Category: Safety

Observations:
“generalized estimating equation estimates”
Translation (even with the statistical word salad definition) it still comes to: There’s actually no way to figure this out, so I’ll make my SWAG look good on paper

John Lott (more guns/less crime) was right, but they couldn’t let that be confirmed, so they kept torturing the statistics hoping for something different, but the best they could come up with was that gun sales don’t have any effect on crime rates.

Legal Firearm Sales at State Level and Rates of Violent Crime, Property Crime, and Homicides

Journal of Surgical Research, Volume 281, January 2023, Pages 143-154

Abstract

Introduction

The effects of firearm sales and legislation on crime and violence are intensely debated, with multiple studies yielding differing results. We hypothesized that increased lawful firearm sales would not be associated with the rates of crime and homicide when studied using a robust statistical method.

Methods

National and state rates of crime and homicide during 1999-2015 were obtained from the United States Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Instant Criminal Background Check System background checks were used as a surrogate for lawful firearm sales. A general multiple linear regression model using log event rates was used to assess the effect of firearm sales on crime and homicide rates. Additional modeling was then performed on a state basis using an autoregressive correlation structure with generalized estimating equation estimates for standard errors to adjust for the interdependence of variables year to year within a particular state.

Results

Nationally, all crime rates except the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–designated firearm homicides decreased as firearm sales increased over the study period. Using a naive national model, increases in firearm sales were associated with significant decreases in multiple crime categories. However, a more robust analysis using generalized estimating equation estimates on state-level data demonstrated increases in firearms sales were not associated with changes in any crime variables examined.

Conclusions

Robust analysis does not identify an association between increased lawful firearm sales and rates of crime or homicide.

Based on this, it is unclear if efforts to limit lawful firearm sales would have any effect on rates of crime, homicide, or injuries from violence committed with firearms.

Continue reading “”

Is There Anything We can do to Stop Mass Murderers in the United States?

That question comes to mind since President Biden recently claimed we need to massively disarm honest US citizens in order to stop mass-murderers. Instead of accepting the President’s words at face value, I looked at what the experts say. There are many questions we might ask and lots of facts we can consider. We do many things today to stop violence in the US. There is more we could do, and this is what I found;

  • We stop several thousand violent events every day.
  • The United States is about average in its rate of mass murder.
  • We stop more than half of the attempted mass murderers who attack where honest citizens are allowed to go armed.
  • Most mass murderers go through a predictable process, and we ignored warning signs time after time.
  • We should stop making the murderers into overnight celebrities, but that is hard to do.

A Walmart employee murdered several of his co-workers in Virginia. That happened a few weeks ago. President Biden then commented that,

“[T]he idea we still allow semi automatic weapons to be purchased is sick.  It’s just sick.  It has no, no social redeeming value. Zero. None. Not a single, solitary rationale for it except profit for the gun manufacturers.”

The president’s comment sounds bizarre given what we know. We know that more than 5,000 ordinary US citizens use a firearm to protect themselves from a serious threat every day. Stopping that much assault, robbery, rape and murder every day sounds like an immense socially redeeming value to me. The president obviously disagrees.

That level of armed defense shouldn’t come as news. We’ve seen similar reports for the last few decades. The data is broadly consistent, including a report from the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention that was commissioned by the Obama Administration.

All of us are biased, but we have good reason to be. We think that what we see in the news gives us a representative picture of what is happening in the world overall. It feels that way to us, but in truth there is a lot of news that goes unreported by our local news stations. Our news media covers a mass murder in the US for days but they only cover a mass murder that happened in another country for a few minutes. That distorts our thinking about where violence happens.

Continue reading “”

Who In the US Is Objectively Racist? The Left. As the Data Show Definitively.

Joe Biden and the Democrats keep gunning for your guns. Research like this is a major part of their argument. What it shows–definitively–is that it isn’t guns. It’s a particular social pathology enabled by a social psychosis that reached epidemic proportions in 2020. The data are irrefutable.

