What do you think?
Rate this book
In Defense of the Second Amendment
What part of the Second Amendment don't you understand?
That's the question posed by award-winning, bestselling author, and professional firearms instructor Larry Correia.
Bringing with him the practical experience that comes from having owned a high-end gun store--catering largely to law enforcement--and as a competitive shooter and self-defense trainer, Correia blasts apart the emotion-laden, logic-free rhetoric of the gun-control fanatics who turn every mass shooting into a crazed call for violating your rights, abusing the Constitution--and doing absolutely nothing to really fight crime.
In his essential new book, In Defense of the Second Amendment, Correia reveals:
Why gun-free zones are more dangerous for law-abiding citizens,
How the Second Amendment does indeed include your right to own an AR-15--and why that's not an outdated concept,
Why red flag laws don't work, can be easily abused, and ignore a much more commonsensical approach to keeping guns out of the wrong hands,
The insanity of criminal justice reform that frees dangerous criminals and gun reform that penalizes your right to self-defense, and
How we can return to a society that has a safe and healthy relationship with guns--as we had for most of our history.
Correia's promise: Believe me, I've heard every argument relating to gun control possible. I can show you how to defend your rights.
Urgent, informed, with vitally important information for whoever who owns a gun or is thinking about owning a gun or who cares about the preservation of our constitutional rights, In Defense of the Second Amendment is a landmark book of enduring importance.
That's the question posed by award-winning, bestselling author, and professional firearms instructor Larry Correia.
Bringing with him the practical experience that comes from having owned a high-end gun store--catering largely to law enforcement--and as a competitive shooter and self-defense trainer, Correia blasts apart the emotion-laden, logic-free rhetoric of the gun-control fanatics who turn every mass shooting into a crazed call for violating your rights, abusing the Constitution--and doing absolutely nothing to really fight crime.
In his essential new book, In Defense of the Second Amendment, Correia reveals:
Why gun-free zones are more dangerous for law-abiding citizens,
How the Second Amendment does indeed include your right to own an AR-15--and why that's not an outdated concept,
Why red flag laws don't work, can be easily abused, and ignore a much more commonsensical approach to keeping guns out of the wrong hands,
The insanity of criminal justice reform that frees dangerous criminals and gun reform that penalizes your right to self-defense, and
How we can return to a society that has a safe and healthy relationship with guns--as we had for most of our history.
Correia's promise: Believe me, I've heard every argument relating to gun control possible. I can show you how to defend your rights.
Urgent, informed, with vitally important information for whoever who owns a gun or is thinking about owning a gun or who cares about the preservation of our constitutional rights, In Defense of the Second Amendment is a landmark book of enduring importance.
208 pages, Hardcover
First published January 24, 2023
95 people are currently reading
2770 people want to read
About the author
Larry Correia
127 books4,426 followersLarry Correia (born 1977) is the New York Times bestselling author of the Monster Hunter International series, the Grimnoir Chronicles, and the thriller Dead Six.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72 reviews
February 13, 2023
Most of the likes for this review were based on my initial thought directly below:
Looking forward to reading Correia's thoughts on this subject. I know him to be very knowledgeable on the matter.
Review:
I've been looking forward to this one since the day he announced it. Aside from being one of my favorite authors, Correia has extensive knowledge of firearms and is often the lone voice of reason after a shooting. (*whispers* often totally preventable shootings. "He was on our radar" huh, FBI?)
I laughed aloud a couple times. Not because of intentional humor, but because of the absurdity. I would start googling to fact check him and it really is amazing how warped and straight up dishonest the anti-second amendment people are.
I know they won't, but I desperately wish the "government knows what's best for me" portion of society would read this book.
I'm of the opinion that if you want to make guns difficult to acquire you must hate women. A gun is the only thing that can put a 5' nothing 150lb woman on the same footing as a 6' 200lb animal.
I've never cared about cans, but after hearing more about them in this book I'm looking into acquiring some.
End the NFA
Correia on Steven King: "because that man can't write a satisfying ending to save his life" Did... did I just get a crush on Correia? 😂 Made me so happy to hear this sentiment echoed.
The only places I disagreed with Correia: "I had one individual tell me that these types of guns are designed to slaughter the maximum number of people possible as quickly as possible ... Uh huh ... Which is why every single police department in America uses them, because of all that slaughtering cops do daily" Me: *Looks at all the slaughtering cops do daily*
Okay, okay, he redeemed himself a little bit later by mentioning how the police would possibly shoot an innocent gun owner in the face during a no-knock raid to confiscate guns due to a red-flag law.
And then when he said there was a world of difference between our two political parties. Only difference is which hand the puppet is slipped over.
Excellent narration by John McLain
Looking forward to reading Correia's thoughts on this subject. I know him to be very knowledgeable on the matter.
Review:
I've been looking forward to this one since the day he announced it. Aside from being one of my favorite authors, Correia has extensive knowledge of firearms and is often the lone voice of reason after a shooting. (*whispers* often totally preventable shootings. "He was on our radar" huh, FBI?)
I laughed aloud a couple times. Not because of intentional humor, but because of the absurdity. I would start googling to fact check him and it really is amazing how warped and straight up dishonest the anti-second amendment people are.
I know they won't, but I desperately wish the "government knows what's best for me" portion of society would read this book.
I'm of the opinion that if you want to make guns difficult to acquire you must hate women. A gun is the only thing that can put a 5' nothing 150lb woman on the same footing as a 6' 200lb animal.
I've never cared about cans, but after hearing more about them in this book I'm looking into acquiring some.
End the NFA
Correia on Steven King: "because that man can't write a satisfying ending to save his life" Did... did I just get a crush on Correia? 😂 Made me so happy to hear this sentiment echoed.
The only places I disagreed with Correia: "I had one individual tell me that these types of guns are designed to slaughter the maximum number of people possible as quickly as possible ... Uh huh ... Which is why every single police department in America uses them, because of all that slaughtering cops do daily" Me: *Looks at all the slaughtering cops do daily*
Okay, okay, he redeemed himself a little bit later by mentioning how the police would possibly shoot an innocent gun owner in the face during a no-knock raid to confiscate guns due to a red-flag law.
