Myth busted: Campus carry never caused that increase in violence liberals predicted

Nothing unusual in busting proggie mythology.

The argument in favor of arbitrarily revoking the Second Amendment rights of college students, as is done in dozens of states, has ostensibly been rooted in safety concerns.

And it just got a lot weaker.

Two anti-gun professors wrote in the Washington Post that “campus-carry laws will invite tragedies on college campuses, not end them.” Another liberal professor, writing for the New York Times, warned that “when there are more guns around, there is more risk – it’s as simple as that.”

The trouble with such predictions is that they tend to be tested as time goes by. And as it turns out, they simply weren’t true. Students just aren’t waging the gun battles that anti-gun activists expected. A new report from the College Fix looked into this narrative, and it came up empty.

When a reporter reached out to numerous universities that permit campus carry, “all of the schools that responded confirmed that they have seen no uptick in violence since their respective policies were put in place.” Responding colleges included Emporia State University, Dixie State University, and Valdosta State University. Separately, the Texas Tribune has reported that after the Lone Star State implemented campus carry at four-year colleges state-wide, it resulted in “no sharp increase in violence or intimidation,” and in fact, the following year was “quiet” and “uneventful.”

These are just a few examples, but even studies cited favorably by gun control advocates admit that “results certainly do not prove that campus carry causes more crime.” Essentially, it’s now clear that conservatives and libertarians had this one right. Allowing American adults aged 18 to 22 to exercise their Second Amendment rights on public college campuses is a no-brainer, as there are few rights more fundamental than the right to self-defense. Plus, the inconsistent nature of current “gun-free campus” rules already makes little sense.

The current system in many states bans college students from carrying guns but would allow adults of the same age who do not attend college to carry firearms. This is an arbitrary inconsistency that makes little sense, as there’s nothing to suggest that college students are more violent or less responsible than their noncollege peers. So, too, guns are often allowed at high-risk off-campus sites such as fraternity houses, yet barred from the actual campus — a glaring inconsistency that makes little sense. And now it’s officially confirmed that arbitrarily revoking college students’ Second Amendment rights doesn’t even make anyone safer.

It’s impossible for blue-state legislators and liberal college administrators to keep justifying their harsh anti-gun policies. That is, unless they’re willing to admit that they just hate the idea of gun rights.

Trump Pushes to Allow Troops to Carry Personal Weapons on Bases

President Donald Trump said Friday that he would review policies that keep troops from carrying personal weapons onto military bases.

“If we can’t have our military holding guns, it’s pretty bad,” Trump said in a wide-ranging speech to the annual Conservative Political Action Committee conference in Maryland, “and I’m going to look at that whole policy on military bases.”

“So we want to protect our military. We want to make our military stronger and better than it’s ever been,” Trump continued in the speech, in which he also renewed his call for allowing trained teachers and military retirees to carry concealed weapons in schools.

Schools and military bases currently are “gun-free zones” that are easy targets for deranged shooters such as the one in Parkland, Florida, who killed 17 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School last week, Trump said.Defense Department policy mainly has been that base security is the province of military police. In most cases, troops are required to leave their personal weapons at home or check them at the gate in an effort to prevent accidental shootings and discourage suicides.”We had a number of instances on military bases, you know that,” Trump said in his speech, apparently referring to active shooter episodes.

In making the case for personal weapons on military bases, Trump appeared to be referencing the July 2015 incident in Chattanooga, Tenn., where four Marines and a sailor were killed.

The shootings occurred at a recruiting storefront in a strip shopping mall and at a U.S. Naval Reserve Center some miles away. But Trump said the victims “were on a military base in a gun-free zone.”

The victims were Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Sullivan, 40; Staff Sgt. David Wyatt, 35; Sgt. Carson A. Holmquist; Lance Cpl. Squire D. “Skip” Wells, 21; and Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Randall Smith, 26.

The FBI and local police said that Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez carried out a drive-by shooting at the recruiting center and then drove to the U.S. Naval Reserve Center, where he was killed in a shootout with police.

Then-FBI Director James Comey later said that Abdulazeez was “motivated by foreign terrorist organization propaganda.”

“You know the five great soldiers from four years ago, three of them were world-class marksmen,” Trump said in his account of the incident. “They were on a military base in a gun-free zone.”