One graphic tells the tale:

The increase in gun homicides documented in the Emory University study is attributable almost exclusively to one factor: a nearly 60 percent increase in homicide fatalities among black men. Not over a period of many years–but in a little over one year.

And what year was that? 2020. And what happened in 2020? The death of George Floyd, and the subsequent revelation that black lives especially matter.

Yes, but not in the way intended. Not by a long shot. That death and revelation brought in its train myriad consequences. Defund the police. The war on cash bail and the release of numerous criminals. The demoralization of police, who were instructed explicitly and implicitly that arresting black male offenders was a career risk, and the subsequent surrender of the streets to the thugs. And on and on. (The release of many from jail because of COVID didn’t help either.)

This is as close to a natural experiment as can exist in social science. An exogenous shock–the death of one man–leads to a tectonic shift in law enforcement, especially with regards to a particular demographic. The result?: a hyperbolic increase in homicide rates in that demographic. (I note that the previous uptick observable in the chart in 2014 corresponds to the proto-Floyd event, the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, which was the catalyst for Black Lives Matter.)

This is as close to a definitive proof of causation as is possible in observational social science.

This is not complicated. We sowed. We reaped. There is no other plausible explanation for the data.

It is sickly ironic–and mainly sick–that so many black lives have been sacrificed on the altar of Black Lives Matter.

But it gave an opportunity for Nancy Pelosi and the like to demonstrate their superiority over us plebs by taking a knee wearing kente cloth, so it was all for the best, right?

The whole ugly spectacle makes me literally nauseous. (And yes, I literally know what it means to say “literally.”) Hell is not hot enough to torture properly all those preening better-thans who have cost more black lives in a couple of years than the KKK did in its entire, horrid, sordid history (which dates to 1866).

But you are the problem you see. You and your icky guns.

No, the real problem is the social psychosis that is modern American leftism, which obsesses over race, and in the name of helping one race is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of that race.

So tell me: who are objectively the racists here? (See Orwell on “objectively pro-Fascist” if you don’t catch my point.)

If this does not make you incandescent with anger, some serious self-reflection is definitely in order. Unless you are a leftist, in which case that is something of which you are constitutionally incapable.

Just to clarify.
This requirement isn’t for concealed carry. It’s to simply BUY a firearm.
I think this monstrosity isn’t going to make it through the court system, but it does illuminate just how mindless a lot of people are, which isn’t a new thing, as the Framers recognized the malady even back then when they demanded a Bill of Rights.

Measure 114’s live fire training component leaves trainers in limbo

While Oregon’s new voter-approved gun control measure is getting worked out in the courts, there remains uncertainty among local gun shops and firearms instructors in Central Oregon.

Sharon Preston, owner of Ladies of Lead in Redmond — and an instructor who specializes in self-defense training for women — says there are a lot of questions that still have not been answered about the implementation of Measure 114.

Preston says business has been through the roof. But she says she’s had to stop firearm sales, not knowing what is next with the measure. But she says selling guns is only part of what she does.

“Selling guns is a very small portion of my business. I do it as an added value to my clients, so it’s educational based gun sales. But my main focus is always going to be in training,” said Preston.
She’s been forced to find alternatives as 114 is in limbo.

“I’ve heard too many stories in this store from women, locally. The brutality and violence they have been through, survived through. They want a tool that will allow them to live their lives large again, and they’re not going to be able to get on. That’s why I’m switching to crossbows, pepper ball guns, tasers, knives,” Preston said.

Preston’s biggest concern with the measure lies in the required live fire training — meant to prove shooting proficiency. As of now, she says no guidelines have been spelled out as to how the state will facilitate the training courses. And no one knows who will be authorized by the state to lead those courses.

And there are other unanswered questions.

“They don’t know how many rounds we have to shoot, at what distance we have to shoot, at what target we have to shoot. They don’t know what firearm we can use. So there’s so many questions out there,” said Preston.

The next hearing on Measure 114 will be held Tuesday at Circuit Court in Harney County. Those who support the measure will be able to argue against the temporary hold set in place by Judge Robert Raschio.

