Derpitude, Improvised Weapons And History

Larry Corriea has had a run of rather derpy trolls come onto his threads recently and make fools of themselves over firearms, terrorists and other related issues, basically raising Larry’s blood pressure and wasting time that Larry could be using more productively.

As I have some free time and needed something to blog about, I thought I would deal with the argument.  One problem is that the people that Larry is arguing with don’t really understand Larry’s world and line of thinking at all. Most Progressives see firearms more like tribal totems that are archaic and need to be disposed of rather than tools to be used.  They don’t seem to have  problem with the tool using part considering how much use the minions of the Left have used firearms in the last century.

What the typical antigunner, in their zeal for idealogical purity and need remove the totems of the people who don’t share the belief in their cult is that the only effects of banning guns are negative. The thing that those of us who, even if we are nervous abour crime and with the constant propaganda we all get about “gun crimes” have to remember is that the cultish zeal of the people of the people who think that you can rid the culture of guns will not let them admit the negative aspects of gun control. They cannot see that gun control does not mean getting rid of all guns but only the guns in hands of the people who obey the laws.    Either you increase the number of illegal guns in the hands of criminal and the resultant predation of society, or require incredible tyranny and oppression, along with extreme poverty or all of the above. Then there is Mao’s little quote about power coming out of the barrel of a gun and think about what happens when guns and that power are concentrated.

Even then I doubt that once a society has a certain level of industrial capability that it’s even possible to have complete control of firearms.  It’s been tried in too many places and the result is usually the same. The firearms in the hands of the unworthy get nastier and far more dangerous. That’s because once you have strict penalties for ANY kind of firearm it doesn’t make sense for a person of illegal intent to use anything but the biggest and nastiest gun that can do the most damage.  After all you can’t be punished more for that gun than you can for a busted up Derringer, so why carry the peashooter.  Which is exactly what we see in places like Brazil and Australia.

Just doing a search on the firearms blog makes it pretty clear that if you want agun badly enough you can make one.

For that matter they are not that sophisticated for the mechanically inclined.

Then there is the issue of access to the tool necessary and well that’s becoming both cheaper and easier all the time with technologies like 3D printing changing the manufacturing landscape. As Glock’s story shows the road to firearms manufacture can be a very short one these days.





As for guns being easy to find, I keep remembering that old movie, Day Of The Jackal, where an assassin was able to get his rifle past a literal army of armed security people and nearly shoot Charles DeGaulle.  He was aided by the fact that his rifle did not look like a rifle.

Which is actually fairly easy, considering the number of various firearms that have been


Which brings things down to the hard cold reality that gun control has.  Controlling firearms means ultimately gaining control of everybody’s lives. A state that starts to deny rights in one are such as the right for people to defend themselves inevitably starts to deny rights such as speech and all too frequently, life and property.  The 20th Century has given us far too many bad examples of where that ends.


One comment

  1. Leigh Kimmel · March 13, 2017

    Part of the problem is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the law does. Banning something doesn’t make it disappear. It doesn’t make it impossible. It simply makes it a criminal offense. Which is of far less concern for someone who’s already committing other criminal offenses.

    I ran into a similar mentality a few years ago in a discussion of human cloning. It seemed like they really thought that having the US Congress pass a ban would make the problem go away. I tried to explain the problems, but they just didn’t seem to get it.

    (What was ickily funny in that incident was how they had no problem with cloning chimpanzees and bonobos, because they’re “just animals,” and therefore no more problematic than sheep or cattle or any other animal, but couldn’t make the connection that once you’ve got cloning Pan down, it’s a trivial jump to apply the technology to Homo. So the technology that was developed in the US for scientific purposes could be taken to another country to set up shady clinics, and the enforcement problem has gotten Interesting).


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