Larry Correia on ignorant people talking about how the US military would steamroller US citizens

I’m a big fan of Larry Correia’s fiction, and the guy is dead on when it comes to firearms laws & related politics.   He posted the following on his facebook page today, and it bears repeating given the number of mouth breathing idiots I’ve seen repeating “The US Army has DRONES!” ad nauseam.

I’ve got somebody in the comments to my gun control repost arguing about how the 2nd Amendment means nothing now a days, and how citizens are powerless to stand up against the government, because it has drones and tanks. People with a clue are all like nope, not that easy… But he thinks the government could just round them all up, because drones are magic or something. I just wrote this. Figured I’d share. smile emoticon

#
You ever note in every discussion about the topic of the 2nd Amendment being powerless against a modern government, it is always the peacenick afraid of guns with zero understanding of fighting, combat, logistics, or tactics arguing about how easy national confiscation would be against the trigger pullers, veterans, and people with a clue?

In real life, the people who would have to go door to door in places like Texas and Utah enforcing this hypothetical confiscation law are all like, nope, ain’t gonna happen. I’m calling in sick. I’m calling in sick FOREVER.

Hell, in New York state they only got like a 5% compliance rate for their assault weapons registration. NEW YORK!? They’re estimating at least a million unregistered “assault weapons” in Bloomberg’s home state. One of the bluest of blue states in the US, and everybody outside of Manhattan said eat a bag of dicks, Cuomo. See the essay above? Where I was super generous and gave them 90% national compliance? Yeah… No. grin emoticon

But, but, but, drones! Tanks! Aircraft carriers! Oh really? Because the guys that drive those or work in the super evil military industrial complex that you liberals love so much tend to be so overwhelmingly on your side and in favor of gun confiscation?

There are 700,000 cops in America. The ones in places with super strict gun control can’t even enforce it in those tiny urban areas, and you think you’re going to go into Idaho or Tennessee and say give up all your guns or else, and that’s going to work? Then what? The US Military gets called up and told to go shoot their friends and neighbors because of a law most of them are fundamentally opposed to?

Yeah, go ahead and start dropping Hellfires on people’s houses in Kentucky or Colorado. I’m sure the resulting backlash will be nothing but peaceful candle lit vigils and sit ins…

See, one thing you derpy wishful thinking unicorn enthusiasts miss about the 2nd Amendment isn’t just the bit where the regular people can have guns to fight tyranny, but everybody in the military swears an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from enemies foreign, and DOMESTIC. So, how do you think members of the US military (who again, are overwhelmingly not progressive statist gun control enthusiasts) are going to react when given the order to go blow up American citizens because they are not complying with a law that violates the US Constitution?

Not to mention that most of the US military’s bases are in red states, where people live next door to, and barbeque with, and go to church with the people you expect them to go slaughter for your utopian vision. And on that note, all those big scary super weapons you keep citing that the “milita” would be helpless against? Yeah. They are parked and maintained at places like Cannon or Hill, where nothing but a chain link fence separates them from the neighborhoods of the people you expect to massacre with impunity. Except wait… They don’t need to climb the fence, because we already WORK THERE. And the people who took an oath to defend the Constitution who fly those things are more than likely to tell you to shove it, right before they frag their one general officer dumb enough to order them to bomb their home towns.

The Civil War was a giant bloody mess, and that was with geographic boundaries and causes worth fighting for. This is a cause that only people who haven’t really thought it through, wishful thinkers, and control freaks buy into, with no front line, no safe areas, no secure supply train, and the enemy controls the territory that produces all the food and energy.

Your MOST secure areas are the ones that melt down into violent riots when your over militarized police forces get caught on video doing something questionably violent. All the “insurgents” would have to do is shut off the electricity for a few days and most of your side’s backing would evaporate. Oh, but you’ve got places like Berkley in your camp. I’m sure they would be willing to tough out another Civil War. Look out Fort Hood! This is going to get rough!

A single US red state has more territory and can produce ten times as many insurgents as one of the greatest military coalitions in history fought for a decade in Iraq. Only ours will have a clue, and know how to fight better.

But, but, but feels! Drones! Drones are magic! You feel SO HARD. Because of hypothetical problems that may happen in the future, your imaginary army is willing to kill millions and destroy the whole country, because FEELINGS.

Brilliant. Tell us more about how smoothly this gun confiscation will go, Von Clauswitz!

Well put, Larry.

