Self defense is a human Right, by Larry Correia.....

[2aguy]

this is a piece by Larry Corriea, firearm trainer, successful author and pretty much knowledgable about guns and gun self defense.....

He pretty much gives the best answer to the left wing anti self defense response to the Orlando shooting and to mass shootings in general......

If you are an anti gunner, you will learn valuable things from this piece....he explains the theory of armed self defense and how it works in the real world...and how what you have made up in your head is silly....

Self Defense is a Human Right

Carrying a gun isn’t for everybody. Those who decide to don’t need to be Navy SEALs, just speed bumps.

No one is naïve enough to think that merely having a regular person nearby with a gun is a perfect solution. This last event had a lone security guard present, but the attacker still got inside and killed people. Guards have a purpose. They keep the riff raff out, but when you are dealing with a motivated mass killer, a lone posted guard is just an obvious first target. This is where the concept of defense in depth comes into play.

Defense in depth is a military term. You don’t just arm your troops on the front line, because the enemy is going to try and go around where you are strongest, to get to the vulnerable areas behind them. So you also arm your support troops, so no matter where the enemy strikes, they meet resistance.

For us, it is awesome if the Feds nab a terror cell, or somebody tells the local cops about a psycho building a bomb and the cops arrest him before he can use it. But the government can’t stop everything. Evil will inevitably get through those lines and launch attacks. Then the next line of defenders is whichever unlucky bastard happened to be in the way.

Even then, nuts and bolts, once the attacker is past the guards a permit holder may or may not be in a position to help. Gun fights are chaotic. Every one unfolds differently. You can do everything right and still die. You can screw up, get lucky, and survive. However, guns are a tool that provides options you would not otherwise have. When regular people do fight back during one of these events, they become an obstacle and a complication for the killer. At minimum they are slowed down. At best, the threat is neutralized.

Orlando is yet another example that Gun Free Zones are vile, stupid ideas. The intent is to prevent people from getting hurt. The reality is the opposite. Your feelings on the matter don’t change the results. The vast majority of mass shootings have taken place in areas where regular citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

I’ve seen a lot of people over the last few days saying that the “random good guy with a gun” is a myth. That is foolish simply because we have plenty of examples where a mass shooter was derailed or stopped by the intervention of a random person who happened to be near. Just in my home state alone, which is relatively peaceful, with low crime, a low population, and above average police response time in our urban areas, I can think of several instances where a killer was interrupted or stopped entirely by somebody other than the responding officers.

Sometimes these were regular citizens with concealed weapons permits (KSL shooting, mass stabbing at Smiths) and others they were off duty police officers in regular clothing going about their daily lives who responded first (Trolley Square, Salt Lake Library hostage situation) or even a parole officer who just happened to be at a hospital (Cache) for unrelated reasons, and ended up saving lives.

 

[2aguy]

And to the anti gunners who think that telling people who decide to carry a gun for self defense is just being paranoid and irrationally fearful....

I had some buffoon sanctimoniously lecturing me yesterday that I must want people to live in fear. Quite the contrary actually, I want them to go about living their lives in peace, with the tools to survive if something bad happens. I have health insurance and smoke alarms, but I don’t live my life in fear of disease or fire. With proper training and practice, you can conceal a handgun as easily as you carry your car keys or cell phone. Make it part of your routine.

Fear is normal, and we have it for a reason. The problem is irrational fear that causes you to make bad decisions. You are right to fear murderers, because they exist. That is perfectly rational. Disarming all their potential victims because you are afraid one of them might potentially do something harmful is irrational.

 

[Moonglow]

Humans managed to overcome their weak position compared to the animal kingdom, yet have not resolved how to over come the killing nature of their own species..

 

[2aguy]

Humans managed to overcome their weak position compared to the animal kingdom, yet have not resolved how to over come the killing nature of their own species..

We never will...that is why we embedded the 2nd Amendment in our Bill of RIghts..to remind anti gunners that they are wrong....

 

[martybegan]

Humans managed to overcome their weak position compared to the animal kingdom, yet have not resolved how to over come the killing nature of their own species..

The problem is you are trying to get rid of a part of human nature, and attempting to get rid of it often is the very catalyst for sparking the more base parts of human nature.

Some people don't like being told what to do or how to act, and some of those people react violently to any attempt to make that happen.

 

[WillowTree]

It never crosses most of our minds to kill another human being. The humans who kill are savages and should be taken out of society.

 

[Divine Wind]

this is a piece by Larry Corriea, firearm trainer, successful author and pretty much knowledgable about guns and gun self defense.....

He pretty much gives the best answer to the left wing anti self defense response to the Orlando shooting and to mass shootings in general......

If you are an anti gunner, you will learn valuable things from this piece....he explains the theory of armed self defense and how it works in the real world...and how what you have made up in your head is silly....

Self Defense is a Human Right

Carrying a gun isn’t for everybody. Those who decide to don’t need to be Navy SEALs, just speed bumps.

