This is from Larry Correia. New York Times bestselling author,
firearm instructor and former gun shop owner.
The link leads to Monster Hunter Nation.
He has trained some Utah teachers and wants them to be armed at
school if they want to be.
Part of his comment on 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 wheres the best place to go shoot all these people?
Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.
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
Are you going to arm your self with assault rifle and 200 rounds
magazine or drum? You know wackos will come there with such a weapon
with mass killing power in short time. I am not against owning fire arm,
first step should be banning the ownership of assault type automatic
weapons and high capacity magazines/clips. And owning a gun is one thing
using it properly and well is another, how many owners are like that?
Are always ready for surprise attack? If teachers are armed can they
concentrate on teaching or be on the look oiut for the sudden danger?
IMO, the more gun, the more possibility of trouble. No thanks
no gun for me or my family.
Well, clearly NOT in the mind of stupid gun controllers
Apparently their fantasy is that anyone carrying in school would be walking
around with one hand on the butt of the gun, constantly scanning everyone
Reminds me of the "Jake" the Jack Elam character in Support your local
There is is, the mark of someone who knows nothing about weapons and
then proceeds to tell us what to do with ours. I won't continue
explaining it because someone else in this thread already has....
and high capacity magazines/clips. And owning a gun is one thing
And isn't it nice that YOU have a choice, why don't you just shut up
(until you know what you are talking about) and let the rest of us
have OUR choice.
I respect your opinion, but I fear it's based on ignorance. Please allow me
* You claim wackos arm themselves with 200 round magazine or drum. The true
wackos might, because drum and extremely large capacities will almost always
jam, rendering the weapon useless.
* You assert that banning ownership of assault type weapons should be the
first step. Actually, you said "assault type
You might as well say banning weapons that shoot lightning-bolts should be
banned, because there is no such thing as a civilian "assault weapon." If
you doubt that statement, I await your definition of "assault weapon."
In 1994, Congress DID (try to) define a civilian "assault weapon," or tried
to. Here's their definition:
Any weapon with a detachable magazine AND two or more of the following:
- Folding or adjustable stock
- Pistol grip
- Bayonet mount
- Flash suppressor
- Grenade launcher
Can you imagine anything sillier? Every weapon falling into the defined
catagory could be made compliant with nothing more than a hacksaw (to remove
the bayonet mount). And they were.
A subsequent follow-up on the crime rate, after ten years of the ban showed
NO change in the crime rate.
Anyway, give me YOUR definition of a civilian "assault weapon" or
"assault-type weapon" and we can have a meaningful conversation.
* You favor elimination of high-capacity magazines. Do you know how simple a
thing a magazine it? I'll tell you: it's a piece of bent sheet metal
(sometimes plastic) enclosing a spring. It is trivial to construct one in an
ordinary sheet-metal fabrication shop (in fact, I'm surprised more sheet
metal shops don't take on their manufacture on as a sideline).
* Lastly, you feel the more gun, the greater chance for a problem. This
notion was debunked by John Lott in his book "More Guns Less Crime," in
which he studied the gun crimes in each of the 3050 counties in the United
States. He centered on the change in gun crime before and after the states
enacted concealed handgun licenses for their citizens. In every case after
CHL passage, violence involving guns diminished, sometimes dramatically,
after such enabling legislation. If I remember correctly, on average,
forcible rapes decreased by 8% and armed robberies by a greater amount.
Go ahead - let's chat. But, again, the first thing I want to hear is what
you might consider an "assault weapon" and why.
Thanks in advance.
You mean like Mexico?
Laxity of gun control has little to do with mayhem caused by firearms. For
every country with lax gun control and many deaths, I can respond with a
country with lax control and few deaths. Likewise, the reverse.
I suppose as a third world country it could be paralleled with the
The problems it has are the same as Mexico.
Proximity to the USA.
But if you want to compare
It's you are the stupid one. Thick as pitch comes to mind.
Owning a gun is no defence against getting shot.
Any aggressor can choose his time and place.
There is some truth to what you say but my owning a gun does improve the
odds in my favor. I'm reminded of the weeks following Katrina where we had
do-bads from out of town the came with the intend of looting and were not
opposed to home invasions.
Several years back my <100# daughter got the drop on a 250# do bad that
broke into her apartment. After she called 911 and advised she had the drop
on the do bad it took LEO a half hour to get there.
And BTW the do bad did chose the time and place.
If nobody had a gun, there would be no issue.
Americans can't grasp the fact that even illegal gun ownership here is
Virtually no-one is interested in owning a gun in the UK.
We have more intellectual pursuits.
With all the radical Islamists allowed into The U.K. you can be morally
superior in the knowledge that you eschew owning an evil gun to defend
yourself with while some Muslim wacko cuts your head off because it
thinks you somehow offended Islam. It's so enlightened of you to give
away your cities to throngs of thugs who have no compunction about
obeying any laws restricting any weapons which they use on you modern,
superior, ultra-civilized people. Your sacrifice to civility will be a
great source of pride for those visiting your grave site and monument. ^_^
Right - if you make guns really really hard to get people will just move
to knives, socks full of quarters, whatever. Tendency towards violence
is somewhat independent of weapon ownership. I would ask if you wanted
to ban sharp knives but we're already moving in that direction! (I'm in
the US not the UK)
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.