Larry Correia Refutes the Gun Controllers Once and For All

An expert testimonial refuting the illusions of security pandered by soothsayers and demagogues, hell bent on disarming an awakening citizenry.


An opinion on gun control

Larry Correia

I didn’t want to post about this, because frankly, it is exhausting. I’ve been having this exact same argument for my entire adult life. It is not an exaggeration when I say that I know pretty much exactly every single thing an anti-gun person can say. I’ve heard it over and over, the same old tired stuff, trotted out every single time there is a tragedy on the news that can be milked. Yet, I got sucked in, and I’ve spent the last few days arguing with people who either mean well but are uninformed about gun laws and how guns actually work (who I don’t mind at all), or the willfully ignorant (who I do mind), or the obnoxiously stupid who are completely incapable of any critical thinking deeper than a Facebook meme (them, I can’t stand).

Today’s blog post is going to be aimed at the first group. I am going to try to go through everything I’ve heard over the last few days, and try to break it down from my perspective. My goal tonight is to write something that my regular readers will be able to share with their friends who may not be as familiar with how mass shootings or gun control laws work.

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….

Gun Free Zones

Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.



40 Comments on "Larry Correia Refutes the Gun Controllers Once and For All"

  1. bobbiethejean | Jan 16, 2013 at 1:14 pm |

    All one need do is look at the rest of the civilized world to see why this guy is full of shit.

    • oh ya? I hope you like Hot burglary and extremely high knife crime.

      these things are not very common in America, as we have weapons.

      • Number Two | Jan 16, 2013 at 5:22 pm |

        Those still pale in comparison to the gun violence statistics (& knife violence unexpectedly…) you have in the states. Also i wouldn’t claim on burglary either (hot or not). And you are claiming like people in other countries don’t have guns or knives or swords or any form of self protection/weaponry which happens to be entirely untrue.

        & what are you really gonna do if the State decides to come for you with yr guns? Die in a blaze of glory while takin’ some ov that no good gov’t (aka people who support things i don’t) wit ya? Yr still dead man.

      • lazy_friend | Jan 16, 2013 at 5:07 pm |

        Yeah here we have gun crimes and burglary happens every 14 seconds when people are not home. We also have a lot of school shootings and police brutality. Crime is everywhere. Meditation is probably more effective than guns. Keep your fucking guns just dont try to push on people like its a good thing. I like hardcore porn, is it good for me in general? no. Do I know why I like it? Probably because of my first girlfriend. Would I give up watching it if, people begged me to? Most likely.

    • Thank you for this.

      And I am sorry to see so many “Dis-Info Warriors” (to make a play on the Alex Jones crowd) in this thread succumb to childish opinion-shouting and general unwillingness to look outside their comfort zones.

      I, for one, support the idea that whatever assault-rifle restrictions come out of the media-manufactured “political will” for action, they should not be applied on a nation-wide basis.

      (I would tentatively allow mega-city regions in the U.S. to instate broad- or total-gun-bans, to serve as examples for the rest of us observe, because the mega-city regions already live in completely un-Constitutional ways, and are some of the biggest cesspools of human cognition and cognitive dissonance in the whole world, and I would welcome for the liberals and the utopians therein to get burned by the hand of oligarchical collectivist or statist central control mis-management. I have always lived in mega-city regions, for the record.)

  2. cakey pig | Jan 16, 2013 at 1:52 pm |

    TL:DR? (and boy, it is long!) Larry is a violence-loving macho man with a gun fixation who thinks he lives in a Hollywood movie. His arguments aren’t even anything new – if you’re American then they might make some weird sense, but to the rest of us they’re just laughable gibberish.

    • WTFMFWOMG | Jan 16, 2013 at 1:56 pm |

      References, please.

    • Benjamin Tucker | Jan 16, 2013 at 2:46 pm |

      As if you don’t have a fixation on violence? Do tell how do you keep law and order? Through the threat of violence do you not? You’re as much of a “macho man” wannabe who likes violence as much as this guy is and you are afraid to admit it because you have other people committing the violence for you, to afraid to admit it because you’re “civilized”. So please hop down your high horse and become a little more self aware.

