Noted from Sheriff Jim:

Empty Arguments over Empty Chambers

Recently, another internet kerfuffle over – nothing, really.

The premise is that someone, somewhere carries a semiauto pistol for self-protection and carries it half-loaded.

Bless his heart.

The arguments were long and loud, in the style of the information two-track (through a farm field), and, in the end, no resolution was found.

While going over the various (emotional, non-reasoned) arguments, I found some gems, paraphrased here as I don’t have permission to hold denizens of the digital world up to scorn and ridicule.

The original poster noted that one side of the issue are, functionally, NDPs. Kind of like “non-player characters,” NDP is a Chuck Taylor term for “non-dedicated personnel.” Those are the kind with only the least passing familiarity/skills in the carry of firearms. A “Master-“ class shooter, according to his response, noted that he carries in Condition Three (“chamber empty, full magazine, hammer (if so equipped) down”) for personal protection, not on the range.

Because you’re an expert in competing in certain range games makes you as proficient in personal security as the typical gun writer is knowledgeable about brain surgery.

Continue reading “”

Maryland Synagogue Challenges Restrictive Gun Law
Montgomery County officials want to prevent houses of worship from making security decisions.

Houses of worship are often targeted by people with murder on their minds. That’s especially true of synagogues, which were disproportionately attacked even before October 7 and have since been on the receiving end of the “antizionist” reframing of hatred of Jews. But in Montgomery County, Maryland, officials recently renewed efforts to forbid the carrying of firearms within 100 yards of “places of public assembly,” including churches and synagogues. Now, some security volunteers are defying the intrusive law as they await the outcome of courtroom pushback against the restrictions.

Violating the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments

“Today, the Justice Department filed suit against Montgomery County, Maryland (County). The complaint alleges that the County’s newly enacted Bill 23-26 violates the Second Amendment by prohibiting law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms in daily life,” the U.S. Department of Justice announced on August 3. “Bill 23-26 prohibits carrying firearms at thousands of locations, and also creates an arbitrary 100-yard exclusion zone around each location. The law applies even if the person carrying a firearm is duly licensed and has the express consent of the property owner.”

Continue reading “”

Dolly Parton Carried a .38, and She Never Apologized for It

Dolly Parton died Tuesday at 80, and the tributes have poured in for the music, the movies, and the boundless philanthropy. Here’s one more thing worth remembering about the country legend: she was a gun owner who carried for self-defense, said so plainly, and never once seemed embarrassed by it.

The proof is in her own words. In a now-famous 1978 Playboy interview with journalist Lawrence Grobel, Parton described an early trip to New York City — a story any concealed carrier will recognize in their bones.

A Nashville Permit and a New York Night

Parton and her lifelong friend Judy Ogle, green to the big city, found themselves out on the street late at night when a group of men began closing in. “All of a sudden, these men started approachin’ us on the street,” she told Playboy. “They thought we were up for sale.” The men wouldn’t take no for an answer, and one got physical — “really pullin’ at me… just maul me, the whole works,” as she put it. Her friend, doubled over laughing against a wall, was no help at all.

“I Always Carry a Gun”

What those men didn’t know was that Parton was armed. She told Grobel she never traveled without a firearm — and decades later, she still didn’t.

“I always carry a gun,” she said. “A .38 pistol. I have a permit for it in Nashville. I just carry it for protection. I feel safer when I’ve got it. I just don’t like the idea of knowin’ I’m totally helpless.”

That’s the entire case for armed self-defense, delivered in a few sentences by a woman in a towering wig and a wide Southern smile — years before “concealed carry” was a mainstream phrase.

And She Was Ready to Use It

The .38 wasn’t a security blanket. When the man kept grabbing at her, she drew it. “I told the man, ‘If you put your hands on me one more time, I swear to God that I will shoot you,’” she recounted. “And I would have.” She added that she wouldn’t have aimed to kill — she’d have put rounds at his feet instead. The man backed off. The two women made it home. Her friend, by Parton’s account, never did stop laughing.

