Larry-Correia1

“For the pacifistic anti-gun dumb asses on the internet who always crop up in the aftermath of any violent event, bitching about imaginary crossfires, or how fighting back would just make things worse. Just shut up already. You’re children, with a child’s grasp of the subject. When people are being mass butchered, barring tossing hand grenades at the bad guy, it is pretty damned hard to make it worse.” – Larry Correia in My Thoughts on Paris [at monsterhunternation.com]

[h/t JWT]

Recommended For You

42 Responses to Quote of the Day: Gun Owners Don’t Make Active Shooter Situations Worse

  1. It just isn’t the left that espouses this. It’s anybody who believes the government should enjoy a monopoly on violence.

    I have the chance to participate in a “parent academy” program at our school district’s PD. We talked about active shooters and the response this month.

    Bringing up armed teachers, I expected both other parents and the instructor cops to push back, but was pleased to see the parents agreed with me. The response from the police was that the police will only see a person with a gun and no badge at the point of aim (chest). When cops show up, they shoot anybody with a gun who isn’t a cop. Now a teacher is dead and a cop has to live with that.

    While the above seems reasonable, they also acknowledged that the national average response time is 5 minutes and here it may be around 3. They also acknowledged that most attacks are complete in less than 5 minutes.

    Point being, police aren’t pacifists, but they have the same ideals about you being armed. The only difference is the cops will never give up the right to come down on you.

    • The three greatest problems I see with civilian LE agencies is 1) the militarization of the civilian LEOs; 2) the “us vs. them” mentality…manifested in the calling citizens “civilians” and; 3) this, “I see a gun – shoot” , mindset.

      You see a shooter shooting at a crowd…you shoot them. You see a guy/gal with gun, you hail them, identify yourself and de-escalate. It’s completely fair to disarm them, cuff them and question them to sort the situation out. Shoot first, ask questions later is reserved for battlefield…where there should be no civilians or civilian LEOs…generalization folks, not trying to stir an OIF/OEF discussion.

      • “Shoot first, ask questions later is reserved for battlefield…”

        No, not even on the battlefield. There are Rules of Engagement in the military, and if you don’t follow them… Well… then, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

        • The battlefield comment was meant in generalization to make a point. I’ve lived the majority of my adult life playing under ROE from pretty loose to damned restricitve. But there is definitely a shoot first ROE…Red/Free…if it’s not us, shoot it…it…shoot, shoot, look doctrine.

      • Chicago Chief of Police announced that his officers have standing shoot to kill orders for anyone they see with gun. Doesn’t get anymore anti-gun than that.

        • That’s not just anti-gun, that’s downright irresponsible. But then again, Chicago PD has never been known for their restraint and respect for the laws they enforce.

        • Doesn’t get any more pro-murder than that. FIFY.

          Unfortunately, you’ll never seat a full panel of jurors who ALL believe that ‘acting within orders/policy’ is not an absolute defense to ‘acted in a manner that fully fulfilled the legal standard for Murder in the First Degree’. If there’s one copsucker on the jury (they are usually a slim majority by the time all the accountability supporters are weeded out of the pool) the best you can ever hope for is a mistrial.

          Until you can get We the People to quit excusing murder by the Only Ones, the Only Ones have no incentive to quit murdering.

        • They need that to justify doing a mag dump on some dumbass walking down the middle of the street, even if he isn’t armed. “I saw something that looked like a gun.”

    • Several years ago, a neighbor had a bad car wreck in front of my house, 2 am. I woke up, went outside, saw the teen bleeding all over and called 911. Took over 45 minutes for a policeman to arrive. The EMS showed up in 5 minutes.

      Last week, called 911 again. Potential burglary in progress at my neighbor’s house. Roughly 7 pm. House is mostly empty and up for sale. We saw people who had no business there going in and out, carrying stuff. 30 minutes later, they were gone. Cops never showed. Finally emailed homeowners (they moved out of state) and they now have to followup. I repeat, COPS NEVER SHOWED for a burglary in progress!

      I live in an upper middle class subdivision, bedroom community, less than 2 blocks from a police station. Average time to respond = 45 minutes to never.

      I’m not too worried about cops showing up to an active shooter situation and accidentally shooting the wrong person. At best, they’ll show up as the bodies are cooling off and count the dead. My wife and I had a very long conversation about this after last weekend. She now believes me when I tell her that cops have absolutely no duty or obligation to stop crime in progress. They only show up afterwards and collect evidence.The rest is up to us.

