Category: Safety

Best Self-Defense Tools? Um…I Don’t Know…How ‘Bout a Gun

Ok, so to start, I get that the article in question appeared in the New York Post, published in, of course New York City, where all things “guns” are strictly verboten, so a New Yorker is naturally going to get creative. But therein lies the problem: When trying to determine or write an article about the best self-defense tools available, there is clearly, one option that trumps all others. The others are nice, maybe even kinda cool. But none of them are a gun. A firearm in virtually any of its many designs and configurations is the best self-defense tool ever created by man and, some bumper sticker enthusiasts might argue, perfected by Samual Colt. In the game of rock, paper, scissors, if you added nuke, which would beat all the others combined, the gun plays that same role in a discussion of self-defense tools.

But, for shits and giggles, let’s play along for a minute.

So the Post article, “How to stay safe with some of the best self-defense tools on the market,” was a nice New York-safe (sort of, more on that in a minute) article by Emma Sutton-Williams. A quick look at Ms. Sutton-Williams’ bio reveals she is an ardent electric scooter rider, a proud dog mom to a designer breed of Mini Sheepadoodle (not sure what that really is though speculating it’s a super ineffective version of a tiny sheep dog mixed with some version of poodle and is likely infinitely cute and hypoallergenic) and is a Julliard-trained violinist (impressive). She is no doubt quite talented, rather smart, exceptionally cultured, fashionably attractive, a solid writer and likely has zero familiarity or knowledge of firearms.

So, she got creative and looked at the typical non-gun items that can be used to knock an attacker senseless or simply attack his (or her) senses. Here was the author’s premise:

“In a world where chaos has taken root, propelled by social media and broadcasted entertainment, we constantly feel its toll on our society. The atmosphere is charged with a fearful undertone, robbing us of tranquility, even joy, if we let it. The world has stopped listening to one another, causing a wake of public shaming, name-calling, and acts of violence.

“In an effort to make our readers feel as safe as possible, we researched the best self-defense tools and techniques to feel protected and empowered. Knowing how to shield yourself is crucial whether you’re walking alone at night or navigating crowded public spaces.”

The Post is doing a little what The Truth About Guns is doing. We want our readers to feel safer, too. We just take a more direct, reliable approach to promoting that safety.

Continue reading “”

Parting shots?

BLUF
This is what happens when you have a government run by coastal elites with little or no knowledge of how most of the country lives and works. OSHA will hold public hearings beginning this week on the impact of the new regs on small-town and rural volunteer fire departments.

New OSHA Emergency Response Standards Could Shutter 80% of Volunteer Fire Departments.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is seeking final approval for a massive overhaul of the “Fire Brigade Standard” that’s been in place for 50 years. The 608 pages of new rules, quite simply, would mean that about 80% of volunteer fire departments in the United States would be forced to cease operations.

“Over 85 percent of America’s fire departments are either volunteer or mostly volunteer. Nearly 700,000 of America’s 1,056,000 firefighters are volunteers or paid per call firefighters,” a group of lawmakers, led by Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Christopher Coons (D-Del.) said in a statement. “The proposed rule would apply to more workers than the existing standard and would require fire departments to furnish new reports, trainings, equipment, and health services.”

OSHA’s new standards would “increase training requirements, require more pre-planning for emergency situations, set stricter limits on the lifespan of some firefighting equipment, and impose more rigorous health screenings for [fire] fighters,” according to KCUR public radio.

For full-time firefighters, the new rules will save lives. Since the original Fire Brigade Standard was published, we’ve learned a great deal about carcinogens burned away in fires as well as toxic fumes that can lead to cardiovascular disease. Most firefighters who die while on the job do not die in fires but die of cancer and heart disease. A new standard is long overdue.

This is fine for big-city departments and other departments whose full-time firefighters are augmented by volunteers. But the new standards also cover other emergency employees who would be forced to go through training programs and other regulatory rigmarole that small towns and rural counties simply couldn’t afford.

Continue reading “”

Comparing the Global Rate of Mass Public Shootings to the U.S.’s Rate and Comparing Their Changes Over Time

The U.S. is well below the world average in terms of the number of mass public shootings, and the global increase over time has been much bigger than for the United States.

Over the 20 years from 1998 to 2017, our list contains 2,772 attacks and at least 5,764 shooters outside the United States and 62 attacks and 66 shooters within our country. By our count, the US makes up less than 1.13% of the mass public shooters, 1.77% of their murders, and 2.19% of their attacks. All these are much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population. Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than other countries, they are also much less deadly on average. Out of the 101 countries where we have identified mass public shootings occurring, the United States ranks 66th in the per capita frequency of these attacks and 56th in the murder rate.

Not only have these attacks been much more common outside the US, the US’s share of these attacks has declined over time. There has been a much bigger increase over time in the number of mass shootings in the rest of the world compared to the US.

ssrn-3671740

Country Singer Jay Allen Robbed at Gunpoint in East Nashville

Country singer Jay Allen has reconsidered his stance on gun ownership after being the victim of an armed robbery at an East Nashville grocery store.

The singer and former The Voice contestant opened up about the scary experience on social media, assuring fans that he’s “ok (besides being out a few bucks.)”

But what really distressed him wasn’t the loss of the money — it was the feeling of vulnerability and terror that stuck with him, even after the danger had passed.

“Even with having a muscular stature and being covered in tattoos, it didn’t matter,” Allen reflects. “He had a gun, and I didn’t. I felt helpless, taken advantage of, and mad at myself more than anything.”

In the wake of the incident, Allen says he made a big decision: To purchase a firearm for protection.

“I’ve always been on the fence about guns, but today I’m a proud new gun owner,” he continues. “It’s strictly for self-defense, and I will NEVER feel that way again.”

Allen also shared a closeup shot of his new pistol, as well as video of himself at a gun learning to use it.

I have only been to Minnesota twice. The first on a summer family vacation decades ago, and second, on a layover when flying to Alaska. Other than necessity required by the latter, I have no plans to ever visit that tyrant run state again

Is Your Private Vehicle a ‘Public Space’ When There’s a Gun Involved?

It’s an odd question stemming from an equally strange case, but that’s the question the Minnesota Supreme Court will soon answer after hearing oral arguments on Monday.

Back in 2022, a guy named Kyaw Be Bee was arrested for the misdemeanor charge of carrying a BB gun, rifle, or shotgun in a public place after police discovered a BB gun underneath the driver’s seat of Bee’s car. The deputy had become suspicious of Bee and another man when he spotted them standing near a vehicle in a parking lot around 2 a.m. Bee and his companion strolled back to their own vehicle when they became aware of the deputy, and once they drove away the deputy pulled them over, which is when he discovered the BB gun.

Bee’s attorney argued in a pre-trial hearing that a private vehicle should not be considered a public place and a judge agreed; dismissing the misdemeanor charge after reasoning that a private vehicle is not a public place, even when it’s on a public road.

Prosecutors appealed that decision and the Minnesota Court of Appeals found in their favor, ruling that private cars on public roads should be considered public spaces. Bee’s attorneys then appealed to the state Supreme Court, which heard from both sides yesterday.

“To focus the law on the method of transportation upon a public roadway, instead of the geographic area of the roadway itself, ignores the clear statutory text, renders portions of the statute ineffective, leads to absurd results and is therefore not reasonable,” Saint Paul city attorney Lyndsey Olson, who argued for the state, told justices Monday.

However Drake Metzger, an attorney for Bee, said the statute is “unambiguous” about what makes a space public.

The law defines public space as “property owned, leased, or controlled by a governmental unit and private property that is regularly and frequently open to or made available for use by the public.”

Lawmakers included exceptions for hunters; target shooters; people’s homes or business; and gun shows and shops.

What the law doesn’t address is whether or not a private vehicle is considered a public place; it simply says that if a gun is being transported in compliance with the law, the statute does not apply.

“At the end of the day, the inside of a motor vehicle is not a public space under this definition,” Metzger said Monday.

Metzger also argued that his client could have been charged with carrying without a license based on how the BB gun was stored in the vehicle, but accusing Bee of having a gun in a public place when it was in his car just doesn’t make sense given the language of the statute.

Olson, arguing for the state, saw it differently.

“I don’t think that this is saying that being in a motor vehicle inherently means that you’re in a public place,” Olson said. “It depends on the geographical place that the vehicle is on.”

Bee could have been charged with another crime as well, Olson said, public safety is at the root of gun laws.

“The consequences of a particular interpretation excluding vehicles on public roadways from public space could risk public safety by allowing the gun possession within vehicles without restriction,” she said.

The problem with Olson’s argument, at least from my perspective, is that it requires “interpreting” the statute instead of simply reading and adhering to the text. As Metzer says, the law in question defines what constitutes a public space, and while it does include some private property, that property must be “regularly and frequently open or made available for use by the public”. Your car, my truck, and (presumably) Bee’s vehicle aren’t open for use by the public, even when they’re on a public road, so how could they reasonably be considered public spaces?

Even if the Minnesota Supreme Court finds in favor of Bee (which, given the makeup of the court, is probably unlikely), as his own attorney pointed out, the state could still have charged Bee with improper storage of the BB gun. Whether that statute is constitutional under the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment is another question for another day, but when it comes to the question of whether a private vehicle is a public space, I think the answer is and should obviously be “no.”

The “Freedom From Fear” Ticket for Tyranny

The Democratic Party is championing presidential candidate Kamala Harris as a born-again champion of freedom. Earlier this year, Democrats shifted their focus from democracy to freedom, convinced that the latter word would enthrall voters on Election Day. Providing “freedom from fear” has become one of their most frequent political promises this past century.

Politicians routinely portray freedom from fear as the apex of freedom, higher than the initial freedoms buttressed by the Bill of Rights. While presidents have defined “freedom from fear” differently, the common thread is that it requires unleashing government agents. Reviewing almost a century of bipartisan scams on freedom from fear provides good cause to doubt the latest geyser of promises.

“Freedom from fear” first entered the American political lexicon thanks to a January 1941 speech by President Franklin Roosevelt. In that State of the Union address, he promised citizens freedom of speech and freedom of worship—two cornerstones of the First Amendment—and added socialist-style “freedom from want” and “freedom from fear.” FDR’s revised freedoms did not include freedom to dissent, since he said the government would need to take care of the “few slackers or trouble makers in our midst.” Nor did FDR’s improved freedoms include the freedom not be rounded up for concentration camps, as FDR ordered for Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor. Three years later, FDR amended his definition of freedom by championing a Universal Conscription Act to entitle government to the forced labor of any citizen.

Richard Nixon, in his acceptance speech at the 1968 Republican National Convention, promised, “We shall re-establish freedom from fear in America so that America can take the lead in re-establishing freedom from fear in the world.” Nixon asserted, “The first civil right of every American is to be free from domestic violence, and that right must be guaranteed in this country.” But with the Nixon scorecard, government violence didn’t count. He perpetuated the war in Vietnam, resulting in another 20,000 American soldiers pointlessly dying. On the homefront, he created the Drug Enforcement Administration and appointed the nation’s first drug czar. The FBI perpetuated its COINTELPRO program, carrying out “a secret war against those citizens it considers threats to the established order,” as a 1976 Senate report noted.

President George H.W. Bush told the National Baptist Convention on September 8, 1989, “Today freedom from fear…means freedom from drugs.” To boost public fear, a DEA informant arranged for a knucklehead to sell crack cocaine to an undercover narc in Lafayette Park across from the White House. Bush invoked the sell a few days later to justify a national crackdown. He informed the American Legion, “Today I want to focus on one of those freedoms: freedom from fear—the fear of war abroad, the fear of drugs and crime at home. To win that freedom, to build a better and safer life, will require the bravery and sacrifice that Americans have shown before and must again.”

Foremost among the sacrifices that Bush demanded was that of traditional liberties. His administration vastly expanded federal power to arbitrarily seize Americans’ property and increased the role of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement. In a 1992 speech dedicating a new DEA office building, Bush declared, “I am delighted to be here to salute the greatest freedom fighters any nation could have, people who provide freedom from violence and freedom from drugs and freedom from fear.” The DEA’s own crime sprees, corruption, and violence were not permitted to impede Bush’s rhetorical victory lap.

On May 12, 1994, President Bill Clinton declared, “Freedom from violence and freedom from fear are essential to maintaining not only personal freedom but a sense of community in this country.” Clinton banned so-called assault weapons and sought to ban thirty-five million semi-automatic firearms. Gun bans in response to high crime rates mean closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. Citizens would presumedly have nothing to fear after they were forced to abjectly depend on government officials for their own survival. During Clinton’s first term, public housing authorities began mass warrantless searches of apartments to confiscate guns and other banned items. Clinton slammed a federal court ruling blocking the unconstitutional raids. When he visited the Chicago housing projects, Clinton declared, “The most important freedom we have in this country is the freedom from fear. And if people aren’t free from fear, they are not free.” In Clinton’s view, public housing residents had no right to fear the federally-funded housing police storming into their apartments.

In February 1996, Clinton, seeking conservative support for his reelection campaign, endorsed forcing children to wear uniforms at public schools. Clinton justified the fashion dictate: “Every one of us has an obligation to work together, to give our children freedom from fear and the freedom to learn.” But, if mandatory uniforms were the key to ending violence, Postal Service employees would have a lower homicide rate.

Senator Bob Dole, the 1996 Republican presidential nominee, repeatedly promised voters “freedom from fear” via crackdowns on crime. How did Dole intend to provide “freedom from fear”? By proclaiming that “we must…untie the hands of the police.” Dole did not specify exactly how many no-knock raids would be necessary to restore domestic tranquility.

George W. Bush, like his father, alternated promises of “freedom from fear” with shameless fearmongering. Prior to election day 2004, the Bush administration continually issued terror attack warnings based on flimsy or no evidence. The New York Times derided the Bush administration in late October for having “turned the business of keeping Americans informed about the threat of terrorism into a politically scripted series of color-coded scare sessions.” Yet each time a terror alert was issued, the president’s approval rating rose temporarily by roughly three percent, according to a Cornell University study. The Cornell study found a “halo effect”: the more terrorists who wanted to attack America, the better job Bush was supposedly doing. People who saw terrorism as the biggest issue in the 2004 election voted for Bush by a 6-to-1 margin.

The most memorable Bush campaign ad, released a few weeks before the election, opened in a thick forest, with shadows and hazy shots complementing the foreboding music. After vilifying Democratic candidate John Kerry, the ad showed a pack of wolves reclining in a clearing. The voiceover concluded, “And weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm” as the wolves began jumping up and running toward the camera. At the end of the ad, the president appeared and announced, “I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message.” One liberal cynic suggested that the ad’s message was that voters would be eaten by wolves if Kerry won. The Bush ad spurred protests by the equivalent of the Lobo Anti-Defamation League. Pat Wendland, the manager of Wolves Offered Life and Friendship, a Colorado wolf refuge, Colorado, complained, “The comparison to terrorists was insulting. We have worked for years, teaching people that Little Red Riding Hood lied.”

Bush’s campaign to terrify voters into granting him four more years to rule America and much of the world did not deter him from announcing a few months later in his State of the Union address, “We will pass along to our children all the freedoms we enjoy, and chief among them is freedom from fear.” This was back when the mainstream media was continuing to hail Bush as a visionary idealist, prior to the collapse of his credibility on the Iraq war, torture, and other debacles.

President Joe Biden milked “freedom from fear” in a Pennsylvania speech earlier this year on what he labeled “the third anniversary of the Insurrection at the United States Capitol.” Biden revealed plans to turn the November election into a referendum on Adolf Hitler, accusing Donald Trump of “echoing the same exact language used in Nazi Germany.” CNN reported that Biden campaign aides planned to go “full Hitler” on Trump. Biden spent half an hour fearmongering and then closed by promising “freedom from fear.” This was the famous Biden two-step—demagoguing to his heart’s content and then closing with a few schmaltzy uplift lines, entitling the media to re-christen him as an idealist.

Biden did not survive the Democrats’ version of the Night of the Long Knives and Vice President Kamala Harris has been designated the party’s presidential flagbearer. Harris painted with an even broader brush than most politicians. At a Juneteenth Concert this summer, she condemned Republicans for “a full-on attack” on “the freedom from fear of bigotry and hate.” Harris implied that politicians could wave a psychological magic wand to banish any bias in perpetuity. How can anyone have “freedom from fear of bigotry” unless politicians become entitled to perpetually control everyone’s thoughts?

In August, the Democratic National Convention whooped up freedom in ways that would qualify as “authentic frontier gibberish,” as the 1974 movie Blazing Saddles would say. A campaign video promised “freedom from control, freedom from extremism and fear.” So Americans won’t have true freedom until politicians forcibly suppress any idea they label as immoderate? The Democratic Party platform warned, “Reproductive freedom, freedom from hate, freedom from fear, the freedom to control our own destinies and more are all on the line in this election.” But the whole point of politics nowadays is to preempt individuals from controlling their own destinies. Regardless, a Time magazine headline hailed “How Kamala Harris Took ‘Freedom’ Back from the GOP.”

“Freedom from fear” is the ultimate political blank check. The more people government frightens, the more legitimate dictatorial policies become. Pledging “freedom from fear” entitles politicians to seize power over anything that frightens anyone. Giving politicians more power based on people’s fears is like giving firemen pay raises based on how many false alarms they report.

Politicians’ promises of “freedom from fear” imply that freedom properly understood is a risk-free, worry-free condition. It is the type of promise that a mother would make to a young child. Freedom is now supposedly something that exists only in the womb of government paternalism. “Freedom from fear” is to be achieved by trusting everything that politicians say and surrendering everything that politicians demand. New Mexico Governor Michelle Grisham epitomized that mindset when she proclaimed at the Democratic National Convention, “We need a president who can be Consoler-in-Chief. We need a president capable of holding us in a great big hug.” And continuing to hold us until we formally become psychological wards of the state?

“Freedom from fear” offers freedom from everything except the government. Anyone who sounds the alarm about excessive government power will automatically be guilty of subverting freedom from fear. Presumably, the fewer inviolable rights the citizen has, the better government will treat him. But as John Locke warned more than 300 years ago, “I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my Liberty, would not when he had me in his Power, take away everything else.”

Why not simply offer voters “freedom from the Constitution”? “Freedom from fear” means security via mass delusions about the nature of political power. Painting the motto “freedom from fear” on shackles won’t make them easier to bear. Perhaps our ruling class should be honest and replace the Bill of Rights with a new motto: “Political buncombe will make you free.”

Hunter kills charging grizzly bear in self-defense near Mule Meadows

CARIBOU-TARGHEE NATIONAL FOREST, Idaho – A hunter faced a life-threatening encounter with a sow grizzly bear on October 26 while elk hunting north of Kilgore, near Mule Meadows.

The hunter was walking through thick timber when a grizzly unexpectedly emerged and ran directly at him. The hunter used his hunting rifle to shoot the bear. It did not make contact with the hunter.

The hunter immediately reported the incident to the Clark County Sheriff’s Office. Forest Service Law Enforcement and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game responded.

After an investigation, officials say the hunter acted in self-defense during the surprise encounter with the bear.

Grizzly bears, protected under state and federal law, are common in the Greater Yellowstone area and parts of northern Idaho. They occasionally venture as far south as the Grangeville and Salmon areas in central Idaho.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game emphasizes the importance of safety when hunting in grizzly territory. They advise hunters to carry bear spray, hunt with companions, and communicate plans with each other.

Hunters should be vigilant for grizzly bear signs, such as fresh tracks. They should also retrieve meat quickly and hang meat, food, and garbage at least 200 yards from camp and 10 feet off the ground. To avoid startling a bear, they should make noise, especially near creeks and thick vegetation, as most attacks occur when a bear is surprised at close range.

Hawkins: Self-Defense Is the ‘Central Component’ of the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment references a militia, “the security of a free State,” and two specific rights–the right to possess arms and the right to carry them–and all of this is bound together by a general, overarching right to self-defense.

To put it simply, the Second Amendment is multi-faceted.