New study by frustrated anti-gun researcher doesn’t tell the whole story

by Lee Williams

More than 1 million Americans were killed by firearms from 1990 to 2021, and firearm deaths increased markedly during the pandemic, according to a study published Tuesday by the Journal of the American Medical Association network titled: “Trends and Disparities in Firearm Fatalities in the United States, 1990-2021.”

Firearm deaths reached their lowest point in 2004, and then increased more than 45% by 2021 — a 28-year high — the study claims. Black males were most at risk for homicide, and white males over 70 had the highest suicide rates.

The authors analyzed data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and used “key statistics” from the anti-gun group Brady United.

Despite its flaws, such as a reliance on biased statistics and a lack of causal factors, the report has been embraced by the legacy media and has proliferated across the internet.

The authors’ conclusion was rather simple: “This study found marked disparities in firearm fatality rates by demographic group, which increased over the past decade. These findings suggest that public health approaches to reduce firearm violence should consider underlying demographic and geographic trends and differences by intent.”

The study’s lead author, Dr. Eric W. Fleegler of Harvard Medical School’s Department of Pediatrics, has written numerous anti-gun studies and editorials. Gun-rights experts were quick to point out there was a lot missing from his most recent work.

Continue reading “”

Quote O’ The Day
The eight-point boost in favorability between now and then could be the result of people in those states recognizing that living under a shall-issue carry regime is not an apocalyptic scenario but, rather, business as usual as it had been in most of the country.

Analysis: The Popularity of the Bruen Decision Should Not Come as a Surprise

You wouldn’t know it from the reaction of political leaders in states affected by the decision, but the Supreme Court’s holding in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen is very popular among the American public. That’s because a decades-long cultural shift towards concealed carry had already succeeded well before the justices ever took up the case.

A Marquette University law school poll released this week found 64 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Supreme Court’s holding that the “Second Amendment protects the right to possess a gun outside the home.” By contrast, 35 percent say they oppose the decision, with only 16 percent saying they’re strongly opposed.

That such a substantial majority gave a warm reception to the concept of public concealed carry rights should not come as a shock. For nearly all of the country, the Court did little more than affirm the status quo.

When the decision was handed down, three-quarters of the population lived in a state where law-abiding adults faced only limited barriers to carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense. They could do so in 25 of those states without even needing to obtain a government-issued permit.

A tandem of shifting cultural practices and state legislation made that possible. Beginning in 1987 with Florida’s adoption of “shall-issue” concealed carry permitting, where state officials can’t subjectively deny permit applications, a revolution in liberalized gun carry laws began to sweep the country.

Right to Carry, timeline.gif

Continue reading “”

The Elites’ War On Food

A few months back, stories of “suspicious” fires at food-production plants raged across the media. The narrative said the sites were being sabotaged to disrupt the food supply. And it was most likely wrong. But that doesn’t mean there is no effort on the part of Western elites to put the peasants on a strict diet.

Most by now have seen reports that Dutch officials are closing as many as 3,000 farms in the Netherlands, the world’s second-largest exporter of agricultural products by value even though it’s only slightly larger than Maryland, to comply with crackpot European Union carbon dioxide emissions rules. It’s possible that eventually more than 11,000 farms will be shut down, and 17,600 forced to sharply cut their livestock numbers.

On our side of the Atlantic, the malefactors are also busy. Just the News is reporting that the Environmental Protection Agency is quietly quadrupling the regulatory cost of carbon emissions in a new war on fossil fuels, which is, of course, also a war on the food supply.

“If you think about the fact that they would impose this damage factor, let’s say on farmers, because it applies to fertilizer,” Louisiana Solicitor General Liz Murill said on the John Solomon Reports podcast. “Fertilizer emits nitrous oxide. So fertilizer is a big contributor. If every family farmer now is going to have to pay more to obtain fertilizer to fertilize crops that feed us, well, what’s that going to do to the price of food?”

Are these mere coincidences, entirely unrelated, isolated events?