And then when he said there was a world of difference between our two political parties. Only difference is which hand the puppet is slipped over.
Excellent narration by John McLain
January 27, 2023
Just a commentary. I'm tossing the 5 star on this because even though this isn't out yet..there hasn't been a Larry Correia book released YET that I didn't enjoy. Now...on this one? This one I expect to enjoy thoroughly and maybe even pick up some new ideas I hadn't thought of yet.
Why am I leaving this review? To start countering the 1 star reviews being left liberal trolls that make one celled amoeba look like mensa members. Isn't interesting how they can deduce how bad a book is simply because of the subject matter that they vehemently disagree with? Isn't it amazing that they can say it's all "Fox News Talking Points" without A. ever having discussed things with the author, seen ANY of the cites the author uses, or having read a single page of it, because *gasp* IT ISN'T EVEN OUT YET?!
Yep simply amazing. Toddlers throwing a temper tantrum and smearing their own feces on every wall they can find in a fit of unintelligent, and infantile rage.
Why am I leaving this review? To start countering the 1 star reviews being left liberal trolls that make one celled amoeba look like mensa members. Isn't interesting how they can deduce how bad a book is simply because of the subject matter that they vehemently disagree with? Isn't it amazing that they can say it's all "Fox News Talking Points" without A. ever having discussed things with the author, seen ANY of the cites the author uses, or having read a single page of it, because *gasp* IT ISN'T EVEN OUT YET?!
Yep simply amazing. Toddlers throwing a temper tantrum and smearing their own feces on every wall they can find in a fit of unintelligent, and infantile rage.
June 1, 2023
Second try at reviewing this book. Am I being censored? 😂
Going into this book, I had no idea what I was getting into. The introduction was really intense, and I didn’t have the same stance on the topic. That said, the book was incredibly well-written, and the author did an amazing job of supporting his thesis.
Mr. Correia’s explanation of the 2nd amendment’s provision of the right to bear arms and the reasons behind it were spot-on. I say that from the perspective of a history major.
I also was impressed by his explanations of the process one must go through to sell, buy, and own firearms in the US. The author has extensive experience in this area. He goes in-depth on who should own and carry weapons, as well as how a responsible person does so.
I’m not one to seek a concealed carry license, but I wanted to be informed on why people defend that right. I also feel strongly that Americans have and must defend rights that seem strange to outsiders. We certainly live in a unique country. This book was a quick, easy read that is incredibly informative to those of us who may not fully understand this debate, especially from his perspective. Excellent book.
Going into this book, I had no idea what I was getting into. The introduction was really intense, and I didn’t have the same stance on the topic. That said, the book was incredibly well-written, and the author did an amazing job of supporting his thesis.
Mr. Correia’s explanation of the 2nd amendment’s provision of the right to bear arms and the reasons behind it were spot-on. I say that from the perspective of a history major.
I also was impressed by his explanations of the process one must go through to sell, buy, and own firearms in the US. The author has extensive experience in this area. He goes in-depth on who should own and carry weapons, as well as how a responsible person does so.
I’m not one to seek a concealed carry license, but I wanted to be informed on why people defend that right. I also feel strongly that Americans have and must defend rights that seem strange to outsiders. We certainly live in a unique country. This book was a quick, easy read that is incredibly informative to those of us who may not fully understand this debate, especially from his perspective. Excellent book.
abandoned
December 27, 2022When your TV gets stuck on Fox News. You end up parroting all their talking points.
January 31, 2023
Somehow my name got attached to a 1 star review of this book. I’m not sure how it happened, since I have never read it, but Larry is an excellent author. Everything I’ve read by him is awesome and I expect this book of non-fiction (his first I believe) will be even better. Looking forward to it.
Now that I have actually read it, I will say this:
Larry spells it out unequivocally. The right of self defense is a human right granted to us by God and protected by the 2nd Amendment, for all Americans. I’ve read other gun rights books, and while they are great and filled with facts, they can be dry, not this one. Not for hardcore anti-rights, non-Americans, but definitely for those of us who are concerned with our safety and those “on the fence” about guns and the 2A.
Now that I have actually read it, I will say this:
Larry spells it out unequivocally. The right of self defense is a human right granted to us by God and protected by the 2nd Amendment, for all Americans. I’ve read other gun rights books, and while they are great and filled with facts, they can be dry, not this one. Not for hardcore anti-rights, non-Americans, but definitely for those of us who are concerned with our safety and those “on the fence” about guns and the 2A.
January 7, 2023
What a boot licker.
January 25, 2023
A good quick read
A fast but in-depth read on the subject. Strongly recommend. It's material I already knew well, both from Larry's past writings and from my own knowledge & experience, but still was a worth-while read for me. It should still be accessible for folks new to the topic, with the technical concepts well explained.
A fast but in-depth read on the subject. Strongly recommend. It's material I already knew well, both from Larry's past writings and from my own knowledge & experience, but still was a worth-while read for me. It should still be accessible for folks new to the topic, with the technical concepts well explained.
January 5, 2023
Defence as God intended. Good job. Hoon
January 27, 2023
This isn't a book on the Second Amendment, it's about how to protect our Second Amendment rights. Larry uses 12 pages of citations to back up what he talks about. He does it with wit and scorn for the anti-gunners. Good to use to deflate the anti-gun rhetoric.
January 24, 2023
easy to understand
Somewhat pugnacious, but quite entertaining. Addresses the most prevalent arguments for and against ‘gun control’. Accessible for even the most firearms-phobic.
Somewhat pugnacious, but quite entertaining. Addresses the most prevalent arguments for and against ‘gun control’. Accessible for even the most firearms-phobic.
January 26, 2023
I’ll be honest - I’ve followed Larry’s blog for more than ten years now (I discovered his blog before I discovered his Monster Hunter International series). So a lot of what’s in this book is a version of things I’ve read before.
