An opinion on gun control


An opinion on gun control
Larry Correia
Monster Hunter Nation
Posted on December 20, 2012

A little background for those of you who don’t know me, and this is going to be extensive so feel free to skip the next few paragraphs, but I need to establish the fact that I know what I am talking with, because I am sick and tired of my opinion having the same weight as a person who learned everything they know about guns and violence from watching TV.

I am now a professional novelist. However, before that I owned a gun store. We were a Title 7 SOT, which means we worked with legal machineguns, suppresors, and pretty much everything except for explosives. We did law enforcement sales and worked with equipment that is unavailable from most dealers …

I was also a Utah Concealed Weapons instructor, and was one of the busiest instructors in the state. That required me to learn a lot about self-defense laws, and because I took my job very seriously, I sought out every bit of information that I could. …

I have been a competition shooter. I competed in IPSC, IDPA, and 3gun. It was not odd for me to reload and shoot 1,000 rounds in any given week. I fired 20,000 rounds of .45 in one August alone. I’ve got a Remington 870 with approximately 160,000 rounds through it. …

Basically for most of my adult life, I have been up to my eyeballs in guns, self-defense instruction, and the laws relating to those things. So believe me when I say that I’ve heard every argument relating to gun control possible. It is pretty rare for me to hear something new, and none of this stuff is new.

In the context of magazine or Internet articles, I would describe this as comprehensive. You want more complete, It’ll have to be a book! So get a rollerskate for your chin and strap it on. For now I’m just posting a quote with some of Correia’s credentials (and I did mean “some”!); love or hate his opinions, he has the knowledge and experience to support his opinions, knowledge and experience few, if any, gun haters can match.

One thing I appreciate about this article - given my background, a civilian former occasional hunter - is that Correia comes from the self-defense side of the discussion and is utterly unapologetic about his being willing and prepared to defend himself. Either self-defense is legal or it isn’t: if it is legal, then those who whinge against it need to shut up and change the law they rail against; trying to guilt–trip those who have done the work to obey the law and be prepared is silly and annoying; those who whinge against self-defense should post large “Gun Free Zone” signs at their front doors or gates (i.e. stand up for what they say they believe!).


I posted this on my FB this AM …Good link Pete…it is indeed authoritative and comprehensive. Libs won’t like it! :smiley:


The owner of another discussion board I frequent - the kind of guy who would say, “Thank you!” if you called him a “Gun Nut” - posted it early this AM on FB. He didn’t warn about the need for a chin rollerskate. And he’s right about what he said near the start of his article. I’ve seen/heard just about every argument to which he responds.


A looooooooooooooong read, but the article is good. I love this quote:

…it doesn’t really matter what something you pick when some politician or pundit starts screaming we’ve got to do something…

If a bad guy used a gun with a big magazine, ban magazines. If instead he used more guns, ban owning multiple guns. If he used a more powerful gun with less shots, ban powerful guns. If he used hollowpoints, ban hollowpoints. (which I didn’t get into, but once again, there’s a reason everybody who might have to shoot somebody uses them). If he ignored some Gun Free Zone, make more places Gun Free Zones. If he killed a bunch of innocents, make sure you disarm the innocents even harder for next time. Just in case, let’s ban other guns that weren’t even involved in any crimes, just because they’re too big, too small, too ugly, too cute, too long, too short, too fat, too thin, (and if you think I’m joking I can point out a law or proposed law for each of those) but most of all ban anything which makes some politician irrationally afraid, which… is pretty much everything.


Ref: your comment on Saturaday night specials that were banned…


17O, please link to the apparent thread comment to which you allude. That will give others reading this thread - myself included - the context of what otherwise might be obscure.

Edit: I found the comment by FC to which 17O was referring. Whether it’s my search skills or vBulletin’s Search function, I don’t have the best luck in finding things in vBulletin discussion sites.


Post #10


A great piece, painfully written.


I agree with him on one point: if we are to allow teachers to carry, it must be voluntary and not mandatory.