      • Why don’t you tell cakey pig what you believe and know, rather than pretending to be telepathic and telling him or her what he or she supposedly believes and knows? Everything that you put down to insincerity could simply be ignorance.

    • ….. ok pick one of his arguments and refute it with anything other than a long drawn out ad hominem attack.

  3. The guy’s an arrogant, self important prick. Exactly the sort of douchebag that makes me want to support gun control. Personally, I’m for maximum liberty, but the argument that we need guns just doesn’t stand. Some people really really like guns, is that not enough?

    • mannyfurious | Jan 16, 2013 at 5:24 pm |

      Exactly. It’s weird, because I agree with many “liberal” positions, and, yet, the liberals annoy the fuck out of me. I agree with the “pro-gun” contingent, but they annoy the fuck out of me. Most of my extended family falls into this category. Just admit that holding a big, hard, vaguely phallic tube that ejaculates so intensely it can kill the recipient of that ejaculation, turns you on like no woman ever could. It’s fine. I can deal with that and even support it, even though it’s not for me. All the other rationalizations come across as macho idiot bullshit with little semblance to real life.

    • We don’t need guns…until we want to do other than what the dictators tell us. Reading history can be very educational…if done with an unbiased and truth-seeking mind. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol, etc were eager to disarm the citizens. “nuff said.

    • KentuckyWildcat | Apr 23, 2013 at 8:04 am |

      why are you such a douche? like seriously?

  4. “Police are awesome. I love working with cops.”

  5. If not guns in schools, then maybe nonlethal weapons that can incapacitate temporarily. As well as more effective health care and a society that encourages Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.


    Good read, thanks Camron Wiltshire

  6. BuzzCoastin | Jan 16, 2013 at 7:20 pm |

    never have owned a gun
    never had the need for one
    never have had a government
    never had a need for one

    guns aren’t the only weapons out there
    & illegal guns are easier to get than pot
    I forget the URL, but there’s a SilkRoad for weapons

    • Apathesis | Jan 16, 2013 at 7:42 pm |

      What do you think the USA should do about guns, should the War on Drugs end?

      In an ideal world, no guns might be better. But I’m not sure I’d like being hacked to death by a lawnmower blade any better.

      • BuzzCoastin | Jan 16, 2013 at 7:56 pm |

        > What do you think the USA should do about guns,
        should the War on Drugs end?

        thanks for asking
        but personal opinions really don’t matter in the USA
        free speech there is merely a diversionary tactic
        gun crimes in the US involve about 0.00003% of the US population
        In 2010 there were 358 deaths involving rifles.
        Deaths involving the use of pistols in the US that same year totaled 6,009 including suicides.
        the USA already has plenty of gun laws
        and a whole bureaucracy to enforce those laws: The ATF

        so the whole thing is about stirring up fear & strife

        • BunkersTrust | Jan 16, 2013 at 8:05 pm |

          “A record number of Afghan civilians were killed in the conflict here last year (2011)… 3,021 civilians — represented a relatively small 8 percent increase in casualties over 2010, it was the fifth straight year in which civilian casualties rose.”

          Afghanistan has 10% of the population of the US, yet it has half as many gun deaths, mostly caused by the US. My how the piggies squeal when the gun is on the other foot.

          • BuzzCoastin | Jan 16, 2013 at 8:58 pm |

            Homelanders generally don’t care about the death & destruction they cause elsewhere
            just as long as their violent movies can be viewed in violence-free theaters

        • Apathesis | Jan 16, 2013 at 8:43 pm |

          We agreed about free speech in the USA on another article, which is why I felt compelled to ask your opinion on this matter. Plus, I just love your insights and comment format.

          I actually wrote to my representatives (you’re laughing), citing stats from 2005-2009. I realize it will have almost no chance of changing their minds, but at least I tried. I needed to satisfy my own piece of mind.

          Anyway, the government wants to ban “assault” rifles because a very optimistic .013% of legal gun owners (80 million) commit murders, and ALL rifles are only involved in ~3.7% of firearm homicides. Their intentions are obviously disingenuous, but Jane and Joe Dumbass haven’t a clue.