Does that make it any less enjoyable or relevant? Hell no!
Larry has forgotten more about firearms and the legal aspects of owning such than most people ever knew in the first place. And he comes from a blue-collar, average Joe background that resonates with people. He’s not a fusty academic polemicist that writes this stuff in order to get TV contracts or clickbait revenue on a website. He talks to normal people who are happy to have the facts presented in an understandable way, and to the undecideds who need a little more convincing (he also speaks to the actively hostile morons who routinely stand atop piles of dead victims to shame law-abiding citizens into rolling over so Joe Biden can keep his crackhead son in the white stuff, but that’s on Twitter and there are usually a lot more four-letter words involved).
At first, I hesitated to give this five stars, because I already knew the paste-eating haters were trying to review bomb it and shouldn’t I be better than that? Then I remembered my name is not Mitt Romney, my spine was not surgically removed at birth, and my DNA is not 60% hair gel. Besides, Larry always writes cracking good books and he’s always on his game when discussing gun rights. So screw it. Five stars. He’s earned it.
Read this if you agree with Larry, read it if you’re not sure, and, hell, read it if you hate his guts. He gets paid regardless.
Does that make it any less enjoyable or relevant? Hell no!
Larry has forgotten more about firearms and the legal aspects of owning such than most people ever knew in the first place. And he comes from a blue-collar, average Joe background that resonates with people. He’s not a fusty academic polemicist that writes this stuff in order to get TV contracts or clickbait revenue on a website. He talks to normal people who are happy to have the facts presented in an understandable way, and to the undecideds who need a little more convincing (he also speaks to the actively hostile morons who routinely stand atop piles of dead victims to shame law-abiding citizens into rolling over so Joe Biden can keep his crackhead son in the white stuff, but that’s on Twitter and there are usually a lot more four-letter words involved).
At first, I hesitated to give this five stars, because I already knew the paste-eating haters were trying to review bomb it and shouldn’t I be better than that? Then I remembered my name is not Mitt Romney, my spine was not surgically removed at birth, and my DNA is not 60% hair gel. Besides, Larry always writes cracking good books and he’s always on his game when discussing gun rights. So screw it. Five stars. He’s earned it.
Read this if you agree with Larry, read it if you’re not sure, and, hell, read it if you hate his guts. He gets paid regardless.
January 5, 2023
Thank you Larry for writing an amazing book on the second amendment! For those of you who thinks he’s just reciting talking points from conservative news, go look up his discussions with that pile of shit cnn on the second amendment. If you have a cognitive argument, besides guns bad!! Me no like!! then state your argument.
Thanks Larry!!
Thanks Larry!!
January 25, 2023
I thought Correia did a good job explaining the topics, and he provided a ton of solid sources for the information he presented. I could have done without the derisive language toward his political opponents, which I think could have been phrased differently and still been just as effective. Despite that, I really enjoyed this book.
March 19, 2023
The book isn't available yet, so I haven't read it. But I'm rating it 5 stars to offset the obvious political morons who have given it a bad review without even reading it. If you can give a review based on your expectations, then so can I.
January 27, 2023
Informative and Researched
Helpful information for someone who doesn't own a firearm and hasn't heard much beyond what I've seen on TV. I recommend it for reading.
Helpful information for someone who doesn't own a firearm and hasn't heard much beyond what I've seen on TV. I recommend it for reading.
October 31, 2024
A read that I would recommend to both sides. He really explains the reason of why banning guns will not really give us the results we want. He uses personal and professional judgement to explain his reasons. At times it was repetitive, but I think it was done with purpose. The conclusion just made me want to keep practicing on knowing/learning how to use a gun. Highly recommend!
January 11, 2023
An absolutely essential book for any gun owner! Know your rights!
April 13, 2023
This book is perfect for our current political climate.
I bought it as a person who has to work in blue states to earn a decent salary. Yet I'm immediately attacked for "voting to make NYC a gun-free zone" before the conclusion of chapter 1.
... I haven't voted for gun control in any of the blue states that I have worked in.
The reason this book is perfect for the contemporary political environment is the polemic aggressive rhetoric Lawrence has published here. I thought this book would be a sensible effort at convincing the many people who didn't vote the year gun control laws were passed in some state or another. Why the 2nd amendment is worth protecting.
Unfortunately, I did not review the writer's previous works before this purchase. I didn't know he liked to cast himself as a heroic demon slayer. Whose fictional doppelganger is a bit more focused on physical fitness than Lawrence is in reality.
The author clearly depicts himself as some super soldier in the cover art of this masterpiece of a drawing. (A soldier who actually believes in working out)
https://www.amazon.com/Target-Rich-En...
The bottom line is that this book perfectly represents global political strategy in our 2023rd year of the lord. Lawrence doesn't seek to persuade anyone who is looking for a convincing argument that supports broader gun rights. He just appeals to his base and "owns the libs" by insulting their beliefs. At the expense of defending his own.
This is a heads-up for anyone who thought they would get a sober defense for more gun rights in America. This book is not for you. However, if you do want some more insults to castigate your liberal nephew this Thanksgiving PLEASE BUY NOW :)
P.S. I'd love to hear about any mature nonfiction literature in support of gun rights. There certainly are benefits to having an armed society. Especially since the police are not very good at solving crimes or stopping them. : https://www.reuters.com/legal/governm....
I don't reference this article because of its emphasis on racial profiling. People aren't perfect and can't be made to like people they don't want to like. I reference it because I look at annual reports for states and cities around the country and a region's largest expenditures can be quite unnerving. Unfortunately, the only line item that usually exceeds annual spending on public safety is public schooling. Another overfunded and unproductive American embarrassment. Why waste hundreds of millions of dollars on institutions that serve more as figureheads than pragmatic solution-driven organizations?
So please if you could refer me to some mature defense of the 2nd amendment? I'd be happy to send a few dollars to the author to hear their take on the matter.