Carried in Spite of the Law

The quiet defiance in the story is the setting. Parton was carrying her Tennessee-permitted revolver in New York City — a place that, under its old Sullivan Act, treated the right to bear arms as a privilege doled out by bureaucrats. A Nashville permit meant nothing there. She carried anyway, because being helpless in a strange city wasn’t a trade she was willing to make. It would take until 2022 and the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision for the law to catch up to what Dolly Parton already understood on that sidewalk: the right to protect yourself doesn’t stop at a state line.

That refusal to be a victim — matter-of-fact, unashamed, entirely her own — was of a piece with everything else about her. There will never be another like her. Rest in peace, Miss Parton.

Mass-Shooting Stats: Inconvenient Facts Vs. Liberal Lies.

Like everything else, mass shootings have become politicized. The who/what/how many/which guns did they use, etc., are all part of a SNAFU situation, brought to you by the people with the most to hide: liberals.

You may have seen tweets stating that more people have died in France’s current heat wave than in all U.S. mass shootings since 1966:

That’s not true. Mostly. It depends on a few things—”things” the left lies about to hide the truth and demonize those pesky straight, white men. “Things” the left will conflate to get the stats it needs to confuse you and piss off other leftoids.

FACT-O-RAMA! The toilet people on the left are desperate to make MAGA-capped peckerwoods look like the “existential threat” to America. The truth is that the actual threat, no matter how you slice it, isn’t a bunch of white guys. I’ll leave it at that…for now.

What you need to know before we jump into mass shootings is this:

The Democratic Party (and a handful of RINOs) has been hijacked by the Red-Green Alliance globalists. Their goal is to conquer America from within. Their biggest obstacle is the Second Amendment. Therefore, they MUST fudge the numbers regarding gun deaths to scare Americans into giving up their weapons. They need to take your guns to fulfill their dream of a one-world government, as stated in the 45 goals of Communism, which were entered into Congress in 1963 (I added the bold).

Goal # 11:  Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

Continue reading “”

FBI Releases Latest Data On Post-SCOTUS Crime Wave That Hasn’t Arrived

The FBI’s new crime report is out, and it’s safe to say that those who listened to the predictions of anti-Second Amendment groups are wondering where the crime is.

Since the Supreme Court struck down New York’s discretionary system for issuing concealed carry permits in June 2022, groups like EverytownGiffords and Brady United predicted public safety would be diminished by the decision. However, the FBI’s data noted that in 2025, the murder rate went down 18.1%, while violent crime fell by over 9%.

One survey of crime that is widely cited is the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) carried out by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), which showed from 2021 to 2023, the NCVS reported a 36% increase in the violent crime victimization rate, according to the report.

The FBI shifted how it gathered the data after 2020. In 2021, nearly 40% of police agencies did not send the data to the FBI. However, for the 2023 report, 72% of agencies reportedly participated. The FBI’s release of the new crime figures stated that over 17,000 agencies participated in sending crime data for 2025, while 16,791 sent information on so-called “hate crimes.”

In a July 22 poll commissioned by the Crime Prevention Research Center, the number of people who reported carrying a concealed firearm went up from 24.3% in December 2024 to 30.9%. In other words, more people are carrying concealed.

This is not surprising for two reasons: First, since Bruen, states like California, New York and New Jersey can’t deny a permit because someone didn’t prove “good cause” to carry a firearm. Second, we’re also seeing many states going to “constitutional carry” where no permit is needed at all.

The result, if you believe the polling data, is that a would-be crook has a much larger chance of coming across an armed citizen when he is trying to commit his crimes. Armed citizens end up being far less understanding than a Soros prosecutor, and the result… well, we’ve seen the results in some recent news articles.

In other words, criminals are probably electing not to do things which might lead to an encounter with an armed citizen. So, it’s no wonder crime’s been dropping.

Comment O’ The Day:
I have to remind people about this far too often:
“I can chamber a round faster than you can draw your gun.”
Yeah, try doing it with one of your hands or arms disabled.


Paul provides a link to a more in-depth look at the In-N-Out shooting that provides just such experience. The actual video of the shooting starts at 19 minutes.

Armed Defense is Simple, Hard, and Necessary

We go along and then something happens to us that changes our perspective. I was talking to a young man not long after I wrote about armed defense. Each of the ordinary stories I covered included an advanced self-defense skill. The young man said he wanted to make his family safer. We talked about it for a minute. I think that is where emotion raised its head, where truth and fantasy parted company. Let me state the obvious. Protecting your family takes work. Knowing what to do is the first layer of defense. Armed defense is also a skill that takes practice.