          But I digress. We obviously see through the malarkey and do our own research.
          It’s just too bad the rest of the world is not as autonomous and resourceful.

          • BuzzCoastin | Jan 16, 2013 at 8:53 pm |

            years ago I got suckered into The System
            with the idea that once inside it could be changed for the better
            but once inside I realized that The System had a mind of its own
            and people were merely puppets of The System
            and ideas of reform were bets against The House (The System)
            there came a point at which my realizations about this led to my dropping out
            once out, my options for living creatively expanded exponentially

            so not only do I know how to book a caddy for a foursome at Pebble Beach
            but I can live in a jungle too
            knowing how to negotiate both The System & Reality are helpful skills to develop

  7. You gun haters are quite emotional about this. Who cares what a man feels like when he holds a gun? Who cares if he secretly licks his barrel at night? The point is, how the fuck are people going to defend themselves when the shit goes down?

    There is nothing wrong with this guy’s arguments, even if his presentation style is lacking. I don’t own a gun, but with boot-licking cowards like all of you begging to be protected by the biggest gun-toting gang on the block, the prospect of me acquiring one soon gets all the more tempting.

    • Apathesis | Jan 17, 2013 at 12:11 am |

      That .010-.013% of legal gun owners who might kill you is scary. I say might because we all know it is mostly criminals in big cities with illegal handguns that are the real threat, and thus that percentage is not an accurate number.

    • bobbiethejean | Jan 20, 2013 at 9:46 am |

      You guys on the opposite side sound like the emotional ones here. In fact, you guys sound like Glenn Beck having one of his hissyfit meltdowns. Furthermore, just because we acknowledge that gun violence is a problem in this country doesn’t mean we hate guns or even that we want to take people’s guns away. We just want to enact common sense gun laws and resolve whatever sociopolitical/cultural problems are the root cause. That’s what most of us want to do.

      • Common sense and law do NOT belong in the same sentence, in fact, they are antithetical to each other. If you believe there to be ‘common sense’ then law should not be necessary to impose it. Further, supporting any new gun laws (or any more laws for that matter) is missing the larger problem of what is actually happening around the world. The highest criminal elements of our species (aka our ‘leaders’) are slowly losing control as their ponzi scheme wealth extraction system grinds to a halt. This on-going economic implosion is a well-documented part of our current social reality. It’s a train crash in slow motion, and the worst is yet to come; this is absolutely NOT the time to move towards making the populace even more vulnerable to violent repression from those that will benefit least from economic collapse–the wealthy elite. Consider the US incarceration rate to give context to this perspective. Thus, common sense (the instinct towards self-preservation) would dictate that any one _not_ in the big wealthy elite club should no longer rely on them for protection.

        • bobbiethejean | Jan 21, 2013 at 10:57 am |

          Now you’re nitpicking semantics. You know damn well what I meant when I said “common sense gun laws.” I mean it’s pretty fricking reasonable that your average citizen does not need nor should have access to a bazooka or any kind of automatic rifle. That’s ridiculous.

          Furthermore, you assume that because we want reasonable gunlaws that we are necessarily blind to the root of the problem and we’re not. A lot of us KNOW that the ultimate problems are class imbalance, poverty, failed education, failed healthcare, and political unrest, among other things.

          I don’t disagree with the base of what you’re saying but I do think citizens do not need automatic rifles and bazookas.

          • Machine guns and bazookas are already banned. He mentioned that in his article. What then do you think is ‘common sense’ to ban? ‘High capacity’ clips? Already lots in circulation, and can be easily fabricated by any machinist. Assault rifles? This is a nebulous term, as he mentioned in his article, that is used to drum up emotion in the gun-ignorant.

            The gun issue is a non issue at any rate. Think about it clearly. There are too many guns in circulation right now. Unless O grandfathers a ban and begins confiscating door-to-door, any legislation is bound to fail in a few years. It’s probably not even worth arguing about it really.