I bought it as a person who has to work in blue states to earn a decent salary. Yet I'm immediately attacked for "voting to make NYC a gun-free zone" before the conclusion of chapter 1.
... I haven't voted for gun control in any of the blue states that I have worked in.
The reason this book is perfect for the contemporary political environment is the polemic aggressive rhetoric Lawrence has published here. I thought this book would be a sensible effort at convincing the many people who didn't vote the year gun control laws were passed in some state or another. Why the 2nd amendment is worth protecting.
Unfortunately, I did not review the writer's previous works before this purchase. I didn't know he liked to cast himself as a heroic demon slayer. Whose fictional doppelganger is a bit more focused on physical fitness than Lawrence is in reality.
The author clearly depicts himself as some super soldier in the cover art of this masterpiece of a drawing. (A soldier who actually believes in working out)
https://www.amazon.com/Target-Rich-En...
The bottom line is that this book perfectly represents global political strategy in our 2023rd year of the lord. Lawrence doesn't seek to persuade anyone who is looking for a convincing argument that supports broader gun rights. He just appeals to his base and "owns the libs" by insulting their beliefs. At the expense of defending his own.
This is a heads-up for anyone who thought they would get a sober defense for more gun rights in America. This book is not for you. However, if you do want some more insults to castigate your liberal nephew this Thanksgiving PLEASE BUY NOW :)
P.S. I'd love to hear about any mature nonfiction literature in support of gun rights. There certainly are benefits to having an armed society. Especially since the police are not very good at solving crimes or stopping them. : https://www.reuters.com/legal/governm....
I don't reference this article because of its emphasis on racial profiling. People aren't perfect and can't be made to like people they don't want to like. I reference it because I look at annual reports for states and cities around the country and a region's largest expenditures can be quite unnerving. Unfortunately, the only line item that usually exceeds annual spending on public safety is public schooling. Another overfunded and unproductive American embarrassment. Why waste hundreds of millions of dollars on institutions that serve more as figureheads than pragmatic solution-driven organizations?
So please if you could refer me to some mature defense of the 2nd amendment? I'd be happy to send a few dollars to the author to hear their take on the matter.
April 24, 2023
I received a free copy of In Defense of the Second Amendment in return for an honest review. This is a nonfiction book by Larry Correia who I am familiar with his Monster Hunter series, which I have read one or two and have thoroughly enjoyed.
This book is a fairly comprehensive look at the arguments for gun control and those against. Correia is strongly in favor of constitutional carry, and clearly states what he believes. After reading this book you will have a good understanding of the different arguments whichever side you support. Correia is a strong proponent of gun safety training.
I last read a book on gun control in 1973: The Saturday Night Special: And Other Guns with which Americans won the West, Protected Bootleg Franchises, Slew Wildlife, Robbed Countless Banks, Shot ... with the Debate Over Continuing Same by Robert Sherrill. While Sherrill was against guns, his arguments often convinced me the opposite. These arguments resonate with some of the points made by Correia: we have seen cities tell business and individuals to protect their businesses and themselves because you can't always rely on the police. But how are you supposed to defend yourself.
If you are only looking to find support for a strongly held belief you don't need to read a
anything. If you want to understand current legislation, arguments, and differences in guns, this is not a bad place to start. I only gave it 4 stars because I found the book somewhat repetitive.
This book is a fairly comprehensive look at the arguments for gun control and those against. Correia is strongly in favor of constitutional carry, and clearly states what he believes. After reading this book you will have a good understanding of the different arguments whichever side you support. Correia is a strong proponent of gun safety training.
I last read a book on gun control in 1973: The Saturday Night Special: And Other Guns with which Americans won the West, Protected Bootleg Franchises, Slew Wildlife, Robbed Countless Banks, Shot ... with the Debate Over Continuing Same by Robert Sherrill. While Sherrill was against guns, his arguments often convinced me the opposite. These arguments resonate with some of the points made by Correia: we have seen cities tell business and individuals to protect their businesses and themselves because you can't always rely on the police. But how are you supposed to defend yourself.
If you are only looking to find support for a strongly held belief you don't need to read a
anything. If you want to understand current legislation, arguments, and differences in guns, this is not a bad place to start. I only gave it 4 stars because I found the book somewhat repetitive.
January 5, 2023
I know it’s not out yet, just trying to offset the haters.
February 9, 2023
This is a fantastic book that covers everything you might want or need to know about the Second Amendment as well as further information about firearm ownership. I find it to be highly informative and educational. I recommend this book for supporters of the Second Amendment as well as those who don't understand why many of us feel so strongly about our gun rights in America. No matter your stance on gun rights, I believe that everyone can walk away from this book feeling more informed about the subject.
February 12, 2025
I'm not aggressively anti-gun, but I'm aware that I read more pro-restriction sources, so I wanted to balance out the information I intake. This wasn't a good start.
There are a handful of things we agree on: the media's glorification of mass killers is clearly part of the problem, for example. The way the definition of "mass shootings" gets changed to create a false impression was also familiar to me. He seems to have his head on straight in terms of shooting first being a bad idea and deescalation being a wise choice in most scenarios.
As a whole, however, I found this was more emotion than logic or facts. A clear example is the section on Japan and the murder of Shinzo Abe: Correia wildly makes many assertions, very few of which have any citations. Is Japan a very different country from the US? No doubt. But just spouting a bunch of explanations with zero effort to even look at the relevant statistics is meaningless, just repeating what he believes as evidence for those beliefs.
There are some citations in the book, of course, but I found them generally shoddy. For example, he says that the government concluded one of its own bans was "utterly useless" with the following citation:
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/gra...
The link doesn't say that. It has many sections with titles like "It is Premature to Make Definitive Assessments of the Ban’s Impact on Gun Crime" and presents a messy picture of the results. Certainly not a clear win for anti-gun types, but the fact that Correia completely misrepresents his citation suggests he's either delusional (seeing only what he wants to see) or dishonest.