No one is naïve enough to think that merely having a regular person nearby with a gun is a perfect solution. This last event had a lone security guard present, but the attacker still got inside and killed people. Guards have a purpose. They keep the riff raff out, but when you are dealing with a motivated mass killer, a lone posted guard is just an obvious first target. This is where the concept of defense in depth comes into play.

Defense in depth is a military term. You don’t just arm your troops on the front line, because the enemy is going to try and go around where you are strongest, to get to the vulnerable areas behind them. So you also arm your support troops, so no matter where the enemy strikes, they meet resistance.

For us, it is awesome if the Feds nab a terror cell, or somebody tells the local cops about a psycho building a bomb and the cops arrest him before he can use it. But the government can’t stop everything. Evil will inevitably get through those lines and launch attacks. Then the next line of defenders is whichever unlucky bastard happened to be in the way.

Even then, nuts and bolts, once the attacker is past the guards a permit holder may or may not be in a position to help. Gun fights are chaotic. Every one unfolds differently. You can do everything right and still die. You can screw up, get lucky, and survive. However, guns are a tool that provides options you would not otherwise have. When regular people do fight back during one of these events, they become an obstacle and a complication for the killer. At minimum they are slowed down. At best, the threat is neutralized.

Orlando is yet another example that Gun Free Zones are vile, stupid ideas. The intent is to prevent people from getting hurt. The reality is the opposite. Your feelings on the matter don’t change the results. The vast majority of mass shootings have taken place in areas where regular citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

I’ve seen a lot of people over the last few days saying that the “random good guy with a gun” is a myth. That is foolish simply because we have plenty of examples where a mass shooter was derailed or stopped by the intervention of a random person who happened to be near. Just in my home state alone, which is relatively peaceful, with low crime, a low population, and above average police response time in our urban areas, I can think of several instances where a killer was interrupted or stopped entirely by somebody other than the responding officers.

Sometimes these were regular citizens with concealed weapons permits (KSL shooting, mass stabbing at Smiths) and others they were off duty police officers in regular clothing going about their daily lives who responded first (Trolley Square, Salt Lake Library hostage situation) or even a parole officer who just happened to be at a hospital (Cache) for unrelated reasons, and ended up saving lives.

The Founders, British figures like William Blackstone and International law agree:
Self-Defense - International Law - Oxford Bibliographies
Humanity has always recognized that individuals should have the right to defend themselves from violence.

The James Madison Research Library and Information Center
"[Blackstone] placed the right to arms among the ‘absolute rights of individuals at common law,’ those rights he saw as preserving to England its free government and to Englishmen their liberties. Yet, unquestionobly, what Blackstone was referring to was the individuals' rights to have and use arms for self-protection. He describes the right to bear arms as being ‘for self-preservation and defence,’ and self-defense as being ‘the primary law of nature [which cannot be taken away by the law of society] ― the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions, of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.’

"This background suggests why Blackstone saw political overtones in the right to arms, coupling his discussion of it to rights that are plainly political in nature. It helps to explain why in the Bill of Rights the right of arms [of the Second Amendment] is preceded by the rights of religion, expression, press and petition [of the First Amendment], then followed by the guarantee against quartering soldiers [of the Third Amendment], and then followed, in turn, by protection against unreasonable searches and seizures [of the Fourth Amendment]."

Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense
The absence of an explicit affirmation of an individual right of self-defense in the early state constitutions does not mean Americans did not venerate this ancient right. Not every right protected under common law was enshrined in the new constitutions. Most Americans did not see any threat to this right and believed that there was no need to single out this right for special protection.

 

[Conservative65]

Humans managed to overcome their weak position compared to the animal kingdom, yet have not resolved how to over come the killing nature of their own species..

Many humans overcame it. You, not so much.

 

[Divine Wind]

Humans managed to overcome their weak position compared to the animal kingdom, yet have not resolved how to over come the killing nature of their own species..

You forget how humans overcame their weak position; by becoming the meanest SOBs in the jungle.

We are what we are and it took millions of years for us to get here. You're not going to fix it with a feel-good piece of legislation.

Fix the gang problems in our inner cities.

Fix domestic abuse.

Fix drug and alcohol abuse.

Fix those things and guns will be revealed to be just what they are, tools. Expensive paperweights for the most part but ready for those use of those who need them.

 

[Agit8r]

Returning fire in a crowded room is something that only a selfish atavist would approve of.

"One of the first motives to civil society, and which becomes one of its fundamental rules, is that no man should be judge in his own cause. By this each person has at once divested himself of the first fundamental right of uncovenanted man, that is, to judge for himself and to assert his own cause. He abdicates all right to be his own governor. He inclusively, in a great measure, abandons the right of self-defense, the first law of nature. Men cannot enjoy the rights of an uncivil and of a civil state together. That he may obtain justice, he gives up his right of determining what it is in points the most essential to him. That he may secure some liberty, he makes a surrender in trust of the whole of it."
-- Edmund Burke; from Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)

 

[Manonthestreet]

Returning fire in a crowded room is something that only a selfish atavist would approve of.