            I think you should not let your disparaging view of archetypal mouth-breathing, gun-toting, SUV driving ‘mericuns affect your analytical perspective on what the current regime is trying to do.

          • bobbiethejean | Jan 23, 2013 at 5:00 pm |

            I think you should not let your disparaging view of archetypal
            mouth-breathing, gun-toting, SUV driving ‘mericuns affect your
            analytical perspective on what the current regime is trying to do.

            I try not to let emotional overreaction dictate my opinions of such matters that require logic and reason but I can’t pretend it never happens. I am human after all. It’s hard to look at incidences like Sandyhook, Aurora, Columbine, Gabby Giffords et al and remain levelheaded. I would pose a question to you: What do you think the gun laws should be in current day America, (disregarding the constitution for the sake of rhetorical clarity and ease)?

          • I think a skeptical eye should be cast on all law, actually. The law exists ostensibly to protect the weak from being preyed upon by the strong; but it still happens, and seems to be getting worse. In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear to many that the system we have been raised to believe exists–the liberal democratic model where political equality begets social equality through good governance–actually does not exist; and, certainly not for lack of trying. History books bare out that well-intentioned politicians seem to have attempted change, but were thwarted in some form or another. So that should be our first hint that the basic assumption that the law protects the weak is flawed in real world practice.

            This skepticism, then, should shake our belief systems to their core–if everything we’ve been taught/told about law is not accurate to how law is acted out in the real world, then what allows this disconnect to continue? That’s not a question that can be addressed with a generalized answer–i.e. human nature, greed, lust for power, public complacency etc. This is because these general factors can neither be accurately identified to exist in everyone, nor corrected (if they do, indeed, exist). Thus, we are left to make this question specific to us as individuals–e.g. Why do _I_ allow this disconnect to continue? Or, why do I bother to follow the law that others (bankers, politicians etc.) don’t seem to? Asking those questions are crucially more important, and it’s my belief that more and more people are beginning and will continue to ask those questions–hence OWS, Idle No More (here in Canada), among many other popular social justice movements.

            So, coming back to the question of gun laws, since it probably seems like I have evaded it from the get go, it doesn’t really matter what kind of guns I think other people should or should not own, because that’s not the problem. The problem is a society that’s been constructed on double standards which are becoming more bold-faced all the time now. What kind of gun my neighbour owns (as well as every other part of his/her affairs) is currently and will always remain none of my business. So why should it be the business of some politician or man/woman with a badge and a gun, themselves?

  8. razzlebathbone | Jan 17, 2013 at 7:00 am |

    More guns in the hands of Americans is good because it results in more Americans killing each other.
    Here’s hoping they’ll get a move on with that second civil war they’re so desperately eager for and exterminate each other completely.

    Go NRA! Go guns! THE GUN IS GOOD!

  9. This is all cool minus the fact it’s opinion and not rooted in fact whatsoever.

    1.) europe has a much lower rate of violent gun crime (gun free zones are hunting preserves for the innocent)

    2.) The only people that statistically respond well with force to an armed assailant are off duty/retired military/police. For the rest of us, just having a gun on us exponentially increases our odds of dying a violent death.

    So now that i’ve removed your factually incorrect arguments you’re left with some abstract argument that revolves around FREEDUMB and MURIKA.

    Also when do we stop this logical fallacy? Should civilians own tactical nukes and chemical agents to protect themselves against a government that has advanced weaponry? I’d say no but i’m not a lulzbertarian either.

  10. also he’s basically threatening to kill americans if you try to take away his guns, what a fucking babby

  11. kowalityjesus | Jan 26, 2013 at 10:07 am |

    most…. tiresome …..subject….. ever…

    why should we change anything because of some ALLEGED nitwit/mind-controlled drone? Fuck all these do-something-about-nothing politicians whose sole objective it is to create media subject matter.

    Its like the demonically-possessed people who watch too much daytime television and end up provoking false dramatic scenarios to fill their vapid lives with simulated subject matter. Meanwhile their check book remains unbalanced and in an ever-elevating state of denial.

Comments are closed.