Most of the book, however, is devoid of evidence. Most citations are links to news articles or social media, just confirming that things happened, but for most of his strongest claims Correia offers no evidence whatsoever.
For example, his entire section on whether gun regulations prevent impulsive crimes of passion dismisses the idea with a bunch of wishy-washy "Obviously they'd just get another weapon" verbiage. I don't know whether or not they do, but a little looking found a study claiming that such laws reduced assaults and homicides:
https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article/1...
There could be flaws with that study, or studies that argue otherwise, but I don't really care: when Correia argued his case, he just spouted a bunch of stuff he wanted to be true and offered zero evidence. This simply isn't a serious intellectual case for anything.
That said, the book isn't uniformly devoid of evidence. On the subject of Australia, much-beloved by anti-gun types, Correia does bring a lot of relevant citations. I'm not sure what to think on this subject, as drawing conclusions from broad trends and international comparisons is risky business (to Correia's credit he acknowledges this).
I remain dubious about his argument because it seems sloppy. For example, he's entirely dismissive of Australia's claim that it stopped gun violence: "As anti-gun zealots like to point out, Australia hasn’t had any similar events since. However, they didn’t really have any before that either."
This seems patently untrue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
The history of Australian gun violence doesn't look as clean as either side might claim, but statistically the shift after Australia's gun laws is clear even at a glance. Were their gun laws responsible? We can't say that for sure, but Correia's arguments seem to include a lot of bullshit.
The argument about Australia's assault rate is more interesting, and there are some evidentiary citations along with the rhetoric this time. It's interesting to examine the rates of violent crime over time:
https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/27-ye...
Most violent crimes go down after the weapon laws, but the sexual assault rate goes up. Is this directly related? I'd say we can't be sure, in the same way we also shouldn't rush to claim that the weapon buyback is responsible for other declines (as many types of violent crime have been falling across the developed world during this period).
Correia claims in general that Australia has worse rates of violence than the USA because people can't defend themselves. This is a lot harder to analyze, but here's a comparison site based on generic public data:
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-...
The USA is worse on a per capita basis in every category except rape. I don't think this is great support for Correia's argument, but the only conclusion I'll draw is that there does seem to be a sexual assault problem in Australia. This might be something to research in the future.
I've focused on facts thus far, but rhetorically this book is a mess. The author is aggrieved that gun-owners are demonized, but turns around and presents an absurd picture of anti-gun advocates. Some of it is wild, but here's a more sober statement:
"Then they’ll attack us, hound us, insult us, legislate against us, and, if they can, disarm us in more ways and places—so decent folks can be even more incapable of defending themselves the next time somebody who isn’t us does something evil. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat."
And later, more characteristically:
"The vultures like a nice, simplistic, easily digestible narrative: People we don’t like are violent trash, so you all need to give up your rights and give us more control, and we promise this time we will protect you. Sure, we’re the same government that fails constantly, but you should be helpless and count on us to be your only line of defense."
"The vultures like their simple, repetitive formula. Everything bad is the fault of the people they don’t like. You should be scared of who they want you to be scared of. Now give them more power. That’s why they love racially motivated killers. Having one of those scumbags go on a rampage is like Christmas to the vultures."
This book consistently uses such language and gives little consideration to the idea that people see children getting killed and want to do something. A more reasonable book might argue that such people are well-meaning but unproductive, or that the government is more motivated to be seen to do something than to take effective action, but this book is really not interested in that sort of discussion. Everything bad is the fault of vultures who like their simple, repetitive formula.
Later on it indulges in an entire chapter imagining how a war attempting to take guns away from patriots would go, including this choice gem:
"For most people on the Left, political violence is a knob, and they can turn the heat up and down, with things like protests and riots, all the way up to destruction of property, and sometimes murder… But for the vast majority of folks on the right, it’s an off-and-on switch. And the settings are “Vote” or “Shoot Everybody.” And believe me, you really don’t want that switch to get flipped, because Civil War 2.0 would make Bosnia look like a trip to Disneyworld."
Correia seems pretty proud of himself and spends a lot of time in this register. And I guess, if he feels this reflects well on his position, I'm just not going to comment.
I'm not quite sure what to make of his complete demonization of opposing positions. Based on a section in which Correia frames criticism of "thoughts and prayers" as attacking empathy as opposed to attacking empty statements, I'm inclined to think that when certain subjects come up his brain just shuts off and he doesn't really engage with other ideas.
A good example is the single time he brings up the idea of gun regulation as compared to car regulation, calling it a "tortured analogy" and then launching into a bunch of anecdotes. Ironically, after a lot of rhetoric and claims without citation, Correia writes this:
"That’s basically what this fixation on mandatory training comes down to. Feelings. ... Regardless of your feelings, show me the numbers."
I agree. This book is overwhelmingly a hot mess of feelings, with long sections throwing out claims with no evidence, citations that contradict what he said, emotional anecdotes, and cherry-picked stats.
Are there bad anti-gun arguments out there? Sure. But this is embarrassingly bad, and if this book is well-respected I'm inclined to think that the pro-gun side is intellectually unserious.
There are a handful of things we agree on: the media's glorification of mass killers is clearly part of the problem, for example. The way the definition of "mass shootings" gets changed to create a false impression was also familiar to me. He seems to have his head on straight in terms of shooting first being a bad idea and deescalation being a wise choice in most scenarios.
As a whole, however, I found this was more emotion than logic or facts. A clear example is the section on Japan and the murder of Shinzo Abe: Correia wildly makes many assertions, very few of which have any citations. Is Japan a very different country from the US? No doubt. But just spouting a bunch of explanations with zero effort to even look at the relevant statistics is meaningless, just repeating what he believes as evidence for those beliefs.
There are some citations in the book, of course, but I found them generally shoddy. For example, he says that the government concluded one of its own bans was "utterly useless" with the following citation:
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/gra...
The link doesn't say that. It has many sections with titles like "It is Premature to Make Definitive Assessments of the Ban’s Impact on Gun Crime" and presents a messy picture of the results. Certainly not a clear win for anti-gun types, but the fact that Correia completely misrepresents his citation suggests he's either delusional (seeing only what he wants to see) or dishonest.
