Correia lays it out

That first post is almost a drive by. I'm going to leave this open because it really is an excellent article, and could be a handy reference for those of us talking to our families and friends about this topic right now.

I'd suggest brushing up on these topics before your next get together with friends and relatives.

Now, that said: let's try to salvage this thread by getting a bit more of a conversation going. Here's one thing:

Larry Correia said:
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…
Click to expand...

This is why Larry Correia is one of my heroes right now, and why I trust his writing.

pax
 
Pardon me for not realizing that Correia in the thread title was Larry Correia.

I thought you had found some media or political pundit of that name. Sorry.

It is incredibly refreshing to have someone that knows what they are talking about and can put it across in a clear and understandable fashion. If I wanted to use big words I'd say knowledgeable and literate.

I hope lots of folk post links to his article. I've been reading many posts lately and his is simply the best. His article, IMhO is one that would pull anyone with an open mind over to 'our' side because it's reasonable, well thought out and true.

If I had the power, before every gun debate, I'd hand it out and make both sides read it.
 
Great read! I have reposted this link everywhere I have even a little influence on the Internet! A well spoken and articulate person laying out why we beleive.
 
I keep finding awesome quotes tucked into that amazing essay. Try this one on for size:

Larry Correia said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or this one:

Larry Correia said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or this:

Larry Correia said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or this:

Larry Correia said:
"We need to ban automatic weapons."

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

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

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

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

"Okay. We need to ban semi-automatic weapons!"

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

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

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

Phooey -- go read the whole thing. It is that good.

Share it with your friends on Facebook. Email the URL to people you know. Pass it around...

pax
 
If you have the time to wade through the comments, you will see how persuasive the article is to people who read it with an open mind. Several fence - sitters claim to have changed their view on firearms ownership because of it.

Some trivia - Mr. Correia was my cfl instructer when I got my permit 5 years ago.

Plus he really is an excellent sci - fi writer.
 
China. GUN FREE COUNTRY. A guy with a KNIFE stabs 22 children.
Click to expand...


Gun control types are citing this case for their arguements because none of the children died. Honestly, it's probably not a great pro-2a statistic.
 
Gun control types are citing this case for their arguements because none of the children died. Honestly, it's probably not a great pro-2a statistic.
Click to expand...

So you think we can paint the enemy camp as thinking it's okay to cut and stab kids as long as they don't die? :p
 
So you think we can paint the enemy camp as thinking it's okay to cut and stab kids as long as they don't die?
Click to expand...

Heh. :eek:

Good one.

If you'd like a better statistic, try this one on for size: according to Grant Duwe's research reported in Mass Murder in the United States: a history, the most deadly mass murder attacks throughout the past century did not involve firearms. They involved arson and bombs.

Even if you could eliminate all guns by outlawing them (you can't, but even if you could), the body counts would then go up, not down, as nutcases turned to more dangerous weapons such as matches and fertilizer.

pax
 
All I can say is, . . . great read.

If you or someone near you has any questions about the debate, . . . check out Larry's article, . . . most likely your answers are found in there.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
I just have to shake my head.

Here we have a very well reasoned article. There are many talking points we can all use to bolster our side of the argument. Larry gives permission to distribute his article to TFL and only eleven folks are interested enough to download the PDF.

This is why we will lose our rights. Apathy!
 
Easy Al,

More will download... One of the limitations of the format is directing people to really valuable information like this.... Not that it cant be don't... For my part I will spread it as far as possible.. I'm sure others will do the same..

take care - warmest regards bgutzman :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top