Advertisements

A redditor gets it right about mental health screenings before buying guns

There’s quite a bit of discussion going on right now about what can be done in response to the Charleston SC church shooting.  Many people are wanting mental health screenings before firearms purchasing.  One redditor gave a particularly insightful response:

I don’t have a solution, but there are a lot of comments about the role of mental health professions in addressing the problem of gun violence that I think are short-sighted. I am a mental health professional and I cannot see how a requirement of sound mental status for gun ownership or purchase could be achieved. Here is why:

First, the presumption that mental health professionals are good at predicting future behavior is not true. It is easy to look back at a person’s history and see all the “red flags” and assume that someone should have known he would be a murderer and should have done something to prevent it. I have seen many patients with mental illness; I have never suspected that any of them would murder someone. But one of them surely could’ maybe even years later. And someone would suggest that I should have predicted it. Am I then culpable?

Second, shifting the responsibility of whether a person should be allowed to purchase a gun to a mental health professional is a huge liability for that person. So I would have to decide whether a person’s emotional problems would make them likely to commit gun violence. And, because I can’t know that with any certainty, I would have to error on the side of caution (for my protection), and report that person to whomever the state requires. Now that person who is probably at low threat of killing someone can’t buy a gun because the liability is so high that I can’t take the personal risk. No clinician wants that burden, liability, and ethical dilemma and I would personally move to a different state if that became a requirement.

Third, who gets to set the criteria for whether a person’s mental health status should restrict gun rights? If it is at the clinician’s discretion, it will occur arbitrarily. And the need to be “better safe than sorry” will result in a lot of people on a list that will never commit a violent crime. One might think that it should be based on mental health diagnosis. But guess what? Everyone who seeks treatment for a psychological issue gets a diagnosis; that’s how insurance claims are made. Which diagnoses should restrict rights? Mood disorders? Personality disorders? Psychotic disorders? If the person is treated successfully, are their rights restored? How would that process occur?

Let’s say we decide that we don’t want people with a history of mental health issues to be put on a list that prevents gun purchase. Then someone who wants to buy a gun should have to pass a mental health screening prior to purchase, right? What private clinicians are going to volunteer for that gig? None. So the state will have to employ their own clinicians to do the screenings. And when those clinicians have to weigh the risk of not identifying a mental health problem against clearing you to buy a gun, anything in your history could be used as justification to deny you your rights. Hope you never got arrested for anything.

I don’t want the mentally ill to buy guns. I don’t want regular folks with intermittent emotional problems to be restricted from buying guns. And our ability to distinguish between these groups is limited. Having mental health clinicians making decisions about gun rights has serious problems.

Another redditor responded to this:

I also have an additional issue on this. If mental health professionals have the ability to take away/prevent the ownership of firearms, it means that anyone with a firearm is less likely to go to a professional when they need help. Thinking along the lines of, “I think I’m dealing with depression, but if I go to the doctor and he agrees, he may take away my guns,” wouldn’t be uncommon.

Isn’t that literally the opposite of what we want to happen? Putting a potential penalty *that people care about* on getting help seems to me to be the opposite of what we want to do if our goal is getting people help.

And got this in reply:

Spot on. And this distrust already happens because of real consequences for seeking mental health treatment. It can affect your insurability (life, medical, and disability) and ability to get a government job. If you ever got divorced, it could affect custody. Even though I work in the field and believes in the benefits of mental health treatment, I honestly don’t blame people who think the risks outweigh the potential benefits. The risk of losing a constitutional right is no joke and feeds into the belief held by many that there are broad-reaching efforts to disarm Americans.

WSJ Calls out Administration on false mass shooting report: Obama’s Gun-Control Misfire Before the 2014 election, the FBI claimed that mass shootings were up. False.

Last year, the FBI released a report about active shooters that was seized upon by the antigun faithful and twisted into a screed about mass shootings.  Last week, it turned out that the information was not only wrong, but massaged.  Yeserday, the WSJ showed a rare moment of honesty and reported on it:

Last September the Obama administration produced an FBI report that said mass shooting attacks and deaths were up sharply—by an average annual rate of about 16% between 2000 and 2013. Moreover, the problem was worsening. “The findings establish an increasing frequency of incidents,” said the authors. “During the first 7 years included in the study, an average of 6.4 incidents occurred annually. In the last 7 years of the study, that average increased to 16.4 incidents annually.”