Most of the book, however, is devoid of evidence. Most citations are links to news articles or social media, just confirming that things happened, but for most of his strongest claims Correia offers no evidence whatsoever.
For example, his entire section on whether gun regulations prevent impulsive crimes of passion dismisses the idea with a bunch of wishy-washy "Obviously they'd just get another weapon" verbiage. I don't know whether or not they do, but a little looking found a study claiming that such laws reduced assaults and homicides:
https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article/1...
There could be flaws with that study, or studies that argue otherwise, but I don't really care: when Correia argued his case, he just spouted a bunch of stuff he wanted to be true and offered zero evidence. This simply isn't a serious intellectual case for anything.
That said, the book isn't uniformly devoid of evidence. On the subject of Australia, much-beloved by anti-gun types, Correia does bring a lot of relevant citations. I'm not sure what to think on this subject, as drawing conclusions from broad trends and international comparisons is risky business (to Correia's credit he acknowledges this).
I remain dubious about his argument because it seems sloppy. For example, he's entirely dismissive of Australia's claim that it stopped gun violence: "As anti-gun zealots like to point out, Australia hasn’t had any similar events since. However, they didn’t really have any before that either."
This seems patently untrue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
The history of Australian gun violence doesn't look as clean as either side might claim, but statistically the shift after Australia's gun laws is clear even at a glance. Were their gun laws responsible? We can't say that for sure, but Correia's arguments seem to include a lot of bullshit.
The argument about Australia's assault rate is more interesting, and there are some evidentiary citations along with the rhetoric this time. It's interesting to examine the rates of violent crime over time:
https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/27-ye...
Most violent crimes go down after the weapon laws, but the sexual assault rate goes up. Is this directly related? I'd say we can't be sure, in the same way we also shouldn't rush to claim that the weapon buyback is responsible for other declines (as many types of violent crime have been falling across the developed world during this period).
Correia claims in general that Australia has worse rates of violence than the USA because people can't defend themselves. This is a lot harder to analyze, but here's a comparison site based on generic public data:
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-...
The USA is worse on a per capita basis in every category except rape. I don't think this is great support for Correia's argument, but the only conclusion I'll draw is that there does seem to be a sexual assault problem in Australia. This might be something to research in the future.
I've focused on facts thus far, but rhetorically this book is a mess. The author is aggrieved that gun-owners are demonized, but turns around and presents an absurd picture of anti-gun advocates. Some of it is wild, but here's a more sober statement:
"Then they’ll attack us, hound us, insult us, legislate against us, and, if they can, disarm us in more ways and places—so decent folks can be even more incapable of defending themselves the next time somebody who isn’t us does something evil. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat."
And later, more characteristically:
"The vultures like a nice, simplistic, easily digestible narrative: People we don’t like are violent trash, so you all need to give up your rights and give us more control, and we promise this time we will protect you. Sure, we’re the same government that fails constantly, but you should be helpless and count on us to be your only line of defense."
"The vultures like their simple, repetitive formula. Everything bad is the fault of the people they don’t like. You should be scared of who they want you to be scared of. Now give them more power. That’s why they love racially motivated killers. Having one of those scumbags go on a rampage is like Christmas to the vultures."
This book consistently uses such language and gives little consideration to the idea that people see children getting killed and want to do something. A more reasonable book might argue that such people are well-meaning but unproductive, or that the government is more motivated to be seen to do something than to take effective action, but this book is really not interested in that sort of discussion. Everything bad is the fault of vultures who like their simple, repetitive formula.
Later on it indulges in an entire chapter imagining how a war attempting to take guns away from patriots would go, including this choice gem:
"For most people on the Left, political violence is a knob, and they can turn the heat up and down, with things like protests and riots, all the way up to destruction of property, and sometimes murder… But for the vast majority of folks on the right, it’s an off-and-on switch. And the settings are “Vote” or “Shoot Everybody.” And believe me, you really don’t want that switch to get flipped, because Civil War 2.0 would make Bosnia look like a trip to Disneyworld."
Correia seems pretty proud of himself and spends a lot of time in this register. And I guess, if he feels this reflects well on his position, I'm just not going to comment.
I'm not quite sure what to make of his complete demonization of opposing positions. Based on a section in which Correia frames criticism of "thoughts and prayers" as attacking empathy as opposed to attacking empty statements, I'm inclined to think that when certain subjects come up his brain just shuts off and he doesn't really engage with other ideas.
A good example is the single time he brings up the idea of gun regulation as compared to car regulation, calling it a "tortured analogy" and then launching into a bunch of anecdotes. Ironically, after a lot of rhetoric and claims without citation, Correia writes this:
"That’s basically what this fixation on mandatory training comes down to. Feelings. ... Regardless of your feelings, show me the numbers."
I agree. This book is overwhelmingly a hot mess of feelings, with long sections throwing out claims with no evidence, citations that contradict what he said, emotional anecdotes, and cherry-picked stats.
Are there bad anti-gun arguments out there? Sure. But this is embarrassingly bad, and if this book is well-respected I'm inclined to think that the pro-gun side is intellectually unserious.
February 1, 2023
I really enjoyed this book. It is an excellent jumping off point for people who want to understand the conservative argument in defense of the second amendment better.
March 30, 2023
Pastor Correia delivers a rousing sermon to the choir of #2A supporters, and some "red meat" arguments and statistics for those Thanksgiving debates with your liberal nephew.
January 29, 2023
Ammunition for the Fight
Larry says that the only "common sense" gun control we need is the 2A and that forms the backbone of this book. It's a good argument. I've long said that "common sense" when used in politics is one of the most disingenuous terms possible.
In Defense of the Second Amendment is a book that people who are either for gun rights or are ambivalent about them. If you are entrenched and in favor of gun control, you likely won't enjoy or get much out of this book. That's because this book takes almost every gun control argument and deconstructs it thoroughly. It is logical in how it does that, but it also doesn't pull any punches at the opponents of gun rights. They don't fight fair, so why should we be nice to them?