“They were asked to check their guns quite far away. And a maniac walked in, guns blazing, killed all five of them. He wouldn’t of had a chance if these world-class marksmen had — on a military base — access to their guns,” Trump said.

In his 2015 Senate confirmation hearing to become Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley was asked about the Chattanooga shootings and said that “in some cases I think it’s appropriate” for recruiters to carry weapons for self-defense.

He said that arming recruiters was complicated by a patchwork of state laws but “I think under certain conditions — both on military bases and in outstations, recruiting stations, reserve centers — we should seriously consider it.”

Then-Lt. Gen. Milley was commander at Fort Hood, Texas, in April 2014 when Spec. Ivan Lopez opened fire, killing three soldiers and wounding 12 others before killing himself.

Numerous lawmakers then called for allowing troops to carry weapons on base, but Milley said at a news conference that he didn’t support the idea.

“I don’t think soldiers should have concealed weapons on base,” he said.

“Do you wish to preserve your rights?
Arm yourselves.
Do you desire to secure your dwellings?
Arm yourselves.
Do you wish your wives and daughters protected?
Arm yourselves.
Do you wish to be defended against assassins or the Bully Rocks of faction?
Arm yourselves.
Do you desire to assemble in security to consult for your own good or the good of your country?
Arm yourselves.
To arms, to arms, and you may then sit down contented, each man under his own vine and his own fig-tree and have no one to make him afraid….If you are desirous to counteract a design pregnant with misery and ruin, then arm yourselves; for in a firm, imposing and dignified attitude, will consist your own security and that of your families. To arms, then to arms…..”
Tench Coxe

The Pensacola Jihadi’s Victims Would Be Alive Today
If we were honest about the threat we face.

In a tweet he appears to have sent out before he embarked upon his killing spree at the Naval Air Station Pensacola on Friday, jihadi Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani included a succinct refutation of George W. Bush’s explanation for jihad terrorism, “They hate us because of our freedom”: “O American people – I’m not against you for being American, I don’t hate you because your freedoms.” He also showed why our current approach to the jihad threat is not just wrong, but dangerous.

Alshamrani, a second Lieutenant in the Saudi Air Force, also gave a jihadi’s explanation for why he had decided to kill Americans at the base that was giving him aviation training: , I hate you because every day you supporting, funding and committing crimes not only against Muslims but against humanity.” Alshamrani went on to elucidate exactly what those crimes were: “What I see from America is the supporting of Israel which is invasion of Muslim countrie (sic), I see invasion of many countries by it’s [sic] troops, I see Guantanamo Bay. I see cruise missiles, cluster bombs and UAV.” He added: “I’m against evil, and America as a whole has turned into a nation of evil.”

This statement, if it did indeed come from Alshamrani, as appears likely, makes clear that he was a jihad terrorist. He was killing because of America’s supposed crimes against Muslims; that rules out the alternative explanation for his acts, that he was lashing out after some negative incident or mistreatment at the Naval Air Station.

Alshamrani has shown yet again that the prevailing politically correct obfuscation and denial regarding the jihad threat is actually deadly. If we had a realistic approach to the jihad threat, Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani’s victims would be alive today.

Of course, many credulous Americans will believe his list of grievances, and think that if we just stop committing these supposed “crimes,” that the jihad will disappear. Actually grievance lists such as Alshamrani’s are common from jihadis, who have to couch their jihads as defensive in the absence of a caliphate. In Sunni law, only the caliph can declare offensive jihad. So when there is no caliph, all jihad must be defensive.The enumerated grievances are pretexts that enable a jihadi lawfully to kill in accordance with Islamic law.

Alshamrani was in the country to get aviation training. No one flagged him as a potential jihadi. No one would even have dared to question him to try to ascertain his thoughts about the United States and the global jihad. Any effort to have done so would have been denounced as “Islamophobic,” and would have been career suicide for whoever did the questioning.

We saw this with the Fort Hood jihad mass murderer, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who was praised and promoted despite alarming his colleagues with his talk of violent jihad. None of his superiors dared do anything except promote him; they knew that if they questioned him about his loyalties, they would be the subject of a CNN feature story the next week on “Islamophobia in the Military,” and they would be looking at a dishonorable discharge.

Thirteen people died at Fort Hood because of the politically correct assumption that Islam is a religion of peace and that to raise suspicions about any Muslim is “Islamophobic” and evidence of nothing more than bigotry and racism. Four more people have now died at the Naval Air Station Pensacola because in the ten years since the Fort Hood jihad attack, we have learned nothing. All the same taboos are still firmly in place. To point out that there is no reliable way to distinguish genuine friend from concealed foe among our “allies” from Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or anywhere else will do nothing but invite scorn and derision, and earn one a place on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate” list.

How many more Americans must die before law enforcement and intelligence officials dare to examine and discard the comforting falsehoods and fantasies they have embraced regarding Islam and jihad? How many more Mohammed Saeed Alshamranis must there be before our government and military authorities recognize that Islam is not actually a religion of peace at all, but one that teaches warfare against unbelievers in its core texts, and consequently that any devout and knowledgeable Muslim may believe that it is a good and even holy thing under certain circumstances to kill those unbelievers?

This is an unpleasant but readily demonstrable fact. It does not mean that every devout Muslim is or ever will be a jihadist. It does mean that we must be realistic and careful regarding the sentiments of the personnel we train from countries where the teachings of Islam are well known and revered. If we aren’t, nothing is more certain than the fact that there will be more massacres in America like the one in Pensacola on Friday.

Fate of the Unarmed & U.S. Military’s Continued Support for Gun-Free Death Zones

I can neither confirm, not deny, that someone who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty carried a gun for self defense purposes on several military installations in flagrant violation of military regulations.

Of course, we all know why there is a general regulation against carrying weapons on post. The military uses a ‘lowest common denominator’ mentality where it is considered what probable mayhem would ensue if the newly minted, minimally trained and barely proficient E-1 grade service members were permitted to carry and applies it to everyone no matter their experience or rank. That goes hand in hand with the joke about the difference between the Army and the Boy Scouts being that the Boy Scouts have ‘Adult Supervision’.

Ft Collins, CO –-( “‘’Terrorists are coming! ‘Turn-in your weapons and go immediately to the nearest gun-free zone!’… said no human with a functioning brain in the history of our planet!” ~ Anon

Another sad, yet inevitable, result of “gun-free Zones”

In his lame excuse, a continuation of the tiresome DOD “no-guns dance,” the commander of the Pensacola Air Station where Friday’s terrorist attack took place said:

“… no sailors nor Marines, other than MPs on duty, may possess weapons on-base”

Well once again, Islamic terrorists just can’t seem to follow instructions. Imagine that!

Our military bases are all gigantic “gun-free zones,” where our defenseless “unarmed forces,” wait around to be murdered by armed terrorists, and where professing “commanders” are petrified by the thought of deploying competently-armed warriors during an “in- extremis” incident.

The terrorist in this incident was ultimately shot to death, not by highly-touted Base MPs (who knows where they were) whom commanders love to talk about, but by audacious Escambia County Deputies, who entered the Base with guns, probably in violation of the “rules!”

The question needs to be asked loudly and openly:

“What is it exactly within the mission of our military that apparently prevented armed sailors and armed Marines from promptly confronting, with deadly force, a single armed enemy of the United States, who was in the process of actively murdering innocent persons on a domestic US military installation?”

One can see clearly the way Democrat-promoted anti-2A sentiment has saddled us with this obviously self-destructive philosophy.

  • No matter what they say, liberals, along with their promoters and supporters (in and out of uniform), do not trust American citizens (in or out of uniform) with guns.
  • No matter what they say, liberals do not trust American police (whom they not-so-silently regard as potential killers of members of their voting base), to possess guns while not actually working. They now even support disarming police while they are on watch.
  • No matter what they say, liberals do not trust American military personnel (whom they not-so-silently regard as war criminals) to possess guns when not actually deployed a combat zone. Even then, they want our soldiers and Marines disarmed most of the time.
  • No matter what they say, liberals do not trust even their own heavily-armed praetorian guards to be armed, when not actually protecting them.

Some history:

Likewise, both Lenin and Stalin, and their elite Communist cadres cynically viewed their own praetorian guards as only in-place to serve the short-term purpose of protecting them.

All were eventually shipped off to gulags, or liquidated, then casually replaced with naive new recruits.

In the “class-free” Soviet Union, nearness to Communist despots brought with it neither job security, nor life security.

Nearness to liberals (their spiritual ascendants) is no different, which is surprising only to the naive.

“Not every crisis can be ‘managed.’ As much as we want to keep ourselves ‘safe,’ we cannot be protected from everything. When we want to embrace life, we also have to embrace chaos!” ~ Susan Phillips

Following legalized campus carry, universities report no increase in violence on their campuses.

In some instances, crime actually dropped

Though popular belief holds that more guns on college campuses will lead to an uptick in gun violence, several universities have reported no such increase even after their states legalized the carrying of concealed weapons on school grounds.

According to the website of Armed Campuses, a pro-gun-control initiative that tracks firearm policies at universities across the country, seven state legislatures have broadly permitted concealed carry on public university grounds. Five more have instituted limited campus carry regimes. Ten states prohibit campus carry altogether, while the remainder either allow the university to set the policy or else mandate that the guns must be left in locked cars.

The College Fix reached out to multiple public universities in states where campus carry is legal. All of the schools that responded confirmed that they have seen no uptick in violence since their respective policies were put in place.

Emporia State University is located in Emporia, Kansas. Armed Campuses states that, in that state, “any individual 21 years or older who is otherwise legally allowed to possess a concealed handgun may do so in any public facility, or on any public grounds unless proper security measures are in place.”

Reached via email, Emporia State campus spokeswoman Gwen Larson told The College Fix that the school has observed no change in gun violence since that rule was instituted. “Emporia State did not have gun violence before the law changed, and there has been no violence since the law changed,” she wrote.

Asked if there had been an uptick in campus carry since the policy change, Larson responded that she couldn’t say.

“There is no way of knowing the answer to this question. Kansas law prohibits tracking people who are carrying concealed handguns or making inquiries about who may or may not be carrying,” she wrote.

No gun violence increase, no ‘concerns’ regarding campus guns

Utah’s Dixie State University, located in St. George, has also not seen any increase in gun murders or injuries since guns were allowed on campus there, according to campus law enforcement. Utah law has actually permitted campus carry for nearly a decade and a half.

Dixie State’s campus Chief of Police Blair Barfuss told The College Fix via email that there has been no “reported or observed increase with gun violence on campus” related to the state’s campus carry policy.

“DSU does restrict firearms in on-campus residential housing units, unless the individual possesses a state issued firearms concealed carry permit, which is allowed by state statute,” Barfuss said.

He added that the university, like Emporia State, “does not track who on campus possess state issued concealed carry firearm permits.”

“This would be very difficult to do due to DSU students coming from many states across the country. We have not seen any increase in reports of firearms on campus, and we have not been made aware of any concerns regarding concealed carry permit holders by students or staff, related to Utah state legal statute.”

The Fix reached out to Valdosta State University, a public university in Valdosta, Georgia, to inquire about its experiences with concealed carry. Armed Campuses says that state has permitted concealed carry on college campuses since July of 2017.

Campus spokesman Keith Warburg provided The Fix with a letter from Steve Wrigley, the chancellor of the University System of Georgia. That letter, dated May 24, 2017, affirms the general right to carry a gun on public campuses while outlining several locations in which guns are still forbidden, including residence halls as well as classrooms in which high school students are studying.

Asked if the university has experienced an increase in gun violence since the legalization of concealed carry, Warburg did not directly answer. Instead he provided The Fix with the school’s 2019 Annual Security and Fire Safety report. Data from that report show no increase in murder or manslaughter on the school’s campus from 2016-2018; in all years it was zero. Aggravated assaults on campus dropped from three in 2016 to one in 2018. Burglaries dropped from 22 in 2016 to nine in 2018.

The lack of evidence that liberalized campus carry laws lead to more campus violence stands in contrast to the often-heated rhetoric of gun control activists. The Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus, an activist group partnered with Armed Campuses, has claimed that efforts to allow concealed weapons on campus are “dangerous.” That group says it is working “to protect American’s colleges and universities.”

On its website, Armed Campuses lists a study examining campus crime rates following the passage of liberalized concealed carry laws. The study also looks at state-level and national crime statistics. The report concludes that available data “do not prove that campus carry causes more crime.” Armed Campuses did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday morning.

Virginia Sheriff: ‘I Will Deputize Thousands of Citizens To Protect Their Gun Rights’

Culpepper County, VA — It looks like what Virginia gun owners needed was a wake up call. Or more accurately, a wake up slap in the face.

