Current Interests

Uh Oh.. Gun Control.

This is in no way commentary on the tragedies of late; it is rather commentary on the commentary, if that makes sense.

Although within the wake of the recent mass shootings, and killings, many mourn for their losses, the debate on gun control has sparked yet again in citizens’ minds. No matter which side people are on, they want to do something. Whether that be lobby to increase gun sales, or ban assault rifles, people think they have the credibility and knowledge to speak on the subject like it is their personal life.

However, recently, Larry Correia blogged about it. The actual article he wrote is here.

After reading through his article and being thoroughly entertained by his tone and enthralled by his examples, I would like to break it down and tell you some of the more interesting facts I found through some research in class.

Correia is a fiction writer, so what gives him the authority to speak on the subject of gun control? Well, he goes on and on for a while about how his experience with guns and the federal government, establishing that. That is very effective in establishing his credibility, but his facts do not establish a lot to help his argument.

While he is entertaining to read, some of his facts are very skewed in perceptions. He is only half right on multiple occasions. Here are some examples.

Firstly, Correia makes the claim that:

“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.”

As much as I would like to agree with this, it is not that simple.

States with conceal-carry laws report that crime is down, but so do states without those laws. Crime is down in general! Just because crime is down in conceal-carry states (and the rest of them), does not mean that it is because of the law saying civilians have the right to carry concealed weapons.

My source for this information is here.

Secondly, he also makes this claim:

“There were four mass killing attempts this week. Only one made the news because it helped the agreed upon media narrative. 1. Oregon. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter confronted by permit holder. Shooter commits suicide. Only a few casualties. 2. Texas. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter killed immediately by off duty cop. Only a few casualties. 3. Connecticut. GUN FREE ZONE. Shooters kills until the police arrive. Suicide. 26 dead. 4. China. GUN FREE COUNTRY. A guy with a KNIFE stabs 22 children.”

This is really misleading. While Correia does state, “mass killing attempts“, he goes on to explicitly point out that there were casualties in three of this examples. However, all the children who were attacked in China survived. He fails to reveal this, so while he focuses on how many people died in his other three examples, he leaves the China example hanging out.

My source for this information is here.

Thirdly, and this I really have a problem with, he states this:

“Barack Obama is personally responsible for more gun sales, and especially first time gun purchases, than anyone in history. When I owned my gun store, we had a picture of him on the wall and a caption beneath it which said SALESMAN OF THE YEAR.”

Really? No one can, or should, blame a 4% increase in gun sales all on the President. The NRA have been lobbying for gun control because it increases gun sales, and at that end, gun sales have gun up. Not because of President Obama, though. From the last ten years (2002-2011), gun sales have gone up 54.1%, and the drastic increase has not all taken place since Obama was elected in 2008.

While with the talk of gun control, gun sales have risen. However, no one can blame President Obama for this. It is common logic. Gun control talk? Lets go buy guns before the ban gets put in place. Meanwhile, Obama is not advocating gun sales; he is trying to do what is best for the country. That is his job.

The source for this information is here.

Lastly, tying in with the last one, Correia makes this claim:

“So then we’ve got England, where they reacted swiftly after a mass shooting, banned and confiscated guns, and their violent crime has skyrocketed. Their stats are far worse than Australia, and they are no one of the more dangerous countries to live in the EU. Once again, cursory Google search will show articles with the stats, and other articles saying that those rises like totally have nothing to do with regular folks no longer being able to defend themselves… Sensing a trend yet?”

Once again, this is completely skewed. Their violent crime has not skyrocketed. In fact, there has been a decline in firearms murders in the United Kingdom. But let me ask this, what is “violent crime”? Does it include rape? Assault? Stabbings? Correia is talking about firearms murders, but he switches to “violent crime” here. Australia’s stats include rape, so obviously their stats are going to look worse. Besides, a slight rise in “violent crime” does not constitute it as skyrocketing.

Also, Europe is smaller than America. Their stats are going to be lower either way because the population is not as dense as the United States. That is probably the reason gun control is working over there, to be quite honest.

By the way, I did a cursory Google search for his stats (which are not listed in his article). There were no such stats being revealed in the first ten pages.

My source for this information is here.

As explained, most of his examples and facts are skewed, so many do not see the bigger picture. He also does not cite and provide links to where he got all of his information. It is a little suspicious.

While Correia has a good, logical argument otherwise and is an entertaining read, his argument is not spot on and one-hundred percent full proof or accurate.




8 thoughts on “Uh Oh.. Gun Control.

  1. Very nice formatting in this post. Loved the usage of blockquotes, definitely helped the piece flow. I especially liked your points about the decline in gun violence in the United Kingdom. Correia’s lack of rigor in analyzing that specific portion of the argument infuriated me especially.

    • Glad I wasn’t the only one who was pretty angry about that! The United Kingdom had a situation more like Sandy Hook back in ’96, and after stricter gun control, the sources I found said their gun violence went down. I feel like no matter where you go, you’ll find mixed facts on it, which irritates me. I think he definitely should’ve pointed that out. A concession like that would’ve been better than skewing his facts.

  2. You are right that it is “a little suspicious” where he got the statistics.

    I assume that when you said “The NRA have been lobbying for gun control because it increases gun sales, and at that end, gun sales have gun up,” you meant that the NRA has been arguing against gun control, not for it.

    • Oops! Big typo. My bad. Thanks, Mark.

      A cursory google search doesn’t reveal any of his stats or anything even against gun control, to be honest. But giving the benefit of the doubt, that might be because of the recent spark in gun control movements.

  3. Very great points! I like how you did more research on his points and argued your opinion. People go both ways on the topic of gun control, but if they have such strong opinions they need to be able to support them.

    • Thank you very much! It’s such a controversial thing that has polarized parties beyond how they’re already polarized. It doesn’t help Congress do anything, nor does it help common friendships to get into politic arguments. I say, agree to disagree and move on. Opinions are opinions, and I’ve pointed it out before– there is too much biased evidence on gun control to support both sides. It really doesn’t help the issue.

  4. Nicely written and the commentary almost sounds objective, but I’d urge you to think critically about this issue and not with your heart. Your sources are primarily opinion pieces and 75% are notoriously left winged. No one can make good decisions without accepting the truth from both sides of an argument. Sadly, the rhetoric on gun control is what will drive decisions made at the government level and the facts, the reality, will have little bearing on the results. Keep up the good work and remember what your science classes have been trying to teach you! 🙂

    • Thank you very much. I find it’s extremely difficult to find an unbiased source on gun control, which I believe I pointed out within the post. However, Correia is equally to blame as well. Not only did he not list his sources, they were notoriously right winged. There is truth to be accepted from both sides; there is no disputing that. However, the truth has yet to be determined by anyone, considering the entirety of the United States still is polarized on the issue.

      What exactly did my Earth Science class teach me, again? Kidding, kidding! You spent a whole semester pounding it in my head. I haven’t forgotten it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s