It is multi-faceted in the following ways: It makes clear the importance of the people being able to come together in militia, noting that such a militia must be “well regulated.” In other words, that militia must be well ordered. It warns that “the security of a free state” rests on the reality and performance of such a militia and then points specifically to the people’s right to “keep” arms and to “bear” arms, that is, the right to possess arms and to carry them.

Despite the numerous and different aspects of the Second Amendment, it remains simple to understand because all the aspects of it are held together by a central component, and that component is self-defense.

In the majority opinion for McDonald v. Chicago (2010), United States Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito wrote, “Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.”

I like to present it this way when speaking to groups and organizations around the country: “Self-defense is the hinge on which the door of the Second Amendment swings.”

What does this mean for the American people? It means that while the Second Amendment protects guns, it protects other tools that can be used for self-defense as well. The “central component” of the Second Amendment is not a 9mm pistol or a .357 Magnum revolver, but the right to defend one’s own life and liberty with whatever tools are in common use for such defense in each period of America’s existence.

For example, the Massachusetts Supreme Court recently struck down that state’s ban on switchblades and issued an opinion which said, in part, “While both Heller and Bruen involved handguns, Second Amendment protections subsume more than just firearms.”

Your life is your most valuable possession, and the Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment in place to protect your right to defend that life. The vast majority of Americans believe a firearm is the best way to protect their lives, and the Second Amendment has them covered. A number of other Americans believe a knife or other tool is the best means for protecting their lives, and the Second Amendment has them covered as well.

Despite Democrats’ Best Efforts, a New Generation Discovers the Joys of Shooting

Colorado’s lurch to the left over the past couple of decades has led to repeated attacks on lawful gun owners and the right to keep and bear arms, but despite their best efforts, Democrats haven’t managed to destroy a culture of responsible gun ownership.

In fact, in Lake County, Colorado, interest in the shooting sports has led to the creation of the county’s first ever high school trap shooting team.

The team was formed after students expressed interest in having a local trap shooting program. One of those students was senior Raymond Harvey, who previously had to travel to Buena Vista to participate in the sport.

“I started attempting to get a team up here my freshman year,” Harvey said in sharing his determination in bringing the sport to Leadville. “I contacted the athletic director at the time. Then we got a new athletic director, and I worked with Jake, and we finally got a team up here.”

Now, trapshooting is an official club sport at Lake County High School and counts as an extracurricular just like football or any other sport. [Head Coach Jake] Farber said the team is also integrating with 4-H and partnering with the Amateur Trapshooting Association (ATA) and the Scholastic Clay Target Program for special events.

It’s great to see another high school embrace shooting sports, and it’s even better that the push came from students like Raymond Harvey.

“Trap shooting is one of the fastest-growing female sports,” Josh Homer said. “It’s great because it’s a nice integrated sport where males and females compete right next to each other and still have a great time.”

He also emphasized that trap shooting is the safest high school sport.

“Year after year, it ranks as the safest, with very few accidents,” Josh Homer said. “We really emphasize firearm safety and proper conduct.”

Students interested in joining don’t need their own firearm. The Ascent Opportunity Development Division (AODD), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, provides shotguns for participants who don’t have their own. The provided gun is a single-shot break-open model to ensure safety. If a student decides to purchase their own firearm, AODD can assist in choosing the right one.

Who could be opposed to this? Even gun control activists should be okay with high school trap teams. After all, Tim Walz an out-and-proud trap shooter and hunter, and that didn’t stop virtually every gun control group in the country from endorsing him and self-proclaimed gun owner Kamala Harris. If there’s any gun-related activity that groups like Giffords, Brady, and Everytown find acceptable, it has to be trap shooting, right?

Wrong.

“The NRA’s influence concerns Kris Brown, president of Brady, the national gun-violence prevention group. “I look at anything funded by the National Rifle Association with a jaundiced eye, because about 30 years ago they stopped talking publicly about any risks associated with firearms,” she said. “In this country, suicide with a firearm is at a 40-year high, and that is particularly true with teenagers.”

Brown claims not to have a problem with the shooting sports, but if there’s any involvement by the NRA or other Second Amendment groups then there’s an issue. I’m honestly surprised that Brady and other anti-gunners haven’t complained more about 4-H’s shooting sports programs, but maybe we just need to give them a little more time.

Youth shooting sports programs are apolitical in nature, but the anti-gunners still view them as a gateway to Second Amendment activism. They can’t stand the idea of kids learning how to be safe and responsible with firearms while also having a truly great day at the range. But while they complain about the NRA and other groups promoting youth shooting sports, the programs themselves keep growing in popularity… even in those places where responsible gun culture is under sustained assault.

NYC’s Gun-Detecting Subway Scanners Produced Dozens of False Positives, But Found Zero Guns

When embattled New York Mayor Eric Adams announced the trial rollout of gun-detecting machines at about 20 subway stations across the five boroughs earlier this year, he said he was impressed by the results of previous tests and predicted the use of the machines would soon become “the norm” across the subway system.As it turns out, the machines have been a bust. As ABC News reports, the machines failed to detect a single gun, but they did produce dozens of false positives.

Through nearly 3,000 searches, the scanners turned up more than 118 false positives as well as 12 knives, police said, though they declined to say whether the positive hits referred to illegal blades or tools, such as pocket knives, that are allowed in the transit system.

Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat and tech enthusiast, announced plans to pilot the portable scanners, manufactured by Evolv, at a handful of subway stations this past summer in an effort to deter violence within the subway system.

The announcement drew skepticism from some riders and civil liberties groups, who argued it was neither feasible nor constitutional to scan millions of riders who enter the subway system through hundreds of entrances each day. Violent crime is rare in the system, though the announcement came on the back of two high-profile shooting incidents.

After Adams promised for months to make the results of the test public, the New York Police Department released a four-sentence statement Wednesday night noting it had performed 2,749 scans at 20 stations during the 30-day period. In total, there were 118 false positives — a rate of 4.29%.

It’s entirely possible that none of the nearly 3,000 riders who were subject to a scan were carrying a gun. In fact, given that the subway system is supposed to be a “gun-free zone”, and lawful concealed carry holders are still few and far between in the Big Apple more than two years after the Bruen decision, I’d say that’s actually a likely scenario.

But even if Evolv can detect guns that are being carried (an open question, to be sure), it also produces a significant number of false positives. Adams said earlier this year that he wants the Evolv machines to be used at every subway station, and for every rider. According to the Metropolitan Transit Authority, which oversees the subway system, there are about 3.6 million riders on weekdays. A 4.29% false positive rate would equate to more than 150,000 false positives every day. That’s utterly insane, and completely unworkable.

The bigger issue, of course, is that New York City’s public transportation shouldn’t be “gun-free zones” to begin with. It’s the primary way millions of New Yorkers navigate the city during the course of their daily routine, and preventing lawful concealed carry on buses and trains means countless residents are unable to lawfully exercise their right to bear arms, even if they have a valid carry permit.

Now that NYC’s subway scanners have proved to a bust, it’s the perfect time for the city to revisit its designation of public transit as a “sensitive place”. I know that won’t happen, but if criminals are still bringing weapons onto trains and buses, the growing number of legally armed citizens should at least be able to do the same without fear of a felony charge and several years in prison.

When Stalled By A Violent Riots, Stationary Vehicles Are Death Traps

“Safe” Inside a Stationary Vehicle?

Two weeks ago, on I90 near Cleveland, OH, the entire freeway was blocked, taken over, and completely shut down for more than an hour by a mob of street thugs who then accosted stalled motorists. No escape was allowed!

Frantic 911 calls from stranded motorists were answered with a voicemail recording!

Many naively believe they are “safe” within a locked vehicle, but auto glass represents only a “symbolic” barrier. It is easily shattered. Thus, when inside a vehicle, your only safety lies in motion! So long as you’re moving, escape from criminal violence is possible.

This is why “street takeovers,” like the one described above, are so dangerous!

When you are inside a vehicle that isn’t moving and blocked in so you can’t move, you are in extreme peril from mobs of street criminals, the very ones who manufacture the street takeover, to begin with, in an effort to trap hapless victims!

When stalled by a violent riot, stationary vehicles are death traps!

When approaching a manufactured traffic jam, turn around as quickly as you can (driving across the median when necessary) and rapidly exit, going the other direction.

We’ll see many of these incidents, mostly around metro areas, in the coming weeks and surely immediately after the election.

Arrests are rarely made, so overwhelmed police have few tactics that are effective in preventing these dangerously obstructive/paralyzing riots. Most will go on for hours, maybe days, with no effective police intervention.

Trapped victims will be at the mercy of violent mobsters, who have little to worry about.

Extreme caution, as well as adequate personal preparation, are the order of the day!

“Caution comes too late when we are in the midst of evils.” ~ Walter Scott.

FPC WIN: Federal Judge Blocks New York Carry Ban

BUFFALO, N.Y. (October 10, 2024) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that the United States District Court for the Western District of New York has granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in FPC’s Christian v. James lawsuit, permanently enjoining the state’s law banning guns on all publicly-open private property without express consent of the owner, and denied the state’s request for a stay of that decision. The opinion can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/boron.

“This is yet another important victory for Second Amendment rights and another major loss for New York, authoritarian governments, and radical anti-rights organizations like Everytown and Giffords. We will continue to fight forward as we work to restore the full scope of the right to keep and bear arms throughout the United States. Hopefully Kathy Hochul is ready to write another check for legal fees,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.

Just yesterday, New York Governor Kathy Hochul said that, after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, the State “doubled down” on its anti-rights agenda. In a statement yesterday, she said that “[the State] came up with legislation. And we have a prohibition on concealed carry weapons in sensitive places. I personally think every place is sensitive[.]” However, today’s decision again shows that Governor Hochul couldn’t be more wrong.

“Regulation in this area is permissible only if the government demonstrates that the new enactment is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations. New York fails that test here,” the Court said in its opinion today. “Indeed, property owners have the right to exclude. But the state may not unilaterally exercise that right and, thereby, interfere with the long-established Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who seek to carry for self-defense on private property open to the public.”

DeSantis Declares No Orders for Closing Gun Stores Ahead of Milton

If Hurricane Helene was all we had to deal with, that would have been plenty for the year. Unfortunately, now Florida is bracing for Milton, which is expected to reach category four status and then slam into the state.

With all the death and devastation hitting a part of the country that pretty much never has to worry about hurricanes, a lot of stories have gotten lost in the shuffle. We covered the situation in Okeechobee, Florida where the police chief illegally decreed that gun stores must be closed. No one stopped what they were doing because of the decree, mind you, and it wasn’t enforced–the chief says it was a mistake that shouldn’t have happened–but it was still a thing.

Gov. Ron DeSantis is taking steps to make sure that doesn’t happen again.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has issued an emergency declaration ahead of  Hurricane Milton that prohibits Emergency Management Director Kevin Guthrie from exercising his authority to suspend or limit gun sales.

The preemption of Guthrie’s authority is unprecedented and even highlighted in the news release that went out with the executive order declaring an emergency:…

Florida law allows the emergency management director to prohibit citizens from carrying guns and selling guns and ammunition during an emergency, but Guthrie has not taken such action as far as available records show.

Except that it doesn’t.

It provides for emergency management directors to prohibit the carrying and selling of firearms when there have been acts of violence or defiance of lawful authority. That simply doesn’t exist here, so no, Guthrie doesn’t actually have the authority to do so. The fact that he hasn’t doesn’t mean he won’t, and after what happened to Okeechobee, well, DeSantis is taking steps to make sure it doesn’t happen this time.

“But this is unprecedented!” the writers declare.

Sure, it’s unprecedented, but that’s because no one figured they needed to spell it out specifically before. Prior to Okeechobee, no one in Florida thought that someone would try to prohibit the lawful carry of a firearm or the sale of one in the lead-up to a hurricane. Sure, I could see them doing it during a riot or some kind of uprising, but for a storm?

Yet someone did, and DeSantis clearly wants to make sure there’s not a repeat.

Yes, officials said it was a mistake, that they didn’t mean to sign any such order and it was never enforced, and so on. That doesn’t mean someone else won’t try to do it simply because they don’t like guns.

I don’t think Guthrie would do so–he was appointed to his job by DeSantis, so, probably, he’s not exactly a gun control enthusiast–but this also shields him from criticism if something goes sideways and someone gets shot during the storm or the immediate aftermath. It’s unlikely we’ll see widespread violence or anything, but we also know how the news media gets.

No, DeSantis did the right thing and media hysterics are nothing but an attempt to try and pretend this is something that it’s not.

People need to be able to buy guns right up until the stores close because the stores’ management decides its time to close. DeSantis making sure there’s no repeat of Helene and Okeechobee is just good sense.

Comment O’ The Day:
If they were innocent, they would’ve called in about being shot at

Investigation underway after shots fired at Burnet County church
According to the Burnet County Sheriff’s Office, a member of the church’s volunteer security team fired multiple rounds during the incident.

BURNET COUNTY, Texas — Law enforcement is investigating after an incident at a Burnet County church on Sunday morning where multiple shots were fired.

According to the Burnet County Sheriff’s Office, deputies responded to the Church at the Epicenter at 2401 N. U.S. 281 around 10:30 a.m. after a 911 call. A man reportedly called 911 and requested police at the church before hanging up.

Deputies arriving on the scene determined a member of the church’s volunteer security team had fired shots.

The church member told deputies he had confronted two suspicious men outside the church, and one of them presented a rifle. The church member allegedly fired multiple rounds, causing both men to enter a white minivan and flee the scene, driving northbound on U.S. 281.

There are no known injuries at this time.

The Lampasas Police Department said it has called in additional staff and supervision to patrol the city and churches.

“We have coordinated with other local law enforcement agencies to be on high alert and ready to deter or respond immediately to any incidents that might occur,” the department said.

The Burnet County Sheriff’s Office is working with state and federal agencies on the investigation.

No other information is available at this time.

Local law enforcement agencies reassure residents after reports of attempted shooting at church in Burnet County

(KWTX) – Multiple local law enforcement agencies are reassuring residents after reports of an attempted shooting at a church in Burnet County.

The Burnet County Sheriff’s Office says on Oct. 6, at around 10:30 a.m., deputies were sent to the Church at the Epicenter in reference to a welfare check after an unknown 911 call.

Burnet County Sheriff’s Office says dispatched informed deputies that a man called 911, provided the address of the church, requested police and then disconnected.

When deputies arrived, authorities say it was clear shots were fired and that all shots fired came from a member of the church’s volunteer safety team.

The safety team member told deputies that he found two suspicious men outside the church, and one of the men had a rifle with him, according to the Burnet County Sheriff’s Office.

Shortly after, the Burnet County Sheriff’s Office says the safety team member shot multiple rounds, causing the two men to enter a white minivan and flee the scene northbound on US 281.

After hearing about the incident, multiple law enforcement agencies across Central Texas took to social media to reassure their residents of precautions they’re taking to keep residents safe.

The Bosque County Sheriff’s Office says their deputies routinely patrol church parking lots during services in Bosque County but in light of the incident advise having additional people and security teams to increase the likelihood of potential threats being deterred.

They encourage church leaders and security teams to review their safety plan and step up security efforts moving forward.