"One of the first motives to civil society, and which becomes one of its fundamental rules, is that no man should be judge in his own cause. By this each person has at once divested himself of the first fundamental right of uncovenanted man, that is, to judge for himself and to assert his own cause. He abdicates all right to be his own governor. He inclusively, in a great measure, abandons the right of self-defense, the first law of nature. Men cannot enjoy the rights of an uncivil and of a civil state together. That he may obtain justice, he gives up his right of determining what it is in points the most essential to him. That he may secure some liberty, he makes a surrender in trust of the whole of it."
-- Edmund Burke; from Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)

Gee what happens in an active shooter scenario....A.....people get as low as possible....B....run opposite direction shooting is coming .........C...results in shooter being high vis target ...........oooooooops

 

[Agit8r]

Returning fire in a crowded room is something that only a selfish atavist would approve of.

"One of the first motives to civil society, and which becomes one of its fundamental rules, is that no man should be judge in his own cause. By this each person has at once divested himself of the first fundamental right of uncovenanted man, that is, to judge for himself and to assert his own cause. He abdicates all right to be his own governor. He inclusively, in a great measure, abandons the right of self-defense, the first law of nature. Men cannot enjoy the rights of an uncivil and of a civil state together. That he may obtain justice, he gives up his right of determining what it is in points the most essential to him. That he may secure some liberty, he makes a surrender in trust of the whole of it."
-- Edmund Burke; from Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)

Gee what happens in an active shooter scenario....A.....people get as low as possible....B....run opposite direction shooting is coming .........C...results in shooter being high vis target ...........oooooooops

I think you are replying to the wrong comment.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Returning fire in a crowded room is something that only a selfish atavist would approve of.

"One of the first motives to civil society, and which becomes one of its fundamental rules, is that no man should be judge in his own cause. By this each person has at once divested himself of the first fundamental right of uncovenanted man, that is, to judge for himself and to assert his own cause. He abdicates all right to be his own governor. He inclusively, in a great measure, abandons the right of self-defense, the first law of nature. Men cannot enjoy the rights of an uncivil and of a civil state together. That he may obtain justice, he gives up his right of determining what it is in points the most essential to him. That he may secure some liberty, he makes a surrender in trust of the whole of it."
-- Edmund Burke; from Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)

Returning fire in a crowded room is something that only a selfish atavist would approve of.

Yeah, just take your bullet like a man.

Stupid twat.

 

[Divine Wind]

Returning fire in a crowded room is something that only a selfish atavist would approve of....

Which is why responsible people wouldn't do it.

During my CCW class it was mentioned several times that shooting a person, even a bad guy, "would change your life". The point of having a weapon and concealed carry is self-defense, not offense. The best thing to do in a situation where one of Hillary's 65,000 Syrians decides to shoot up a dance club is to run. However, if the gunman/men approach, at least a person would have the opportunity to defend themselves. The anti-gunners want to remove every American's inherent right of self-defense. This is not what the Founders intended.

 

[martybegan]

It never crosses most of our minds to kill another human being. The humans who kill are savages and should be taken out of society.

That ignores the difference between WANTING to kill another person, and HAVING to kill another person, as well as the added complexity of justification for HAVING to kill another person.

 

[WillowTree]

It never crosses most of our minds to kill another human being. The humans who kill are savages and should be taken out of society.

That ignores the difference between WANTING to kill another person, and HAVING to kill another person, as well as the added complexity of justification for HAVING to kill another person.

I agree. But, I was thinking in terms of what the sorry assed terrorist did. If attacked I would not hesitate to kill him dead.

 

[martybegan]

It never crosses most of our minds to kill another human being. The humans who kill are savages and should be taken out of society.

That ignores the difference between WANTING to kill another person, and HAVING to kill another person, as well as the added complexity of justification for HAVING to kill another person.

I agree. But, I was thinking in terms of what the sorry assed terrorist did. If attacked I would not hesitate to kill him dead.

Ah, that clarifies it.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Humans managed to overcome their weak position compared to the animal kingdom, yet have not resolved how to over come the killing nature of their own species..

But you would forcefully suppress that nature in some by disarming them. The criminals however they will continue to do what criminals do.

There is another group that are law abiding citizens who will not give up there rights of course they will be immediately labeled as criminals by people like yourself.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

And to the anti gunners who think that telling people who decide to carry a gun for self defense is just being paranoid and irrationally fearful....

I had some buffoon sanctimoniously lecturing me yesterday that I must want people to live in fear. Quite the contrary actually, I want them to go about living their lives in peace, with the tools to survive if something bad happens. I have health insurance and smoke alarms, but I don’t live my life in fear of disease or fire. With proper training and practice, you can conceal a handgun as easily as you carry your car keys or cell phone. Make it part of your routine.

Fear is normal, and we have it for a reason. The problem is irrational fear that causes you to make bad decisions. You are right to fear murderers, because they exist. That is perfectly rational. Disarming all their potential victims because you are afraid one of them might potentially do something harmful is irrational.

I second this. Anyone who doesn't get all of their ducks together the way that they know that the ducks should be is nuts.

God bless you always!!!

Holly