We often think that we can buy skill. I’ve felt that way myself. It is true that some firearms will fit your hands better than others. That said, is the problem that your hands are not doing what you want them to do, or is the problem that your brain doesn’t know what your hands and feet should be doing? Hardware won’t replace study and practice. Sometimes we have to climb over our ego and admit we have some homework to do. Let me give you a window into armed defense by looking at the examples from my recent podcast.

In the first story, male and female intruders entered an apartment and attacked the occupants. This happened on a Sunday morning. What could be more ordinary.

On a Sunday morning, it is easy to imagine that our children would be home and that they would open the door if someone knocked and shouted. When you read through this story, there were also children in the apartment but they didn’t open the door.

Right there is our first dose of reality. We need a safety plan at home. We have to talk with our family about what all of us will do. We have to talk with our roommates or frequent guests. We also have to walk through that plan. The walk-through does several essential things. It changes words into habits. It also uncovers the errors that seemed good at first but didn’t work well in practice.

Who is going to call 911? Who is armed or going to be armed, and where will they be positioned to defend the rest of the occupants? It sounds simple, but I’m sure your third attempt will be vastly better than your first rehearsal. It is easier to learn in the daylight than to discover problems at night when a stranger is hitting you.

Staying with this first story, a female roommate shot the attackers while they were hitting the male roommate who opened the door. Shooting at moving targets is beyond what we learned in basic marksmanship. In this case, the attackers and the victim were both moving. Speed, distance, and motion work together to determine how accurate we will be with our shots. Even though a gun works at a distance, we might have to get closer so we are sure to shoot the attackers and not shoot our roommate. Do you know what you can do and how much time you need?

Your safety plan should also include calling your lawyer and getting help as you fill out the final police report. That also includes your roommates knowing what to say, and what not say, to the police. That information is only lightly covered in most concealed carry classes.

In the second story, the defender had to move out of the way to avoid being shot. The defender then had to present his concealed firearm on the move. He had to shoot at his attackers who were likely moving as well. Firearms instructors teach classes where the students move and shoot. Some competition includes moving targets and multiple attackers. Have you practiced moving from one target to another? Have you practiced shooting while most of your body was hidden behind a wall or a car?

In the third story, the defender was being robbed at work. The robber tried to push the victim into a back bathroom. That is horribly dangerous for the victim, and he decided to fight. The defender had to turn so that the attacker couldn’t reach the defender’s gun. The defender then had to create enough distance between himself and his attacker so he could rotate his firearm and point it at his attacker. That means the defenders support arm was in front of his muzzle and between him and the the bad guy. You want to see how that works before you have to perform it on your own. At first, you want to practice with an instructor making sure you’re safe.

In the fourth and last story, an elderly woman was trying to stop a strange dog from biting her dog. In that case, it is best practice to grab your attacker and hold on tight so you both move together. That keeps you from shooting your dog or shooting yourself as the attacker moves.

I said that armed defense was both simple and hard. The contrast is complex and easy. Fortunately, we can decompose a new lesson into small incremental steps so that each new skill is relatively straightforward. The hard part is admitting we won’t suddenly become John Wick when we hear glass break at night.

Many of us have taken some form of firearms class. Please review those skills so they remain available when you need them.

 

 Crossing a State Line Shouldn’t Cost You Your Right to Self-Defense

Imagine a woman driving across state lines alone at night, fearful that her car might break down and leave her vulnerable. Or picture a truck driver hauling valuable cargo across the country. In states such as California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Oregon – five of the ten states that refuse to recognize concealed handgun permits from other states – these travelers can find themselves defenseless. Nine states also either deny non-residents permits altogether or make them extremely difficult to obtain.

Last week, President Trump again called for passage of national concealed carry reciprocity. The legislation would allow anyone legally permitted to carry a concealed handgun in their home state to carry across state lines, much as Americans use their driver’s licenses nationwide. The legislation would affect millions of law-abiding Americans.

Much of the gun-control debate centers on hypothetical risks. With reciprocity, however, we don’t have to speculate. With 21.5 million concealed handgun permit holders in the United States, we already know how they behave. In addition, most Americans already benefit from reciprocity. The average state recognizes permits from 30 other states, allowing permit holders to travel legally with their firearms.