What this book does is lay out the most common "do somethings" that are raised every time there is a shooting that the media thinks will further their narrative. It looks at those proposed "solutions" and explains why they won't work and often will make things worse. This does two things. One, it provides you with well-researched (lots of footnotes) arguments for each of these discussion topics. Two, it reminds you that you aren't the only person who thinks this way regardless of what the media may try and make you believe. The number of firearms owners is increasing, especially amongst minorities and the control side doesn't want you to know that. They want you demoralized and feeling alone that they are on the "right side of history" as if history had a side.
If you are a fence-sitter and want to see a logical response to why the proposals from the control side aren't sensible and often are unworkable then this book does that. Hopefully, you will see a different view than what is pushed at you from the Manhattan media, and wonder why we cannot discuss these topics openly. I'd recommend the excellent book End of Discussion by Guy P Benson and Mary Katherine Hamm if you want to understand that aspect of this political issue.
Larry says that the only "common sense" gun control we need is the 2A and that forms the backbone of this book. It's a good argument. I've long said that "common sense" when used in politics is one of the most disingenuous terms possible.
In Defense of the Second Amendment is a book that people who are either for gun rights or are ambivalent about them. If you are entrenched and in favor of gun control, you likely won't enjoy or get much out of this book. That's because this book takes almost every gun control argument and deconstructs it thoroughly. It is logical in how it does that, but it also doesn't pull any punches at the opponents of gun rights. They don't fight fair, so why should we be nice to them?
What this book does is lay out the most common "do somethings" that are raised every time there is a shooting that the media thinks will further their narrative. It looks at those proposed "solutions" and explains why they won't work and often will make things worse. This does two things. One, it provides you with well-researched (lots of footnotes) arguments for each of these discussion topics. Two, it reminds you that you aren't the only person who thinks this way regardless of what the media may try and make you believe. The number of firearms owners is increasing, especially amongst minorities and the control side doesn't want you to know that. They want you demoralized and feeling alone that they are on the "right side of history" as if history had a side.
If you are a fence-sitter and want to see a logical response to why the proposals from the control side aren't sensible and often are unworkable then this book does that. Hopefully, you will see a different view than what is pushed at you from the Manhattan media, and wonder why we cannot discuss these topics openly. I'd recommend the excellent book End of Discussion by Guy P Benson and Mary Katherine Hamm if you want to understand that aspect of this political issue.
April 12, 2023
Giveaway review
The book almost lost me in the first few pages of the introduction, but I kept going anyways. I'm actually glad I did. The knowledge in this book is well researched and passionately presented. For me, the most interesting parts of the book were the chapters addressing reactive arguments for gun control. There are almost 70 pages addressing proposed bans, additional regulations and accountability. Whether you are for or against gun control, if you read anything in the book, those two chapters will be eye opening.
Giveaway aside, I would recommend this book to anyone who would like a deeper understanding of the meaning behind the second amendment and the arguments both for and against gun control.
The book almost lost me in the first few pages of the introduction, but I kept going anyways. I'm actually glad I did. The knowledge in this book is well researched and passionately presented. For me, the most interesting parts of the book were the chapters addressing reactive arguments for gun control. There are almost 70 pages addressing proposed bans, additional regulations and accountability. Whether you are for or against gun control, if you read anything in the book, those two chapters will be eye opening.
Giveaway aside, I would recommend this book to anyone who would like a deeper understanding of the meaning behind the second amendment and the arguments both for and against gun control.
January 30, 2023
A must read
Larry Correia bends his formidable writing skills toward the task of expressing the importance of the Second Amendment and explaining the fight between those who support it and those who want to diminish our rights. Along the way, he debunks the anti-gunners myths, lies and talking points and explains things like your right to self defense and the legalities of use of force for defense. A must read for supporters of the 2nd Amendment and for anyone who seeks to know more about one of our most important civil rights.
Larry Correia bends his formidable writing skills toward the task of expressing the importance of the Second Amendment and explaining the fight between those who support it and those who want to diminish our rights. Along the way, he debunks the anti-gunners myths, lies and talking points and explains things like your right to self defense and the legalities of use of force for defense. A must read for supporters of the 2nd Amendment and for anyone who seeks to know more about one of our most important civil rights.
January 30, 2023
Fantastic and fun read
If you are at all curious about the debate on gun control in America, you should read this book. Larry lays out all the normal talking points and dismantles them using facts, logic, and history.
And he does it while being highly entertaining.
Definitely a good read!
If you are at all curious about the debate on gun control in America, you should read this book. Larry lays out all the normal talking points and dismantles them using facts, logic, and history.
And he does it while being highly entertaining.
Definitely a good read!
March 13, 2023
Regardless of your belief on guns or politics, something everyone should read.
July 17, 2023
DNF. This review is on behalf of my husband, who doesn't have Goodreads. He listened to it but was unable to get past the first chapter due to the author's approach. I still feel that warrants a review because it affected him to such an extent that I wanted to make other readers aware. What follows is a combination of what he told me about what he read here and what I'm aware of based on other experience with this author and his views on guns.
If you, like my husband, like to occasionally listen to points of view with which you disagree in order to potentially have your opinions changed and horizons widened, this book is not the one for you. Despite that sort of person being the target demographic, the author does nothing but insult and dehumanize anyone he considers to be in the "them" group.
This opposing-sides worldview is damaging and unfair and it's clear that's how the author views the world. This outlook does a disservice to everyone and strips away your capacity to recognize nuance and engage more effectively. The too-frequent use of "us" and "them" -type language became so apparent after a while that my husband decided to count them: he got over 100 instances in less than one chapter (and that was without counting what he'd already read). This sort of intentional emotion-inflaming makes it very hard for those "others" to want to hear you out and lower their guard or otherwise feel inclined to be open to having their views changed.