I am forcefully against mandating teachers carry guns. Teachers are hired to teach, not to shoot, and we shouldn’t require them to learn how to shoot if they don’t want to. Further, no matter how much training you give teachers, the fact is that the training will almost certainly be done by the lowest bidder, so not only do you have teachers with guns, you probably have poorly trained teachers with guns trying to respond to someone who is highly trained and motivated to learn about guns. When a shooter enters a school, the focus should not be to try and have the adults in the building arm an offensive against him. It is to protect the children, and sometimes the best way to do that is to hide, or focus on getting the children out of the building. The goal is to protect the children, and if one teacher wants to carry, that’s fine. But to mandate that they all have to carry in order to teach and have a lowest bidder teaching them that offensive action is the best action is a recipe for disaster and probably more deaths of children.

Today two firefighters died as a result of someone shooting at them while they were responding to a fire. Is the response then to mandate arming firefighters? I don’t think so, and you shouldn’t either.

That being said, there are some arguments against voluntary carry in a school building as well. For instance, if you have guns inside the school, it is that much easier for someone to instigate a school shooting because the weapons they need are already in the building. Whether this outweighs the benefit of having armed teachers in a school, I don’t know.


Trekky, you are refuting an argument I haven’t seen anyone make. I’m not sure I’ve even seen a proposal to mandate that schools have some one armed on-campus. I have seen proposals to allow school employees - properly trained ones (CCW training) - to carry on campus. And I’m willing, for the sake of discussion, to assume that it has been proposed to have some one armed on-campus. Allowing a teacher to carry on-campus or requiring some one armed on-campus is not mandating individual teachers to be trained and armed, which is what you argued against.


You haven’t been looking that hard:

I found that in about 30 seconds of searching. I’m sure there are at least a couple others who believe the same way.


You’re right, I didn’t look for such an opinion. But even RET’s post - of his own opinion - doesn’t exactly contradict my point. Yes, RET advocated such an idea, but is RET the President of the US? A Congress Critter? A judge? Governor of CA? A CA legislator? An FBI member or police officer? A Federal or CA bureaucrat? President or officer in a gun rights advocacy group? A national or local media pundit? RET is an ordinary person of little influence in this debate - as are you and I.

So, I’ll concede that I was careless in wording my comment. I just didn’t think I would need to explain that I referred to people with significant influence in this debate. You can notch your Gnat-Strainer and inscribe the notch with my name.

BTW, unless RET made his comment with a view that such a policy would winnow many teachers, adminicrats and educrats out of education, I think RET would concede that there are many such who are not fit - mentally, morally or physically (or some combination thereof) - to be within arm’s length of any weapon more potent than a non-serrated plastic butter knife.


RET may not be an influential figure, but that idea of mandatory carry is still floating around here, and I thought I’d point out it’s flaws while reading this article. The goal was to point out the flaws in the opinion, not necessarily to refute it’s potential to be public policy.


Mandatory carry, voluntary carry, whatever…Trekky’s argument comes down to the standard lib-progressive objection that never allows for any guns, other than in the hands of cops, and then only because it’s a good jobs program for increasing the size of government in our daily lives.

I’m not against a certain amount of training, but under no illusions it’ll ever be enough to satisfy Trekky, et al. The deterrence effect has nothing to do with training, or even the number of armed personnel in the school; it’s the uncertainty factor that is relevant. Today, there’s a certainty that no armed resistance will be encountered, which goes a long way towards explaining the targets chosen. In most cases where a defensive weapon is presented, it alone is enough for the perpetrator to change his mind, and leave or surrender. Yeah, a teacher or janitor could discharge a round at a perpetrator, miss, and hit an innocent. So what? At what point do they overcome their natural, as well as trained, reticence to fire? At the 18th kid killed, or do they wait until the 20th? The guy at Virginia Tech could have been stopped far earlier.

What the libs always overlook, be it in the home or a public place is that, “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away”.


I read through that entire blog post. It was long but very well worth it. It also gave me more rhetorical ammo to bring to the next gun control debate.

Thank you for posting it.