Sheriff Scott Jenkins of Culpepper County, VA made a post on his official county Facebook page pledging to support the Second Amendment.  In the post made on December 4th, Jenkins went so far as to say that he has a strategy if gun control comes knocking:

“I plan to properly screen and deputize thousands of our law-abiding citizens to protect their constitutional right to own firearms.”

Tazewell County Forms Militia in Response to New Virginia Gun Laws

In response to the wave of proposed anti-gun legislation in Virginia, many of its cities and counties have declared themselves Second Amendment Sanctuaries. One county, in particular, took it a step further at their December 3rd County Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting.

In addition to passing their Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolution, the county also passed a Militia Resolution. This resolution formalizes the creation, and maintenance of a defacto civilian militia in the county of Tazewell.

‘Universal’ Background Checks and Waiting Periods are Inherently Dangerous

By Miguel A. Faria, M.D.

A good approach to gun violence and street crime should not involve penalizing law-abiding citizens and infringing on their Second Amendment rights, while coddling criminals. Yet that is exactly what Democrats want to do. In fact they have tried to exempt criminal gangs from the draconian laws, including red flag laws, that they want to exact on the law-abiding citizens. It sounds incredible but it is true.

The Democrats want to force strict background checks upon law-abiding citizens with no time limit or deadline for the FBI to issue an approval. Before the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was instituted in 1998, the Brady Law (1994-1998) was in effect. It mandated a federal background check on all firearms purchases and imposed a five-day waiting period before the transfer of the purchased firearm. It was ineffective and did not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Gun control is inherently dangerous.

Incidentally, the Democrats also instituted an “assault weapons” ban from 1994 to 2004 that had no effect on crime or mass shootings. Congress, led by the Republicans at the time, wisely let it expire and refused to re-introduce it.

The Brady Law enforcing waiting periods for gun purchases passed in several states, endangering lawful citizens needing to purchase a gun quickly for self-protection. There are lurid stories of victims killed by attackers who previously threatened them. They were killed while waiting to pick up newly-purchased and badly needed guns for self-protection.

The “universal” background checks legislation now pushed by Democrats would do the same thing, endangering potential victims — not to mention the fact that the information can be used for illegally registering firearms, which we know is a prelude to banning and confiscation. This has happened in Washington, DC, Detroit, New York City, Seattle, and several jurisdictions in California.

Gun Owners of America keeps useful data available for study. As I outlined in my book, their research shows that waiting periods threaten the safety of people in imminent danger.

One case described was that of Bonnie Elmasri, who tried to obtain a gun for self-protection against an abusive husband, a spouse who had repeatedly threatened to kill her. She was subjected to a 48-hour waiting period to buy her handgun. Unfortunately, Bonnie did not get her gun in time. The next day, her abusive husband, a man well known to the police, killed her and her two sons.

In yet another tragic case, Carol Bowne of New Jersey tried to buy a gun for self-protection but was forced to wait several weeks for her background check. While fearfully waiting, the man who had been stalking her and who she was afraid would kill her, stabbed her to death.

In contrast, we have the case of Marine Corporal Rayna Ross. She was able to purchase a gun in a state without a waiting period and was forced to use it in self-defense only two days later, killing her assailant. If Corporal Ross had been subjected to a waiting period or burdensome universal background checks, like Bonnie Elmasri or Carol Bowne, she would have been defenseless against the man who was stalking her.

Serious attempts to decrease gun violence should involve keeping guns away from convicted criminals who have legally forfeited their right to possess guns. In fact, the vast majority of murderers are career criminals with long criminal records.

We now know that the typical murderer has a prior criminal history of at least six years with four felony arrests in his record. But instead, Democrats coddle criminals and penalize law-abiding gun owners. Why?

In a recent article, Dr Jim Ausman, Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of Surgical Neurology International and I analyze the topic in some detail. We concluded that gun control is about people control. My recently released book, America, Guns, and Freedom: A Journey Into Politics and the Public Health & Gun Control Movements, which examines the push for civilian disarmament by the public health establishment, also concludes that gun control is about people control which is inherently dangerous.

If the Democrats win the Presidency and the US Senate in 2020, they will empower government to implement very dangerous, draconian gun control legislation. If we are to preserve freedom, that must not be allowed to happen.