Additionally, the Lampasas Police Department took to Facebook to inform residents that no related incidents occurred in or around their city, but that police will remain on high alert throughout Sunday afternoon.

Lampasas police say out of caution they called in additional staff to patrol the city, specifically churches, and have coordinated with other law enforcement to be on high alert should any incidents occur.

Judge Refuses to Block Concealed Carry on Public Transportation

A United States District Court judge refused to stay an injunction against an Illinois law blocking the carrying of firearms on public transportation.

Last month, in a case brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that the Illinois law banning firearms from being carried on public transportation by concealed carry holders was unconstitutional. The judge granted an injunction to the plaintiffs, blocking the enforcement of the law. Illinois vowed to appeal the judge’s ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Illinois would then ask U.S. District Court Judge Iain D. Johnston to stay his ruling pending an appeal by the defendants to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The state tried to appeal to the judge’s emotions by citing a recent shooting on public transportation, but this move would backfire. Only days after the judge’s decision, a person shot and killed someone on local public transit. The state tried to exploit the situation to prove how dangerous public transportation is without its restrictive laws against carrying concealed firearms.

The judges asked the defendants if the person who did the shooting was a concealed permit holder. The state could not answer the judge’s simple question. The judge was unhappy with the state’s lack of knowledge and read them the riot act. If the shooter didn’t have a concealed carry permit, he would have been in violation of the law, no matter if the judge sided with the state and never issued an injunction. The shooter turned out not to be a concealed firearms permit holder. Instead of the judge being swayed by the state’s argument to issue a stay, it seemed to make the Trump appointee even more determined not to give into the state’s demands.

Illinois tried to argue about interest balancing and why it should get a stay. Interest balancing weighs the rights of the people against the wishes of the state. Illinois tried to argue that “public safety” outweighed an individual right to bear arms. In the past, states would use this defense to push back against lawsuits filed by pro-gun organizations. States stopped using the tactic after the Supreme Court’s Bruen opinion. In that case, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas said that the “Second Amendment is not a second-class right.” SCOTUS stated that courts could not use interest balancing in determining if a law was constitutional. Only the history, tradition, and original text of the Second Amendment from the founding era can be used by the courts to decide if a gun law is constitutional.

The Illinois law was a response to the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. It seemed like the state, through its argument for a stay, was once again thumbing its nose at the high court and its conservative majority. Even if a district judge is a liberal who disagrees with the opinion of SCOTUS, they are still bound by its ruling because the District Court is inferior to the Supreme Court.

For now, Illinois will remain enjoined from enforcing its concealed carry ban on public transportation. The state is expected to go to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the judge’s ruling. This case taught lawyers everywhere that emotions cannot persuade some judges and that those judges will stand firmly behind the Constitutional rights of Americans.

‘We never have anything ever happen in this neighborhood, ever.’

Normalcy Bias:
The normalcy bias describes our tendency to underestimate the possibility of disaster and believe that life will continue as normal, even in the face of significant threats or crises.

The Graham Combat Killhouse Rules:
1. NOBODY IS COMING TO SAVE YOU.
2. EVERYTHING IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY
3. SAVE WHO NEEDS TO BE SAVED.
4. KILL WHO NEEDS TO BE KILLED.
5. ALWAYS BE WORKING.

Neighbors share concern after police say homeowner shoots intruder in southwest Las Vegas

LAS VEGAS (KLAS) – Several neighbors shared their concern with 8 News Now Thursday after police said a person shot and killed a man trying to break into their home in the southwest Las Vegas valley.

“I was shocked,” Jennifer Sauberan said. “Because it’s a very quiet neighborhood.”

Sauberan, who told 8 News Now she has lived in her neighborhood near Torrey Pines Drive and Flamingo Drive for decades, was startled by a crime scene on her street.

“I was just thinking oh my God what if I hadn’t come back the night before?” Sauberan said. “It could have been my house.”

During a news conference, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Homicide Lieutenant Jason Johansson said the homeowner called 911 around 7:40 a.m. stating that a strange man was breaking windows, trying to get inside their house.

“The man was not listening to what they were telling him,” Lt. Johansson explained. “He was acting extremely irrational as they continued to tell him to leave the property.” Lt. Johansson said that’s when the man moved toward the front door and the homeowner pulled the trigger.

Officers found that man in the driveway with a gunshot wound. He later died at the hospital.

Several neighbors shared their concern with 8 News Now Thursday after police said a person shot and killed a man trying to break into their home in the southwest valley. (KLAS)
“We want to see in a situation like this,” Lt. Johansson explained of the investigation. “Where did he come from? How did he get here?”

As detectives work to piece together why this happened, Sauberan told 8 News now she will continue to do what she can to stay safe.

“I have cameras around my house now,” she explained. “I put them up more recently, but then I put in flood lights and stuff because it makes me a little bit nervous sometimes.”

Sauberan said she hopes things in the area go back to what she’s used to seeing. “It was so unexpected,” she concluded of the shooting. ‘We never have anything ever happen in this neighborhood, ever.”

Lt. Johansson said during Thursday’s news conference that there are ‘self-defense’ elements in this case.

He said he does not believe the homeowner will face charges, but the investigation is ongoing and the Clark County District Attorney will make that determination.