      • Try including this phrase in your 911 call, “… and I think he has a gun.” You would be amazed how that improves police response times.

    • These cops haven’t thought this through very well. By the time they get there the teacher will either be dead or he’ll have 5-10 minutes to reholster and wait for them to show up. They also need to realize that the country has changed and there are now millions of CCW permit holders out there who are not bad guys. And the number is growing.

      • You’d think this was just a failure to consider this point. But, when I pointed out that there is this delay in response, the fallback was that this mentality is only good for districts where response may be 30 minutes or more, and even then teachers don’t get the training cops do. All of this was framed around an initial question about specific and specialized training for teachers, and nothing about parents. I think about the fact that they were telling me that if I hear gun shots, even though I can respond in 15 seconds to the building (we live next door), I should just hang out at home.

        Because this was a time limited session, and we had a lot to cover, I didn’t want to get mired down, but it was pretty absurd. But that wasn’t the worst part.

        After, I had an unrelated question about a different school topic. While I waited to speak, I listened in on another person speaking with the cops. He was parroting to them that because the high schools have a cop on duty at all times, this is enough for the nearby junior highs and elementary schools and there is absolutely no reason for anybody to be armed in a school building. He seemed almost offended that I would suggest that teachers be armed.

      • Exactly right. All this worry about the cops misidentifying good guys, when we all know that by the time the cops actually enter the building, enough time will have elapsed for the bad guy to have made significant progress towards room temperature and everyone else to have sorted their shit and left the building.

    • I’m a Paramedic and we did inter-agency active shooter training a few months ago with PD and fire. While in the class, every single officer said that if they came upon a civilian with a handgun, even a teacher illegally carrying inside of a school, as long as the person seemed like they were in control of themselves, they’d let them keep the firearm to defend themselves.

      The Captain leading the LEO portion said “We’re going to get sued no matter what, either for being to slow, too violent, taking someones firearm away, or letting them keep it. But I wouldn’t be able to live with myself knowing I took a firearm from someone and they were later killed by the shooter”

    • I’ve been to a police-run course dealing with active shooters (plus stabbers, bombers etc.) in schools awhile ago. We’ve never had an active school shooter here in Czech Republic yet and we hope it will stay that way but the police are preparing for such a situation anyway.

      And I’ve had a chance to talk to one of the lecturers afterwards so I’ve also asked him about armed good guys. He told me that yes, the police do know that any random civilian can pack a gun and yes, they are aware that they might encounter good guys with guns, be they teachers or parrents or random visitors – they’ve even simulated such scenarios and trained for them.

      So not all police forces share the attitude that anyone with a gun should be shot and questions should only be asked later.

  2. Bess not make massa mad. He’ll whip you double good.

    Seems to be the predominate mindset among the statist groupies.
    This morning NPR had Elanor Beardsley reporting on how awesome it is to have glorious French soldiers patrolling the street and putting the media in their place for daring to take pictures or ask for an interview.
    She was absolutely enthralled. You could hear her voice quiver as intimate moisture levels rose with each mention of their heroic standing and pretend deterring.

    • In all fairness, it is a deterrence of a sort. Achmed doesn’t want to have his micro-jihad cut short by someone equally as well armed, and better trained. It’s the same concept of having gate guards at base. Are they going to defeat a determined foe? Probably not, but they give the impression of preparedness and response, and part of defense is security theater (TSA is a different story) of convincing someone that this is not the time or place.

      Now, all that being said, I am not in favor of having troops patrolling the streets for my safety. I prefer a world where Achmed looks at a restaurant and thinks, how many of those people are carrying? How many rounds do I get off before I become a ballistics test dummy for everything from .9mm to a .45 soul cannon? And realizes it’s just not worth it. We fought a war, granted it was a couple of centuries ago, because having troops patrol our streets was not how we wanted to live.

  3. To be able to react is better then to cower and hide.
    Is it possible some innocents may be harmed?? Yes. Is it better to wait and be slaughtered?? Absolutely not.

  4. ‘Seriously, this bunch of fuck ups will go down in history as the most clueless administration we’ve had.’

    Lot of wisdom in that blog post.

  5. And as an aside, Larry Correia’s books are great SciFi. He is definitely a gun owner – his first MHI book starts with a guy taking out a werewolf with his ankle-holstered Ruger SP101 in .357.

