Post: #1

From Novelist Larry Correia --

https://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/...n-control/

Very long, but well worth reading --and sending to your logic-challenged friends who are freaking out about guns given the Newtown massacre.

Larry Correia is a best selling novelist, former gun shop owner, firearms instructor, competition shooter, and has worked with law enforcement, and has testified before the Utah State Legislature. He claims he once made a state legislator cry! He has taught teachers -- for free -- how to shoot.

Highlights:

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

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

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

...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...

...There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books, and I have no idea how many pages of regulations from the BATF related to the production and selling of them. I’ve found that the average American is extremely uneducated about what gun laws already exist, what they actually do, and even fundamental terminology,

Post: #2

There were two public shootings in the last week that were both stopped by people that intervened with guns.

Post: #3

Dude was not expecting the sort of attention that post got.
What is so killer about it is that he succinctly describes most of the stuff "gun-people" already know but have a difficult time explaining to non-"gun-people"

Post: #4

Post: #5

(12-15-2013 12:30 AM)Sombro Wrote:  

While I am a huge proponent of the 2nd Amendment, I'm not a big fan of panicky females packing heat. Hypocritical, I know, but have you seen a woman try to parallel park or merge onto the freeway?

Post: #6

Instead protecting the kids shoot them on the spot, yay instant solution. Weird that only USA have problem with guns, no other country in the world have school shootings....

Everytime I read comments like more guns solve problem with guns I'm thinking.

Post: #7

(12-15-2013 12:49 AM)Malekhit Wrote:  Instead protecting the kids shoot them on the spot, yay instant solution. Weird that only USA have problem with guns, no other country in the world have school shootings....

Excuse me, what?

European School Shootings

Post: #8

Post: #9

I eat a lot less fatty food and sport a pretty decent body as long as I don't have the food in the house. But if I have the cereal and hot pockets, I'm scarfing them down.

The more interesting thing is how pro-gun people swear on their lives that gun control would not solve the problem, or at least alleviate it. So it's only fair to post what I think is a pretty good argument for gun control. It's also funnier.

Post: #10

(12-15-2013 12:49 AM)Malekhit Wrote:  Instead protecting the kids shoot them on the spot, yay instant solution. Weird that only USA have problem with guns, no other country in the world have school shootings....

Everytime I read comments like more guns solve problem with guns I'm thinking.

Post: #11

People who try to reframe the gun control debate as something that needs to be done in order to prevent spree killings and violence are missing the point. Remember that guy who drove a truck filled with fertilizer into a building in Oklahoma and killed tons of people by detonating the vehicle? He didn't even needs guns to do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahome_city_bombing

We have the right to keep guns in order to keep our own government from clamping down too hard on us. Remember our constitution was written shortly after some rebellious colonists had to use primitive guns and guerilla tactics to defeat an empire's military. They knew something similar might need to happen in the distant future.

Post: #12

(12-22-2012 04:10 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

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

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

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

...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...

...There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books, and I have no idea how many pages of regulations from the BATF related to the production and selling of them. I’ve found that the average American is extremely uneducated about what gun laws already exist, what they actually do, and even fundamental terminology,

Mandating teachers to carry firearms is ridiculous, which should be obvious to everyone, even those who make crazy statements like this to formulate a ridiculous counter argument. Having the 35 year old female English teacher strapped is a terrible idea.

However, I had a retired Navy Captain/Whatever his rank was, as a history teacher who I'm sure would have been more than happy, and more than qualified, to handle this job. I think that is a very good idea.

Post: #13

(12-15-2013 12:39 AM)Shotgun Styles Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 12:30 AM)Sombro Wrote:  

While I am a huge proponent of the 2nd Amendment, I'm not a big fan of panicky females packing heat. Hypocritical, I know, but have you seen a woman try to parallel park or merge onto the freeway?

WB, poor acting forgiven.

Post: #14

(12-15-2013 02:18 AM)Peregrine Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 12:39 AM)Shotgun Styles Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 12:30 AM)Sombro Wrote:  

While I am a huge proponent of the 2nd Amendment, I'm not a big fan of panicky females packing heat. Hypocritical, I know, but have you seen a woman try to parallel park or merge onto the freeway?

WB, poor acting forgiven.

Redheads...

Post: #15

(12-15-2013 01:31 AM)Vitriol Wrote:  We have the right to keep guns in order to keep our own government from clamping down too hard on us. .

If the government decided to 'clamp down' on citizens, would guns provide defense against the US military and there nuclear arsenal?
just asking...

Post: #16

(12-15-2013 03:01 AM)bigxxx Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 01:31 AM)Vitriol Wrote:  We have the right to keep guns in order to keep our own government from clamping down too hard on us. .

If the government decided to 'clamp down' on citizens, would guns provide defense against the US military and there nuclear arsenal?
just asking...

If the U.S. government dropped a nuke on their own soil, the entire country and everything that kept the people making those kinds of decisions in power would descend into chaos. This is basically an end of the world type scenario which doesn't hold much weight.

I also think you mean "their," are you a native English speaker?

Post: #17

(12-15-2013 01:31 AM)Vitriol Wrote:  People who try to reframe the gun control debate as something that needs to be done in order to prevent spree killings and violence are missing the point. Remember that guy who drove a truck filled with fertilizer into a building in Oklahoma and killed tons of people by detonating the vehicle? He didn't even needs guns to do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahome_city_bombing

We have the right to keep guns in order to keep our own government from clamping down too hard on us. Remember our constitution was written shortly after some rebellious colonists had to use primitive guns and guerilla tactics to defeat an empire's military. They knew something similar might need to happen in the distant future.

(12-15-2013 12:30 AM)Sombro Wrote:  

Re the above video, wouldn't better security be a more sound investment, preventing that shit from happening in the first place?

She's standing there, knowing that the door will be kicked in, almost inviting the attacker into her home. Prevention is better than cure.

...and the above comment about the bombing scenario - total straw man argument. Guns weren't used as they wouldn't reap the same amount of carnage, simple as that. But, if immediacy of a kill is what you're after in the heat of the moment, having access to firearms will lead to people being killed and wounded by these weapons.

That makes logical sense does it not?

Knives and other similar type weapons don't have the same impact as firearms either, obviously.

I hear the comment all the time - guns don't kill people, people kill people. People, with access to firearms, in a heightened emotional state (or mental illness), kill people. By the same token, people, with access to firearms, in an effort to defend themselves and others against a shooter/attacker (or would-be shooter/attacker) kill people. Would removing guns from the equation not result in less deaths (and injuries)?

This may be because I don't live in the US, but I fail to see the "logic" in having a right to bear arms against "a government clamping down too hard". When was the last time you felt threatened by your government, so much so that packing heat was going to allay your fear and anxiety elicited by your government, or better yet, solve a problem?

Not trolling BTW, just a "straight shooter" looking for convincing arguments for gun rights in the present day, and not something being held onto because it was deemed appropriate in the past, or what may occur in the future.

Post: #18

I think guns are cool and if legal, I'd own one, but it's illegal here. OTOH, like Ice-T says: "I'd give it up if everyone does", I can live with the compromise where nobody has guns.

It's probably good people are allowed guns in more remote areas for self-defense, that would make sense. I don't get people who argue that guns are necessary in places like Manhattan. But, hey, in the US people like their guns. It's up to them.

I'm still not sure whether guns increase or decrease violence, you see so many conflicting reports that it's hard to make an objective judgement call. My final take would depend a lot on the outcome of that fact.

Post: #19

(12-15-2013 12:49 AM)Malekhit Wrote:  Weird that only USA have problem with guns

Number of guns per capita by country:



List of countries by intentional homicide rate:

Post: #20

(12-15-2013 03:01 AM)bigxxx Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 01:31 AM)Vitriol Wrote:  We have the right to keep guns in order to keep our own government from clamping down too hard on us. .

If the government decided to 'clamp down' on citizens, would guns provide defense against the US military and there nuclear arsenal?
just asking...

300 million armed Americans have an exponentially better chance of defending themselves than 300 million unarmed Americans do.

What's with this cowardly mentality of "Well, even with guns you might not win, so you shouldn't even try to fight."?

You hippies need to go watch Red Dawn, Patrick Swayze edition.

Post: #21

WOLVERINES!

Post: #22

(12-15-2013 05:36 AM)Prufrock Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 12:49 AM)Malekhit Wrote:  Weird that only USA have problem with guns

Number of guns per capita by country:



List of countries by intentional homicide rate:

This isn't really a fair comparison. If you would have provided number of homocides made with guns your argument would make more sense.

Post: #23

The biggest mistake I see gun control advocates make is assuming that any amount of gun legislation in the USA besides total ban and confiscation will have any impact on gun availability. (It worked SO well with weed.) This is especially relevant to suicidal mass murderers since they have every intention of making a mockery of law and life. Ban and confiscation is tantamount to tyranny to the American people. This won't happen without a real fight unless we feminize and socialize more.

People that argue the citizens can't fight the army are ignorant of even the history that has happened in their lifetime (Afghanistan, etc.). Also, anyone who doesn't live in fear and contempt of their government (the heavily armed people who answer to no one) has been brain washed as I see it.

The abolition of gun free zones and putting armed personnel in schools are no brainers to me. Every government facility where gun violence is expected(courts,etc.) has armed guards. If schools have become a place where violence is expected then we need guns there. More guns is the only answer. Armed protection is good enough for a judge but not your child. It's laughable.

Post: #24

Sure, lets arm teachers! That way any pissed off student can just grab it and start shooting kids....

which would lead to a regulation mandating teachers keep their guns locked and stored in a safe place.....

which would lead to "give me a minute Mr. Gunman, I need to get my gun".

Let's not forget, the gun industry will make a killing (revenue-wise) from arming schools.

Post: #25

Guns can be produced that can only be fired by one person. They are called smart guns. Besides, it doesn't need to be every or any teacher in order to make schools more intimidating targets. Remember, mass shooters are mostly cowards. They don't want a fight. If they know armed resistance awaits them then they'll have incentive to avoid that place. A small number (2-3)of armed people might be enough.