Could be. But …

  • U.S. farmers are convinced that “government meddling threatens their livelihoods and the nation’s food security.”
  • “Unrealistic green-energy policies in Europe – and the Biden administration’s hostility to U.S. energy production – are worsening energy shortages,” writes James Meigs in City Journal “With energy prices soaring, food production and distribution will suffer.”
  • Global skunks are promoting bugs as an alternative to the foods we enjoy, which is an implicit way of saying “you can eat insects, as unpalatable as they are, or you can go hungry – it’s almost time to choose.”
  • The White House has added agricultural land to the federal Conservation Reserve Program, encouraging farmers to leave their land fallow. It’s part, says essayist John Mac Ghlionn, writing in the Washington Times, “of a broader, government-wide push to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Interestingly, the Biden administration’s goal is very similar to the Dutch government’s goal.”
  • Canadian boy Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has proposed rules that will “decimate Canadian farming.”
  • “Even as food shortages intensify, governments, including the Biden administration, are cracking down harder on agricultural production,” the Epoch Times reports. “While the attacks on agriculture and related industries look different in different nations, many experts say it’s a coordinated global policy being promoted by the U.N., the World Economic Forum (WEF), the European Union, and other international forces determined to transform civilization.”
  • “The Biden administration has engaged in an omni-directional assault on our food production system,” says the Heartland Institute.

As it turns out, all this is happening at the same time “the number of people affected by hunger has more than doubled in the past three years”, according to the United Nations, as “almost a million people are living in famine conditions, with starvation and death a daily reality.”

Which must tickle the innards of the coat-and-tie savages at the World Economic Forum, a truly vile organization that has made no secret of its concerns over a growing global population, and issued a warning earlier this year that “degrowth,” the shrinking rather than growing of economies, “might mean people in rich countries changing their diets, living in smaller houses and driving and traveling less.”

If only the WEF were some fringe group that had no influence. But it’s not – it’s a well-funded syndicate with an axis of powerful followers.

Is it possible, as unthinkable, conspiratorial and overwrought as it sounds, that the elites want to thin the global population through man-made famine? Groups do exist, and have for decades, for the sole objective of reversing the world’s population growth. They have been treated by politicians and the media as well-meaning organizations that have a valid point.

So far, they’ve done no damage. However, they’re now in a strong position to move beyond their rhetoric. Strong ties with like-minded thinkers that have money and a heavyweight political punch makes them dangerous.

DON’T BELIEVE GIVING UP RIGHTS PROVIDES SECURITY

New York Time columnist David Brooks is reminding America why they shouldn’t put faith in opinion writers pontificating from their metropolitan ivory towers.

Brooks recently said America would be a much safer country if Americans would simply give up their freedoms and become more like Europe. If America wouldn’t hold onto the individual right to keep and bear arms spelled out in the Second Amendment, and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, he argues it would be a much safer place.

In his estimation, giving up the ability for self-defense and defense of loved ones would make crime just go away.

“That would take a gigantic culture shift in this country. A revamping of the way we think about privacy, a revamping of the way we think about the role government plays in protecting the common good,” Brooks said during a segment on PBS’ “Newshour.” “I think it would be something. I think it would be good not only to head off shootings, but good to live in a society where we cared more intimately about each other. And I would be willing to give up certain privacies for that to happen.”

That’s certainly out of the mainstream of how the rest of America views lawful firearm ownership. There were over 21 million background checks for the sale of a firearm in 2020, the most ever in a single year. Last year, Americans submitted to 18.5 million background checks. In 2022, background check figures are headed for the third strongest year on record. During the week up to and including Black Friday, the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) tallied over 711,000 background checks, with over 192,000 on Black Friday alone. That was the third busiest day for FBI’s NICS ever.

The Plan: Give Up

Just how would America achieve this utopia that Brooks imagines? Just give up, he said. Give up your rights. Give up your freedoms. Submit to an Orwellian state that provides you with all your needs. He admits this wouldn’t be easy.

“But for many Americans that would just be a massive cultural shift to regard our community and regard our common good in more frankly a European style,” Brooks explained.  “I think it would benefit our society in a whole range of areas, but it’s hard to see that kind of culture change to a society that’s been pretty individualistic for a long, long time.”