    • You’re damn right!! I’m reading it right now. Fabulous writing, great story line. Sparkling wit. This book just fizzes.

      And on Paris. Are these the same folks who poured hot lead onto Nazis as they were being chased out of town? Or just the same lame ass wimps who infest coffee shops the world over, and who vote for wimps even more craven than they are?

      They don’t deserve the title of adult, they are retarded children. They live in dangerous times in dangerous places, and they don’t have the sense to even provide for their own self preservation. Police and security forces arrived just in time to precipitate the worst part of the massacre – their main job was to take a body count.

      If these “citizens” had been sufficiently armed, this body count would have been far smaller and would have mainly consisted of Arabs. Not that I would wish it upon them, but they are complicit in there own demise. I don’t feel sorrow, only anger. And even more anger at mendacious polititians using this tragedy to boost their disarmament program. This epitomises the gulf between their rhetoric and reality. Remember this when polling time comes.

  6. When people are being mass butchered, barring tossing hand grenades at the bad guy, it is pretty damned hard to make it worse.” –
    Well, even in some situations with responsible people in charge, tossing a few hand grenades could save the day as well.
    However, with the high speed low drag operators tossing flash bangs into toddler’s cribs and babysitters in rocking chairs, this could get iffy.

  7. That sort of idiocy is exactly why the Nazis conquered 1940 France with ease and marched into Paris unchallenged by a populace unwilling to fight and die in defense of freedom.

    • Definitely fight. But die? Only if it’s unavoidable despite your best efforts. Usually, dying means the bad guy wins. Better to make him die instead.

    • It’s a wee bit more complicated than that. The official French Government of the day had only limited support from the French public. About one third of the French admired Hitler,and were reluctant to oppose the Nazis on philosophical grounds. Another third had a firm Communist belief. At that time, Hitler was in a mutual defence pact with Stalin, and the French Communists, via Commintern, were instructed to obstruct and delay French armed forces. So that left only about a third of the French public firmly behind their army. So the reason for the defeat was treason, pure and simple. The French had more troops and tanks than the Germans, but the army was rotten to the core. Hitler knew the weaknesses of the French Republic, and was eager for revenge against the Treaty of Versailles.

      After the Germans were ousted, there were actually more French killed by the Resistance, the Maquis, and the Communists, than the Germans had killed during their Occupation. There were revenge attacks against collaborators, war profiteers, and anyone deemed to have supported the Nazis. De Gaulle firmly held the conservative line politically, and much of this was covered up.

      But current French politicians had better figure out quickly that their public will not be happy to be targets for terrorists for much longer. Training young people in weapons use and arming qualified members of the public is going to be an essential tactic in defeating these Islamofascists. The French people have never been in greater danger.

  8. There certainly is a risk of others being shot if defenders return fire. A risk, not a significant risk. So what? That’s the same (or greater) risk you take when you call 911 and summon police. If anything, it’s perhaps much greater with police, as they have greater freedom to act without enduring legal consequences.

    Nevertheless, self defense is everyone’s right. Collateral damage is unfortunate, and virtually unheard of in cases of concealed carriers returning fire, but ultimately that’s the spree shooter’s fault. In most such cases, the spree shooter disengages and often commits suicide once engaged by armed resisters, anyway.

    This “caught in the crossfire” specious argument is just another tired attempt to slake a coward’s guilt by disarming courageous others.

  9. Never understood this argument. If a mass shooter/terrorist is blasting away at people, how in the living hell is my shooting at said terrorist going to make things worse? HE’S ALREADY SHOOTING PEOPLE. Even if I accidentally miss him and hit someone behind him, thing is without me shooting at him and hopefully wounding or killing him, he’s going to continue shooting at people.

    I mean, I can understand (albeit disagree) with those whose argument is not that shooting at a mass shooter wouldn’t work, but rather that such things happen so rarely that as they see it, it doesn’t justify the risk to society of having legally-available firearms. But to claim that shooting at the shooter will only make things worse, how exactly?

    I thought it was quite revealing in the post made a few days back when Bill Maher questioned Mayor Gavin Newsome on this and he quickly changed the subject as he didn’t really have an answer.

  10. I love Larry Correia. And this exact logical fallacy he points out bears repeating over and over and over.

    How can anyone actually raise that argument? How could a crossfire possibly AT ALL be better than a complete massacre? Is it possible people are actually just that stupid?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *