane and useless policy. […]
[…] the gun grabbers will appreciate the importance of dealing with high-capacity straw […]
[…] shouldn’t they do a bit of research before spouting off on the topic? Heck, just read this Larry Correia column. They don’t have to agree with him, but at least they should know the […]
[…] This next image, also from Reddit, resonates with me because I’ve had many conversations with leftists who genuinely think a “semi-automatic rifle” is the same as a machine gun. […]
[…] Because they know that simply means there are no good people with guns who can fight […]
[…] Why, for instance, will it make a difference to ban scary-looking rifles when other weapons have the exact same functionality? […]
[…] Sounds like Ms. Libresco has reached the same conclusion as firearms expert Larry Correia. […]
[…] Sounds like Ms. Libresco has reached the same conclusion as firearms expert Larry Correia. […]
[…] Lott and Larry Correia already have produced very powerful evidence in defense of these […]
Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.
[…] For further information, I invite you to peruse some serious articles on gun control, featuring scholars such as John Lott and David Kopel, along with some very persuasive information from an actual firearms expert. […]
[…] For further information, I invite you to peruse some serious articles on gun control, featuring scholars such as John Lott and David Kopel, along with some very persuasive information from an actual firearms expert. […]
[…] To end on a serious note, I will continue my tradition of sharing the very powerful testimony of a true gun expert, as well as the admissions of two leftists (here and here) who admit that gun […]
[…] To end on a serious note, I will continue my tradition of sharing the very powerful testimony of a true gun expert, as well as the admissions of two leftists (here and here) who admit that gun […]
[…] When I want to make serious points about why gun control is misguided, I’ll often cite the scholarly work of John Lott or the expert analysis of Larry Correia. […]
[…] And we’re even allowed to own tanks and machine guns. […]
[…] As I’ve noted before, anyone who cares about this issue should read these observations from a genuine firearms […]
[…] also posted testimonials from gun experts and an honest […]
[…] for your analytically minded friends, this Larry Correia piece is must reading for anyone who wants to understand about magazine limits and so-called assault […]
[…] And I challenge anyone to defend gun control after reading this Larry Correia article. […]
[…] If you want more information on gun control, I strongly recommend this analysis from an actual firearms expert, as well as remarkable admissions from leftists that can be read here and […]
[…] the way, if you want some practical information on gun control, I strongly recommend the famous Larry Correia article. And for wisdom on the issue of so-called assault weapons, John Lott is the […]
[…] the way, if you want some practical information on gun control, I strongly recommend the famous Larry Correia article. And for wisdom on the issue of so-called assault weapons, John Lott is the […]
[…] as much as I like all of these videos, the best arguments for the Second Amendment come from this conservative and this […]
[…] doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate gun control columns by non-leftists. This Larry Correia piece, for instance, is must reading if you want to understand about magazine limits and so-called […]
With havin so much content and articles do you ever run into any problems of plagorism or copyright infringement?
My site has a lot of exclusive content I’ve either created myself or outsourced but it looks like a lot of it is popping it up all over the internet without my authorization. Do you know any solutions to help prevent content from being ripped off? I’d truly appreciate it.
The old saying: “the average local law enforcement response time – 3 minutes, the average response time for a .38 revolver – 0.01 seconds”, pretty much sums it up. In the dark, an intruder will be blinded by the muzzle flash and shocked by the discharge noise and normally run for his life if not wounded or killed.
[…] And I challenge anyone to defend gun control after reading this Larry Correia article. […]
[…] And I challenge anyone to defend gun control after reading this Larry Correia article. […]
[…] The practical argument against gun control is best explained in this article by a liberal and this article by a conservative. […]
[…] is a nation where you can own a tank or a machine gun, and it’s a country where there are probably more guns than […]
[…] is a nation where you can own a tank or a machine gun, and it’s a country where there are probably more guns than […]
[…] also posted testimonials from gun experts and an honest […]
[…] also posted testimonials from gun experts and an honest […]
[…] all lawmakers should be required to read Larry Correia’s article on the real-world impact of such […]
[…] the way, if you want some practical information on gun control, I strongly recommend the famous Larry Correia article. And for wisdom on the issue of so-called assault weapons, John Lott is the […]
[…] the way, if you want some practical information on gun control, I strongly recommend the famous Larry Correia article. And for wisdom on the issue of so-called assault weapons, John Lott is the […]
[…] you want more practical information on gun control, I strongly recommend the famous Larry Correia article. And for wisdom on the issue of so-called assault weapons, John Lott is the […]
[…] you want more practical information on gun control, I strongly recommend the famous Larry Correia article. And for wisdom on the issue of so-called assault weapons, John Lott is the […]
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
[…] you want more practical information on gun control, I strongly recommend the famous Larry Correia article. And for wisdom on the issue of so-called assault weapons, John Lott is the […]
Good article. I really liked the comment about never hearing a survivor say, “Darn, I wish I hadn’t brought all that extra ammo.” That was totally f’ing hilarious.
lwk
Who Needs An Assault Rifle?
http://free2beinamerica2.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/who-needs-an-assault-rifle/
[…] Thoughts on “Assault Weapons” and “Magazine Limits” from an Actual Gun Expert « Internation…. […]
[…] The practical argument against gun control is best explained in this article by a liberal and this article by a conservative. […]
[…] as much as I like all of these videos, the best arguments for the Second Amendment come from this conservative and this […]
Some facts regarding Hitler and gun control…because the facts mater.
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/
Politicians prefer a world where people need more government (i.e. the very product of their work: mandatory collectivism). They feel uneasy with citizens having more control over their lives, even in the limited and seldom used arena of self defense. It is illogical to expect politicians to promote policies that limit the demand for at least some of their services. People who don’t believe in mandatory collectivism just don’t become politicians. While it is still theoretically possible to become a politician by pretending to believe in mandatory collectivism while you personally believe in personal freedom, you will find it hard to compete against people who not only promote it but also believe it themselves. If the American public wants to finally follow the rest of the world and go down the path to mandatory collectivism, people and politicians, even smart ones, will be found to shepherd them into decline.
[…] https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/thoughts-on-assault-weapons-and-magazine-limits-from… […]
Larry Correia’s article is one of the best articles I’ve ever seen about the subject of gun control. I’m glad I love his fiction novels so much that I was able to read this before it went viral. I refuse to even talk about this subject with people until they’ve read this article.
This article needs to be shared with everyone in this country because it highlights everything the left argues and addresses it with the views of an expert.
The second amendment is not the only provision of the Constitution that is relevant to gun control. Article IV, section 4 also is relevant. If one state, or a group of states, were to file a request under this provision that the Federal government protect it against gun violence, the Federal government would be required to take action.
For the text of the Constitutional provision and a short discussion see:
guncontrollogjam.blogspot.com
[…] their support for gun control by saying, “Sure, self-defense is a right, but what do you need assault rifles or large capacity magazines for?” I don’t see why this liberal logic can’t be extended to include recreational weapons […]
An unlikely supporter of the 2nd amendment: Sam Harris: ” A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. . . . A world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?”
More here: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun
I’m not a gun owner and probably never will be, but if our lives are our God-given right, then why should we allow the government to infringe on our ability to protect our single most important right? Why should the government restrict us from owning any defensive weaponry of our choosing?