The White House could not possibly have been more pleased with the media reaction to these findings, which were prominently featured by the New York Times, USA Today, CNN, the Washington Post and other major outlets. The FBI report landed six weeks before the midterm elections, and the administration was hoping that the gun-control issue would help drive Democratic turnout.

Source: WSJ

The author understates how far and wide this was spread:

New York Times: F.B.I. Confirms a Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000

A report released by the F.B.I. on Wednesday confirmed what many Americans had feared but law enforcement officials had never documented: Mass shootings have risen drastically in the past half-dozen years.

NBC: Number of Mass Shootings on the Rise, Most at Schools: FBI Report

The number of shootings in which a gunman wounds or kills multiple people has increased dramatically in recent years, with the majority of attacks in the last decade occurring at a business or a school, according to an FBI report released Wednesday. The study focused on 160 “active shooter incidents” between 2000 and 2013. Those are typically defined as cases in which a gunman in an attack shoots or attempts to shoot people in a populated area. The goal of the report, which excluded shootings that are gang and drug related, was to compile accurate data about the attacks and to help local police prepare for or respond to similar killings in the future, federal law enforcement officials said.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/number-mass-shootings-rise-most-schools-fbi-report-n211261

Newsweek: Mass Shootings on the Rise, New FBI Study Shows

A new study released Wednesday by the FBI shows that mass shootings, or “active shooter incidents,” as the bureau calls them, are increasing in frequency.

The study tracked 160 shootings between 2000 and 2013. Between 2000 and 2007, an average of 6.4 incidents occurred annually, according to the study. That number more than doubled—to 16.4 incidents annually—between 2008 and 2013. “This trend reinforces the need to remain vigilant regarding prevention efforts,” the study said, “and for law enforcement to aggressively train to better respond to—and help communities recover from—active shooter incidents.”

http://www.newsweek.com/mass-shootings-rise-new-fbi-study-shows-273020

WSJ wasn’t above the joining in the fray: Mass Shootings on the Rise, FBI Says | Data Show Average of 16.4 Active-Shooter Incidents a Year From 2006 to 2013

Mass shootings are happening more often, resulting in more deaths and usually ending before police get to the scene, according to a Federal Bureau of Investigation study released Wednesday.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/mass-shootings-on-the-rise-fbi-says-1411574475

Reason magazine was made an effort to point out that the media was getting the FBI report wrong:

To be fair, the authors of the FBI’s “active shooter” report explicitly cautioned their study was not about mass shootings, although this caveat was later ignored in much of the news media’s coverage of it.

The bulk of the article is directed towards destroying Mother Jones’ propaganda and didn’t address the widespread media misinformation.

The antigun supporters in mass media made sure to make hay while the sun was shining.

There was just one problem: The facts didn’t support the FBI report.

But late last week, J. Pete Blair and M. Hunter Martaindale, two academics at Texas State University who co-authored the FBI report, acknowledged that “our data is imperfect.” They said that the news media “got it wrong” last year when they “mistakenly reported mass shootings were on the rise.”

Mind you, the authors did not issue this mea culpa in the major news outlets that supposedly misreported the original findings. Instead, the authors published it in ACJS Today, an academic journal published by the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. “Because official data did not contain the information we needed, we had to develop our own,” wrote Messrs. Blair and Martaindale. “This required choices between various options with various strengths and weaknesses.” You don’t say.

Surprisingly, VICE Magazine has written about this too, citing it as an example of media bullshit:

As noted recently by the Wall Street Journal and others, the authors of the study — Texas State University academics J. Pete Blair and M. Hunter Martaindale — have been forced to backpedal, acknowledging that their data was “imperfect” and asserting that the media coverage of their findings “got it wrong.”

In an ongoing exchange in ACJS Today, a regular publication of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Blair and Hunter have defended their work, but they still stand accused of playing fast and loose with the numbers for political ends. As others have since pointed out, going all the way back to 1970 — instead of just the narrow 2000-2013 timeframe used in the study — shows that there has been no significant increase in the rate of mass shootings.

Never fear though, the partisan hacks over at Media Matters are quick on the trigger to make sure that they can try to attack the character of the people going against the party line, by criticizing Lott without addressing any of the points he’s raised.  This is par for the course with antigun activists – if you don’t like the message, shoot the messenger.

Charles W. Cooke’s words are ever so appropriate here:

But who cares, right? Black gun scary. NRA crazy. Shootings sad. Automatic, shmautomatic. The real question: Are you on the right side? No? Me good. You bad. Let’s not get bogged down in the facts.