Idaho School District Buys Rifles, Warns Visitors: Building Is ‘Armed’

GARDEN VALLEY, ID — School administrators in Garden Valley, ID are taking student and staff security seriously. And further, they’re putting their money where their mouth is.

School board minutes from the most recent board meeting have detailed their purchase of four rifles and 2,000 rounds of ammunition.

The rifles cost $680 each.

The district is also considering spending up to $2000 on body armor vests and extra magazines.

Superintendent Marc Gee said, “We just have to protect our kids and we didn’t want to do it in a haphazard way.

The guns won’t stay locked in a gun safe with teachers unaware and untrained in how to use them.

No, before the guns were even purchased, school staff who volunteered received training from the Boise County Sheriff’s Office. Further, the district will post signs outside the school entrances telling any visitors that “our school is armed.”

When asked about the community’s response, Superintendent Gee said that it was overwhelmingly positive.

“It’s been positive – I have yet to have a community member come in and say, ‘Why are you doing this?’” Gee said.

The Garden Valley school district is located about an hour north of Boise.

Hunting and self-defense do not require such a high level of gun lethality

So he wants people to use Nerf guns, or what?
The Bill of Rights –by its very preamble – were not a grant of rights or a listing of limitations to the people but a generic, noninclusive list of restrictions on government.
The founders were not unlearned men, and were well known as men of science and technology. Even at that time there were several “fast firing” guns that dump the notion on the trash heap of history that the smooth bore muskets of the infantry were the only thing covered by the amendment. The founders would have understood that technology would increase and improve and the 2nd amendment makes no exclusion of any modernization.
That line of thought makes 1st amendment jurisprudence only apply to hand operated printing presses and town criers on the village square.
The Supreme Court in the Heller, McDonald & Caetano decisions put this and other ideas to the test, found them wanting and discarded them.
This writer is either ignorant of U.S. Civics and the jurisprudence of the highest court in the land or he’s being disingenuous and simply trying to roll out a much overused and completely rejected line of propaganda.

The views of the rural Virginians described in the Nov. 24 front-page article “In Virginia, gun buffs plan to defy new laws” are that the gun-control proposals expected to be introduced in the 2020 Virginia legislature will “change” their way of life and that a law enforcement officer who believes a law to be unconstitutional may choose not to enforce it. Both assertions are dishonest and factually incorrect.

Assume that the expected laws would limit the number of guns sold and the capacity of magazines, and require registration and add a “red-flag” law. I know some people grow up with rifles for hunting and handguns for protection. But semiautomatic weapons are not part of that way of life. That technology did not exist when the Second Amendment was adopted; indeed, rifling in the barrels of guns to improve the distance and accuracy of a shot was not widespread. Hunting and self-defense do not require that level of lethality. As for registration, the Second Amendment begins with “a well regulated militia.” If one was to be part of a militia with a gun, the authorities needed to know who owned what guns.

Also, no law enforcement officer is given the right to determine what actions are or are not constitutional. Officers enforce the law. The lawyers for their jurisdictions may question those laws and challenge those laws in court, but they have no legal right not to enforce a law validly existing on the books.

The way-of-life argument is bogus and not supportive of the obligations we, as citizens of the commonwealth of Virginia, owe to each other.

David Yaffe, Arlington

Magazine Capacity Muckraking

Fewer people are killed when mass murderers use high capacity magazines? Unpossiber!

The capacity of a firearm magazine should not make anyone high. But given the hyperbole over “high capacity” magazines, I fear some politicians are positively stoned.

Whenever there is a mad rush to legislation, accompanied by exaggerated sound bites, we at the Gun Facts project just have to take a closer look. Research is our drug of choice.

Main Take-aways

  • Magazine capacity is only applicable to mass shootings
  • Mass shootings are rare events
  • Magazine capacity is not the underlying factor in high death rates
  • The number of people killed at mass shootings is a tiny fraction of homicides

The Most Important News Story Right Now Isn’t Impeachment, It’s The Crisis In Mexico
Cartels in Mexico aren’t just fighting over drugs, they’re fighting over industries, and it might well trigger a new and much bigger migrant crisis on the U.S. border.

Besides other important business the politicians have been able to avoid with this crap-for-brains impeachment nonsense, the hard work on how to deal with what’s going on just to the south of us has been taken care of.