Last year, when House Judiciary Committee passed national reciprocity along party lines, Democrats also opposed legislation that would allow current and retired law enforcement officers with at least ten years of service to carry firearms in facilities open to the public – including schools – while traveling across the country. Given their fear that allowing experienced current or retired law enforcement officers to carry would endanger public safety, it comes as no surprise that they also oppose allowing civilians to carry across state lines.

Congressional opponents of reciprocity warned that permit holders would commit crimes but cited no evidence to support that claim. The facts point in the opposite direction. Concealed handgun permit holders are extraordinarily law-abiding. States revoke their permits for firearm-related violations at rates measured in thousandths – or even ten-thousandths – of one percent. Police officers rarely commit firearm crimes, yet permit holders lose their permits for firearm offenses at only about one-twelfth the rate that police are convicted of firearm related crimes.

“This legislation is a dramatic infringement on states’ rights,” claimed Emma Brown, executive director of the gun-control group Giffords, echoing a common criticism. Yet those same organizations routinely advocate federal gun-control laws that override state policy choices.

Opponents also claimed that national reciprocity would confuse travelers about which gun laws apply in each state and lead to more arrests. But reciprocity already exists across much of the country, and no evidence shows that out-of-state permit holders create such problems. Indeed, the same situation exists for drivers when they cross state lines: They are required to follow the driving regulations for the state they are in.

Critics also argue that permit standards vary from state to state. Yet no evidence shows that states with less restrictive permitting systems experience higher permit revocation rates.

Despite these fears, more than 86% of police chiefs and sheriffs support national reciprocity, and over 90% of rank-and-file officers support concealed carry laws. These officers see firsthand how concealed carry works in practice. They understand that police deter crime, but they also know they usually arrive after the crime has begun. Victims often must defend themselves first. Consistent with that experience, the overwhelming weight of academic research finds that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces crime.

With tens of millions of Americans legally carrying concealed handguns over many decades, if opponents could identify even dozens of cases in which out-of-state permit holders created serious problems, their concerns would deserve careful consideration. They cannot. Such cases remain exceedingly rare. Americans do not need to guess whether gun-control advocates’ concerns are justified.

Carrying a firearm provides the greatest benefit to those who face the largest physical disadvantages – women and the elderly – and to those who face the highest risk of violent crime, including many poor black residents of high-crime neighborhoods. Not surprisingly, these groups have accounted for the largest percentage growth in permit ownership over the past decade. Between 2015 and 2024, permits held by women grew 112% faster than those held by men, while permits held by black Americans grew 284% faster than those held by whites.

Real life is not the movies. Most women cannot overpower several larger, stronger men, no matter how well trained they are. Men also generally possess greater upper-body strength and speed.

A firearm changes that equation. It gives women a far more effective means of self-defense. If an attacker has already closed the distance enough to seize a woman’s firearm, she is already in grave danger regardless.

Peer-reviewed research finds that allowing concealed carry reduces murder rates for both men and women. The reduction for women, however, is roughly three to four times larger than the reduction for men.

The House will likely pass national reciprocity, but it faces a steeper challenge in the Senate. Breaking the expected Democratic filibuster will require 60 votes, meaning at least seven Democratic senators must cross party lines. Those senators need only examine their own states’ experience. Six states represented by 12 Democratic senators – Arizona, Georgia, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia – already recognize concealed handgun permits from every other state. None has seen a problem with reciprocity.

Police play an indispensable role in public safety. But around 700,000 officers cannot protect over 340 million Americans everywhere at once. Congress should ensure that law-abiding Americans do not lose their ability to defend themselves simply by crossing a state line.

John R. Lott Jr. is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. 

 

BLUF
The Iranian people are living with the nightmare consequences of a system in which the murderous regime possesses all the arms and citizens possess only courage. America’s founders chose another path.

At 250 years, the United States must remain vigilant and committed to protecting our God-given, constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms that is indispensable to preserving every other freedom Americans hold dear.

How Important Are Gun Rights? Ask an Average Iranian Citizen These Days.

The U.S. Constitution recognizes that individual rights don’t come from government. Government exists to protect rights endowed by our Creator. Among them is the right to keep and bear arms for self defense, and other lawful purposes.

That distinction isn’t merely academic. Across the world, citizens live under control of governments that deny them the means to defend themselves, their families and their freedom. Iran offers a chilling reminder of what happens when tyrannical governments disarm citizens and wield firepower on their own people.

Speaking with reporters last week during a meeting with North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Mark Rutte at the NATO Summit in Ankara, Turkey, President Donald Trump addressed the situation and interactions with the Iranian regime.

“I deal with these guys and I say, ‘This is from a different school. They’re liars. They’re cheats. They’re sick people. They’ve hurt their people. They killed 54,000 people as of now that were protesting,’” President Trump said, according to a report in The Hill. “You know, when people say, ‘How come they haven’t taken over,’ they can’t take over because they’re dead. They killed them. Nobody’s going to take over. They [Iranian citizens] have no guns and the other side has machine guns and they’re killing them. The press doesn’t report it. But they’re bad people. They’re bad people and uh, frankly I don’t want to waste my time with them.”

The numbers of Iranian citizens murdered by Iran’s rulers are still being counted, but President Trump identified the central truth that courage alone cannot overcome a government willing to use overwhelming force against a defenseless population.

An Armed Citizenry Secured America’s Freedom

America’s founders understood that danger firsthand. British troops marched toward Lexington and Concord in April 1775 to seize arms, ammunition and military supplies held by American colonists. Armed militia members stood in their path. The resulting confrontation ignited the American Revolution.

The colonists ultimately recognized they could not preserve their liberties while remaining subjects of King George III. They united, declared independence and fought to establish a nation in which government answered to the people.

That understanding was later secured in and protected by the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Founders did not grant that pre-existing common law right. They expressly protected it from future government interference.

Continue reading “”

The Urgent Case for Better Church Safety.

Sunday morning, July 5, 2026. St. John’s Lutheran Church in Effingham, Illinois, sat peaceful under a quiet sky. Volunteers had just begun to arrive to prepare for services. Just the ordinary rhythm of a house of worship going about its day. Then a man driving a stolen car slipped inside, asking for the pastor.

Church security didn’t blink. They noticed the out-of-state plates and saw the man approach. Safety team members made contact as he entered. The man asked for the pastor, but the safety volunteers sensed something was wrong. They called 911.

Police rolled in. There was a struggle. A gun was produced. One shot was fired. From the details it sounds like it might have been an attempted suicide. Either way, the intruder went down with life-threatening wounds. A few days later, he died of his injuries.

Thankfully no innocents were hit. No blood on the pews. No parents clawing through wreckage crying out for their kids. The pastor lived. Tragedy was averted, prevented by extraordinary vigilance.

Breathe easy? Not quite. Close your eyes and run the other reel.

Unlocked side doors. Nobody watching the parking lot or the doors. No radios calling out warnings.  Chaos explodes where hymns should rise. Gunfire shatters stained glass and the pastor and others go down. Children scream from the daycare area. Paramedics arrive to heartbreak. A community is gutted, forever asking, “Why didn’t we see it coming?”

That nightmare is one lazy policy choice away. Churches aren’t fortresses, they’re sanctuaries. Open doors, welcoming smiles, coffee and cookies. But evil doesn’t check the welcome sign. It walks right in.

FBI patterns show Sundays hosted the most active shooter incidents than any other day in 2022.  It shouldn’t surprise that Sundays reliably top the day for the most violent religious activity incidents pretty much every year. Barely half of Protestant churches have a real plan for such horrors.

Researching this, I initially found the number of churches with “church safety” as higher, but that’s because researchers counted the 21% of houses of worship with “No Firearms” policies as among those with safety programs. “Gun-Free Zone” signs have no preventative or survival value.

The rest? Hoping and praying. Winging it. That’s not faith. That’s playing Russian roulette with your flock.

Continue reading “”

Ohio: 116 School Districts Now Allow Armed Employees

Four years after Gov. Mike DeWine (R) signed legislation allowing school boards to choose to allow teachers and other employees to be armed, 116 school districts have chosen to allow armed employees for classroom defense.

WOWO reported that the figure of “116 school districts” is derived from state data “as of June 17.”

The Ohio Capital Journal noted that the 116 districts include “more than 70 Ohio school districts and 15 Christian schools…[with] staff members who are authorized to carry weapons on school grounds.”

Ohio Federation of Teachers President Melissa Cropper criticized the training requirements for the growing number of armed school employees, saying, “It’s not a sufficient amount of training. We’re talking about highly intense situations that require a lot of not only tactical training on how to use weapons, but how to deal with making split-second decisions.”

She did not provide an instance where an armed teacher or employee has harmed someone since the law was signed by DeWine.

Antwerp district superintendent Marty Miller explained that his district chose to arm teachers and employees because they are in a rural setting with a longer police response time.

He said, “It’s just letting the public know that your children are protected.”

This Is Why Some Want Your Guns

In 2023, Jason Aldean made waves with “Try That in a Small Town.” The song and accompanying video made it pretty clear that much of the lawlessness we see in American cities, particularly the political sort, such as riots, wouldn’t fly in small-town America. In fairness, it’s a good way to get your butt handed to you.

Whether or not you’re left alive to learn from your mistakes would directly depend on how stupid you were.

Of course, a lot of people on the left got very butthurt over it, claiming that the song was endorsing political violence, racism, and everything else they deem horrible in society…unless it’s them doing it.

The point, though, was that small towns didn’t play around, and since people are far more likely to be armed, their refusal to play around would not make them attractive places to try such shenanigans.

Well, someone on Reddit seemed to not get the memo, and it’s actually kind of funny.

It seems that the author hasn’t realized that rural Americans don’t rely on the police to protect them. If “The Revolution” were to start in small towns, what you’re going to see is something that will make the Battle of Athens look like a thumb-wrestling convention.

Sure, rural communities only have a couple of cops–my father, when he was chief in Leary, Georgia, had three officers at the department’s largest, and by the end, he was flying solo–but that’s because a lot of the time, the police are just there to draw the chalk line around the bad guy’s body.

What we need to understand, though, is that while this is just one rando on Reddit, where anyone can post anything, it represents what a lot of people would like to do.

Is it any wonder that these same people want to inflict gun control on the rest of the country? See, while right now, small-town America can generally handle itself just fine from a rampaging mob, the reason most people won’t bring up a “suggestion” like this is that the rural communities have the guns to fight back, even in states like California or New York.

Removing the guns from the equation is critical, especially as most people live in the cities, so even if they’re not part of this so-called revolution, they’re not going to be the ones impacted directly. They think that guns lead to the crime they see in their communities, so they support gun control with the misperception that it is a benefit to society.

The truth is that while not every gun control advocate is an authoritarian, every authoritarian favors gun control. Removing a civil liberty, though, is an inherently authoritarian act, and it can’t be successfully framed otherwise. Many try, but it fails simply because they can’t get away from the fact that it impacts the innocent far more than the guilty.

And, for those inclined to incite some communist “revolution” on the rest of the country, their masses must meet unarmed opposition. Guns are equalizers, and they can’t have that.

For now, it really is “Try That in a Small Town.”

If they get their way, though, make no mistake, they will. The fact that so many Democrats are swooning over “Democratic Socialists”–which are still just commies, but commies with sprinkles–suggests that more of them want to do this than we might otherwise suspect.

Luckily, Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization, and a group of them got a few centuries in prison for being lefty terrorists, which means anyone trying to do this is going to have a problem even before they get to Mayberry.

But if they make it there, the Second Amendment makes damn sure we can start stacking them before they can be offended by the fact.

Armed Americans: New Public Polling Reveals What the Firearm Industry Has Seen for Years

By Larry Keane

That loud sound you’re hearing is the collective jaws of gun control activists hitting the floor. They’re exasperated and can’t believe years of their antigun propaganda hasn’t worked. They are beside themselves that Americans would choose exercising the constitutional rights to keep and bear arms over backing more gun control restrictions and being lenient and soft on repeat criminals.

The polling also backs up recent reporting from big national media outlets revealing that antigun organizations and politicians have “conceded” that “gun control is no longer their top issue.”

“We know the political realities,” U.S. Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) recently told NOTUS. That “political reality” is that Americans don’t want more gun control.

That’s exactly what the firearm industry has seen over the past few years. And polling is now catching up.

The ‘New’ News

So, what’s all the “new” news? Recent survey data conducted in partnership between the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) and the well-respected polling firm The McLaughlin Group revealed Americans are significantly more likely to support and exercise their Second Amendment rights now than they were just 18 months ago. They are less likely to support increased gun control restrictions pushed by antigun activists.

Continue reading “”

Survey: More Americans Are Carrying Concealed Guns
Three in 10 Americans at least occasionally carry a firearm.

Firearms sales went through the roof during COVID and 2020’s social unrest as people scrambled to deal with a world that seemed to be coming apart at the seams. Previously thought of—with a great deal of exaggeration—as the domain of white male rural-dwellers, gun ownership became increasingly diverse as women and minorities acquired the means of self-defense. A recent survey finds that many people among the growing ranks of gun owners are carrying their tools for protection.

Concealed Carry Became More Common Since 2024

“In the survey, 13.2% carry all/most of the time, with another 16.6% carrying sometimes/rarely,” the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) announced last month of the results of a survey conducted by McLaughlin & Associates. “The percent who carry all or most [of] the time is virtually the same as the percent who carried similarly in December 2024. But the percent who carry at [least] some of the time or rarely has increase[d] by 5.4 percentage points (from 11.2% to 16.6%). So the total who are carrying increased by 5.5 percentage points (from 24.3% to 29.8%).”

Continue reading “”

What a graphic example for “Carry Spare Ammo, People!


Massachusetts Gun Laws Interfered With Armed Citizen’s Response to Mass Shooting

If Massachusetts gun laws worked as advertised, a convicted felon never would have been able to get his hands on a banned firearm and open fire on motorists driving down Cambridge’s busy Memorial Drive last month.

As we all saw, those laws failed to stop a prohibited person from accessing a prohibited firearm. They did, however, impede the armed citizen who helped put an end to the shooting alongside a Massachusetts state trooper.

How many times have we heard anti-gunners proclaim that “nobody needs 20 rounds to shoot a deer” or some such nonsense?

The reality is that when faced with a threat to human life, we need as many rounds as it takes to neutralize that threat. In Massachusetts, though, you get ten rounds per magazine at best.

Tyler Brown, the man accused of the shooting spree on Memorial Drive, allegedly fired about 60 rounds from the BCI Defense Model FF-15 he illegally possessed. The armed citizen who helped stop that shooting spree had just eight rounds for his Glock handgun.

“The witness is an experienced firearm ower with a license to carry, as he is an ex-Marine and used to be a firearm instructor,” the criminal complaint says.

The civilian said he saw a man with a long rifle, which he believeed looked like an AK-47, on foot in front of his vehicle. The civilian had a Glock 9mm pistol in a safe in the backseat of his vehicle, and retrieved it while covering himself. The former Marine said he fired all eight rounds from his gun and then moved to a tree for cover, telling other people to get back. he said he heard sirens, so he put his gun on the ground away from him.

The civilian said he heard two different calibers of gunfire going off, which he believed to be coming from a trooper and the suspect. He heard the shooter yelling something, but did not remember what is was, and he said the shooter eventually fell to the ground. Troopers rendered medical aid, and Brown was taken to Beth Israel Hospital.

As Swearer noted in a follow-up post on X, “once again the lesson is that while most incidents of armed self-defense don’t (strictly speaking) *require* the victim to fire more than 10 rounds, when the outliers occur, they are precisely the types of armed confrontations in which more than 10 rounds can make all the difference between life or death.”

Anti-gun activists can argue all they want that the “average” defensive gun use requires less than ten rounds, but they can’t guarantee that any of us will ever face an “average” situation where we need to use our firearm to protect ourselves or others. Most of us won’t ever pull the trigger of one of our guns in self-defense, but some of us will find ourselves in a situation where ten rounds simply isn’t enough.

That was the case in Cambridge, Massachusetts last month. Thankfully, the state trooper (who is exempt from the state’s ban on “large capacity” magazines) was able to return fire as well, and the two individuals shooting back at the assailant were able to stop his random attack. We can’t count on a cop rushing in to save the day, though… and in Massachusetts you can’t count on having a magazine large enough to help you survive an encounter with a violent predator who ignored the state’s restrictive gun laws and armed himself anyway.