Two articles on gun control, one pro, one con. Only one makes sense. Guess which.
I’d be surprised if you haven’t already read the post advocating against the imposition of Democrat-style gun control. The author is Larry Correia and, as a nice Jewish grandmother would say, he knows from guns. In other word, he’s writing from a position of factual strength.
Correia’s post is a long one, but well worth your time. Here are some choice quotes, but don’t cheat yourself by reading only these quotes and then skipping the rest:
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.
[snip]
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.
[snip]
In my experience, the only people who are worth a darn with a gun are the ones who wish to take responsibility and carry a gun. Make it voluntary. It is rather simple. Just make it so that your state’s concealed weapons laws trump the Federal Gun Free School Zones act. All that means is that teachers who voluntarily decide to get a concealed weapons permit are capable of carrying their guns at work. Easy. Simple. Cheap. Available now.
[snip]
Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.
[snip]
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.
[snip]
I want to talk about the media’s effect on the shooters.
[snip]
These people want to make a statement. They want to show the world that they aren’t losers. They want to make us understand their pain. They want to make their peer group realize that they are powerful. They’ll show us. The solution is easy. It’s right there in front of your nose.
If you can kill enough people at one time, you’ll be on the news, 24/7, round the clock coverage. You will become the most famous person in the world. Everyone will know your name. You become a celebrity. Experts will try to understand what you were thinking. Hell, the President of the United States, the most important man in the world, will drop whatever he is doing and hold a press conference to talk about your actions, and he’ll even shed a single manly tear.
You are a star.
Please read the rest here. Part of being armed for battle means being armed with the facts, and you will get them from Correia’s post.
Speaking of facts, The Atlantic has published a long online post likening the Second Amendment crowd to the pro-slavery crowd in the years leading up to the Civil War. It is an exquisite example of Progressive reasoning, long on irrelevant facts and then using irrational reasoning to tie these irrelevant facts together into a Progressive conclusion. As an added bonus, it makes a spectacular logical leap to tie together the racist Democrats, who were the first to demand gun control in order to disarm Southern blacks, with modern-day Constitutionalists who believe that every one has a right to self-defense, including blacks.
I’m too lazy to deconstruct the factual, historical, and analytical fallacies, but I’m sure you’ll enjoy doing that, especially after having read Correia’s post. The only thing that saddens me greatly is that Ta-Nehisi Coates, who writes from a strong foundation of emotionalism and ignorance, has the imprimatur and reach of the still-respectedAtlantic behind him/her (can’t tell gender from name), while Correia, who has first-hand knowledge and actual facts (as opposed to feelings and historic rewrites) can only rely upon word of mouth in the blogosphere.