Two important and interrelated news stories largely passed under the radar Wednesday as the House impeachment hearings continued to dominate the headlines. Both stories concern the deteriorating state of affairs in Mexico and have huge implications for immigration, the southwest border, and U.S. national security. It’s a shame more Americans aren’t paying attention.

The first was a report from BuzzFeed that as of Wednesday the Trump administration began carrying out a controversial plan to deport asylum-seekers from El Salvador and Honduras—not to their home countries, but to Guatemala, which the administration has designated a “safe third country,” meaning that migrants from those countries must first apply for asylum in Guatemala before seeking asylum in the United States.
The move is part of the administration’s broader strategy to reduce the number of Central Americans seeking asylum at the southwest border, which last year saw a dramatic increase in illegal immigration largely driven by families and minors from the so-called Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.

The second story was a Los Angeles Times dispatch from the Mexican state of Michoacán, where rival cartels are waging war not over drug trafficking routes but over control of the multibillion-dollar avocado industry. More than a dozen criminal groups are fighting over the avocado trade in and around Uruapan, the capitol of Michoacán, “preying on wealthy orchard owners, the laborers who pick the fruit and the drivers who truck it north to the United States,” writes reporter Kate Linthicum. Organized crime in Mexico, she explains, is diversifying—it isn’t just about drugs anymore:

In parts of Guerrero state, cartels control access to gold mines and even the price of goods in supermarkets. In one city, Altamirano, the local Coca-Cola bottler closed its distribution center last year after more than a dozen groups tried to extort money from it. The Pepsi bottler left a few months later.

In Mexico City, bar owners in upscale neighborhoods must pay taxes to a local gang, while on the nation’s highways, cargo robberies have risen more than 75% since 2016.

Compared with drug trafficking, a complex venture that requires managing contacts across the hemisphere, these new criminal enterprises are more like local businesses. The bar to entry is far lower.

The report also notes that homicides are at an all-time high in Mexico, and that cartels have taken control of migrant smuggling in the state of Tamaulipas, which borders the Texas’s Rio Grande Valley, the busiest stretch of the border for illegal immigration.

All this comes on the heels of the massacre of an American family in Mexico, including three women and six children, earlier this month by cartel gunmen, as well as the defeat of a detachment of the Mexican National Guard by cartel forces in the city of Culiacan last month. Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has no strategy to reduce cartel violence and no intention of fighting the cartels.

The Chaos South of Our Border Won’t Stay There
So what do these two news stories from Wednesday have to do with one another, and why would they have major implications for the United States? Simply put, what has happened in Central America is now happening in Mexico. The difference is, when asylum-seekers from Mexico start turning up on our border we won’t be able to deport them to a third country or easily turn them away. If you thought the border crisis was bad last year, wait until hundreds of thousands of families in Michoacán and Tamaulipas decide to flee the cartels and seek asylum in the United States.


General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems Canada Valleyfield, Inc (GD-OTS), has determined a potential defect relating to certain lots of Accurate 2495, 4064 and 4350 propellants manufactured for Western Powders Inc. prior to October 1, 2016 and packaged under the Accurate brand name in 1 lb and 8 lb. canisters, may be defective. The use or storage of this product may result in combustion, fire damage and/or possible serious injury or property damage. Some signs of degradation include, but are not limited to, container lid deformation, discoloration of the  containers in the lid area, presence of red fumes when the container lid is opened, or the presence of a strong acidic odor.

GD-OTS and Western Powders Inc. are recalling the following powders packaged under the Accurate brand in 1 lb. and 8 lb. containers.

The Lot Number is located either in a box on the back of the label or as a sticker on the bottom of the container.

What You Should Do

1) Immediately fill the container with water which will render the product inert and safe for disposal.
2) Notify Western Powders Inc. at 406-234-0422, or
We will provide you with a instructions to photograph the bottle showing the lot number and provide refund information.
3) DO NOT load ammunition with affected powder.

NOTE: This recall does not extend to loaded ammunition. Performance of ammunition with propellant showing no signs of degradation will not be altered provided recommended storage conditions are followed. It is recommended that loaded ammunition be checked regularly for deterioration.

We apologize for the inconvenience, but safety is our first concern. Contact us at 406-234-0422 if you have any questions regarding this recall.