For the record, my husband supports the ability to own and use a firearm, while also making sure that as many people as possible are able to use them but in a safe way. This book horrified him. Just having any sort of support for reasonable steps and limits is a no-no for the author, who seems to think that any short waiting period, extra step of taking a safety class, or getting a concealed carry permit is somehow a burden or infringement. In reality, those "limits" have been shown to save lives and maintain access to that right so that more people are able to exercise it without it backfiring as much as it could otherwise.
Supporting the Second Amendment isn't good enough; you have to do it the author's way or he thinks you're wrong and bad. It seems like nothing but unfettered access for everyone and disregard for the statistics he doesn't like will ever be good enough for the author. The author also made it extremely clear that he believes gun owners hate people like my husband and would be happier if he were dead. (That's not the type of attitude I want gun owners to have; putting firearms in the hands of those who wish others dead based on misunderstandings of their ideology is not a trustworthy or responsible decision.)
In addition to most of the first chapter, this assessment is also based on the comments he has made in other forums, which were often given in dismissive, snarky, or I-know-better-than-you immature language that continues his excellent ability to be a complete turn-off to those he wishes to convince and undermine arguments for his own side.
Somehow the author believes he is actually being effectively persuasive; he doesn't realize he's just pandering to a pre-existing base of rabid SA fans who don't recognize his puffed-up sense of self-importance and inflated view of his own understanding for the argumentative performance it is. "Wit and scorn," as another reviewer describes how he writes about "anti-gunners," is not language that will win them over to your side. It's clear that he hasn't taken the time to truly understand the "other side," otherwise he might actually care to make his points in a way that could actually reach them without vilifying them.
Similarly, the description of the book on Goodreads is very opinion-heavy without trying to be diplomatic at all, using extreme words like "insanity," "blasts," "crazed," and others that attack views different from his. It's his way or the highway. He thinks he's right about everything and he intends to prove it. Just because you have 30 years of experience with guns in various circumstances doesn't mean you're using, applying, or understanding that experience well, nor does it mean it applies to every situation involving guns. A true expert in their field would recognize they don't know everything and wouldn't be so quick to dismiss or attempt to invalidate others experiences with that subject, but this self-proclaimed "expert" does just that.
If there were actual good points made later in the book, it's too bad the author made the reading experience such a hostile one that his target audience would never make it there, be able to take it seriously, or find themselves able to be persuaded.
If you, like my husband, are also a reasonable open-minded person curious about this viewpoint but you also value your mental health and want to engage with someone who argues for that side in good faith, find an author who can handle this subject with maturity rather than mockery, bad writing, and ill intent. Good thing Audible lets you return books in certain situations.
If you, like my husband, like to occasionally listen to points of view with which you disagree in order to potentially have your opinions changed and horizons widened, this book is not the one for you. Despite that sort of person being the target demographic, the author does nothing but insult and dehumanize anyone he considers to be in the "them" group.
This opposing-sides worldview is damaging and unfair and it's clear that's how the author views the world. This outlook does a disservice to everyone and strips away your capacity to recognize nuance and engage more effectively. The too-frequent use of "us" and "them" -type language became so apparent after a while that my husband decided to count them: he got over 100 instances in less than one chapter (and that was without counting what he'd already read). This sort of intentional emotion-inflaming makes it very hard for those "others" to want to hear you out and lower their guard or otherwise feel inclined to be open to having their views changed.
For the record, my husband supports the ability to own and use a firearm, while also making sure that as many people as possible are able to use them but in a safe way. This book horrified him. Just having any sort of support for reasonable steps and limits is a no-no for the author, who seems to think that any short waiting period, extra step of taking a safety class, or getting a concealed carry permit is somehow a burden or infringement. In reality, those "limits" have been shown to save lives and maintain access to that right so that more people are able to exercise it without it backfiring as much as it could otherwise.
Supporting the Second Amendment isn't good enough; you have to do it the author's way or he thinks you're wrong and bad. It seems like nothing but unfettered access for everyone and disregard for the statistics he doesn't like will ever be good enough for the author. The author also made it extremely clear that he believes gun owners hate people like my husband and would be happier if he were dead. (That's not the type of attitude I want gun owners to have; putting firearms in the hands of those who wish others dead based on misunderstandings of their ideology is not a trustworthy or responsible decision.)
In addition to most of the first chapter, this assessment is also based on the comments he has made in other forums, which were often given in dismissive, snarky, or I-know-better-than-you immature language that continues his excellent ability to be a complete turn-off to those he wishes to convince and undermine arguments for his own side.
Somehow the author believes he is actually being effectively persuasive; he doesn't realize he's just pandering to a pre-existing base of rabid SA fans who don't recognize his puffed-up sense of self-importance and inflated view of his own understanding for the argumentative performance it is. "Wit and scorn," as another reviewer describes how he writes about "anti-gunners," is not language that will win them over to your side. It's clear that he hasn't taken the time to truly understand the "other side," otherwise he might actually care to make his points in a way that could actually reach them without vilifying them.
Similarly, the description of the book on Goodreads is very opinion-heavy without trying to be diplomatic at all, using extreme words like "insanity," "blasts," "crazed," and others that attack views different from his. It's his way or the highway. He thinks he's right about everything and he intends to prove it. Just because you have 30 years of experience with guns in various circumstances doesn't mean you're using, applying, or understanding that experience well, nor does it mean it applies to every situation involving guns. A true expert in their field would recognize they don't know everything and wouldn't be so quick to dismiss or attempt to invalidate others experiences with that subject, but this self-proclaimed "expert" does just that.
If there were actual good points made later in the book, it's too bad the author made the reading experience such a hostile one that his target audience would never make it there, be able to take it seriously, or find themselves able to be persuaded.
If you, like my husband, are also a reasonable open-minded person curious about this viewpoint but you also value your mental health and want to engage with someone who argues for that side in good faith, find an author who can handle this subject with maturity rather than mockery, bad writing, and ill intent. Good thing Audible lets you return books in certain situations.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72 reviews