One of the latest gun control trends are the veterans screaming about gun control. The media loves to shower them with attention. Gun control groups bankroll opportunities to put them front and center in your social media. The anti-gun zealots love to prop these men and women up and allow them to speak as veterans, granting them some kind of gravitas because of that status, as if their opinion on gun control matters all that much.

At Gun Free Zone, it seems the guys over there have had it with these folks.

Just finished reading J.Kb’s post about NBC hiring some military Gun Control dude and I am done with the incredible smugness of those former officers that feel more akin to have the rules of Banana Republic that actual respect for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

So, you are an expert in guns and should be the only one allowed to have them because you had military training ? Please then explain this to me about military firearms training:

In World War II, an average of 20,000 rounds were used to kill an enemy.
In Vietnam. the number jumped to 50,000 round per enemy kill.
In the War on Terror, the numbers leaped to 250,000 per enemy kill.

How f**king accurate are you guys?

…

Interesting enough, Civilian use of firearms in self-defense runs with a very low count. How low? You will be hard pressed to find enough cases where a round count above 15 (standard magazine capacity) is even mentioned anywhere. We train reloads as much a response to weapon’s malfunction  as of need to continue to be in the fight.

Now, I urge you to read the original post, as well at the GFZ post linked in the first line.

This is in response to someone claiming to be a veteran who referred to the American gun culture as “dysfunctional” on Friday, just a short time after the Santa Fe High School shooting. Of course, the gun culture is to blame for everything and this supposed veteran will save the day by talking about how the military treats firearms.

Yes, the military actually is a big case of gun control. Only people who need firearms for duty purposes get to carry guns.

But as the guys at GFZ argue, so what?

I agree.

However, I’d also like to point out some things that these anti-gun veterans keep ignoring when they talk about how these kinds of things generally don’t happen within the military.

Not just everyone gets to enlist. There are physical requirements to be in, but there are also mental health requirements. Anyone who gives off red flags for this kind of behavior has a tendency to find themselves either being treated or on a street corner as a PFC (permanent freaking civilian). They don’t get to stick around long enough to shoot up the base.

They do the same with people who are repeated behavioral problems. Doing a single crime might not get you kicked out, but create a pattern of behavior and you’ll find yourself on a bus back to the real world before you can say, “I didn’t do nuffin.”

That’s simply not an option for the civilian world. We can’t eject people just because they don’t meet standards. As a result, we’re going to risk things the military doesn’t have to risk. They can remove problem behavior from their midst on a permanent basis. We can’t.

And that difference changes a lot of things.

The military has a low rate of violence on base not because of strict gun control, but because of their strict policies on people control. Gang members may enlist, but they also generally play nice while they’re in. If they don’t, they’re removed from that society permanently. Mentally disturbed people rarely last long. The violent, contrary to what many think, don’t last long either.

Keep that in mind the next time one of these supposed veterans opens his or her pie-hole to pontificate on just how much better the military’s policies on guns actually are.

Also keep in mind that the vast majority of combat vets support the Second Amendment.