Accurate Powders Recall Notice


No Safe Spaces: Why We Need Personal-Defense Skills

All one has to do is check the evening news to realize that there is no safe place. It’s rather naive to assume that bad things can’t happen in any city, town, village or rural setting. Neither is it reasonable to decide to be a hermit and hide out until things get better—because there is no guarantee they will. The smart move is to be informed, be prepared and learn to deal with it.

Some of us grew up in a time, a nearly forgotten time, when “a man’s home [was] his castle.” It was a place where you relaxed at the end of the day, away from the cares of the world. And then home invasions became popular among the criminal element. We know now that we have to be just as alert and careful at home as anywhere else.

Realistically, we look at ways to harden the target where our home is concerned. We want to make it difficult to get into, requiring a noisy effort on the part of the criminal. A good start is to install good, heavy-duty locks on all the exterior doors and windows. The next step is to keep those doors and windows locked, even when we are at home. Good exterior lighting allows us to check things out without having to unlock anything. The addition of a dog to the household makes for a good early-warning system, too.

Guns in the home ought to be as readily available as possible, while keeping family safety in mind. And, where home-defensive guns are concerned, bigger is better. Shotguns and carbines trump handguns of any kind. And, full-size service pistols are going to be easier to handle, and therefore more effective, than compact models.

Just about all of us have some sort of smaller pistol or revolver that we carry when the weather is hot or circumstances don’t seem to allow carrying a bigger handgun in public. It is an excellent idea to keep these instances to a minimum. A short trip to the range will reinforce the fact that people shoot and handle the service-size pistol more accurately and effectively. So, instead of preferring to pack that little gun, the better idea is to alter your dress to allow for the larger handgun. It can be done if a person is serious about it.

When people are out and about, it is even more important to know that there is no safe place. We work to keep ourselves in Condition Yellow (relaxed alertness) as much as possible. And, believe me, it takes practice—and lots of it. The person who says that they are always alert is fooling himself.

One of the main things that relaxed alertness does for the citizen, even the armed citizen, is to help him or her spot potential trouble while there is still time to get away from it. When I spot someone acting strangely, or who is seemingly out of place, I leave as quickly as possible, keeping an eye on them while doing so—even in the middle of a meal. Leaving an unfinished meal is better than being in a gunfight. As a citizen (I’m no longer a peace officer), I also consider it my duty to notify law enforcement if I think the situation warrants it.

In my view, the least-safe places are often those styled as “gun free” zones. It is a really good idea to avoid these areas when possible. If that means that we miss some sporting events and concerts, then so be it. There is always television if we just can’t stand to miss our favorite team or musical group. When we are simply forced to enter a “gun free” zone, the best tactic is to get in and out as quickly as possible.

In short, a person who is serious about surviving in today’s world will make an effort to educate themselves about personal defense. Numerous training opportunities are available to those who are serious about their own safety. Just as we make our homes a harder target to attack, we make ourselves harder targets for the criminal. We learn ways to spot trouble. We learn ways to avoid trouble. And, we learn ways to make our defensive handgun a more-effective exit ticket.

It’s tempting to reminisce about the world that you remember as a child, where doors were seldom locked, kids played up and down the street, romped out in the woods and neighbors looked out for each other. Who wouldn’t want to return to that kinder, gentler society?

But, we live in the present. We can philosophize and wax nostalgic about the “good old days” as we remember them, but we had better deal in reality. The cold, hard reality is that there is no such thing as a “safe place,” so therefore improving our personal-defense skills needs to be a priority. I have studied and trained in hopes that, if attacked, it will be the biggest mistake that criminal has made in his life. I sincerely hope you will do the same.

Sioux Falls man uninjured after firing gun in his pants

So I guess it was a pistol in his pocket!

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — Sioux Falls police say an intoxicated man escaped injury when he accidentally fired his gun inside his pants pocket.

The 24-year-old Sioux Falls man was arrested Monday for reckless discharge of a weapon and possession a gun while intoxicated. Police say officers heard a gunshot and responded to a parking ramp about 2:30 a.m.

The Argus Leader reports they found the man who had a blood alcohol content of 0.25, which is more than three times the legal limit to drive. Police spokesman Sam Clemens says the man wasn’t injured, but had a hole in his pants.