America broke away from European-style rule for a reason. The Founding Fathers rejected the British crown’s demands to give up guns then. Based on background checks for gun sales, America continues to reject calls for strict gun control. A recent Gallup poll found that support for more gun control dropped nine points from 66 percent to 57 percent in an October survey.

Failed Disarmament

The argument that individuals should surrender their gun rights has been tried elsewhere with predictable results. Gun owners that complied with gun seizures find themselves unable to protect themselves while criminals that ignore the law are empowered. A recent report from ABC News in Australia showed that criminals find it easier now to obtain illicit firearms than before the multiple amnesty periods when government officials collected firearms from Australians. New Zealand instituted their own gun confiscation program and crime spiked. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern ushered in Draconian gun control, including confiscation, and the country and crime hit new peaks.

The only ones left with guns were the criminals. That’s a lesson that Canada’s grappling with now as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is eyeing his own gun confiscation scheme and banning the transfer of any handguns. Some Canadian provinces are rejecting the heavy-handed measures. Sadly, history is replete with examples of regimes that took away its citizens firearms only to become tyrannical and turn their citizens into defenseless subjects. Those that fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence expressed their fear of a tyrannical government and enshrined our right to keep and bear arms for self defense in the Bill of Rights for a reason.

Brooks is wrong to think that ridding ourselves of rights and lawful gun ownership would reduce crime. The answer to rampant crime is more law enforcement. The changes needed to safeguard America’s communities don’t begin with turning our backs on freedoms. It starts with holding elected officials in The White House, Congress, state capitols and district attorneys responsible for not enforcing the law and failing to hold criminals accountable.

Brooks’ notion is a devil’s bargain. Americans know it. Surrendering freedom has never resulted in anything less than creating a society of victims.

BARR: ‘Run, Hide, and Fight’ Makes As Much Sense As Duct Tape To Stop Terrorism

Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the anthrax scare shortly thereafter, the federal government urged Americans to prepare for possible future attacks by, among other things, sealing the windows of their homes with plastic sheeting and duct tape.

More recently, in the aftermath of violent incidents involving armed criminals targeting “soft” targets such as students in schools, shoppers in malls, or worshipers in churches, Uncle Sam has pressed two similarly unhelpful strategies: “run, hide, fight” and gun control.

Neither of these strategies, which Washington has repeatedly promoted, has prevented or even minimized deaths or injuries caused by criminals targeting students, shoppers, co-workers, or church goers. Still, as Sonny and Cher declared in their 1967 hit, “the beat goes on.”

As with other advice proffered by federal agencies — whether about what car to drive or foods to eat — the pointers about responding to active shooter incidents is not only unhelpful, but counterproductive. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in cases where individuals chose to confront armed perpetrators rather than run away from them, and in so doing saved lives.

Whether it was the armed and trained church security parishioner at the West Freeway Church in White Settlement, Texas in December 2019, the armed and trained young man at the Greenwood Park Mall in Greenwood, Indiana last July, or the individual at the Club Q in Colorado Springs, Colorado earlier this month, taking action against armed criminals bent on murdering innocent victims is a strategy far superior to one that advocates running and hiding.

Even when a passive response plan appears to make sense, as when a murderous gunman barged into the elementary school in Uvalde, Texas this past summer and began murdering children, things can go tragically awry (in that case, police themselves hid and failed to fight).

Notwithstanding the many actual incidents in which individuals’ actions confronting shooters saved lives, government publications continue to downplay taking the initiative to confront an active shooter. The Department of Homeland Security’s publication, “Active Shooter, How to Respond” admonishes readers that any “attempt to take the shooter down” should be considered only “as a last resort.” In other words, wait until everything else fails before confronting the shooter. Common sense alone suggests that such a point comes only after precious time and lives have been lost.

Clearly, confronting an “active shooter” carries risk. Riley Howell was mortally wounded when, in May 2019, he rushed a perpetrator who had entered his classroom at the University of North Carolina and started firing a pistol at students. By all accounts, Howell’s heroic sacrifice saved numerous lives.

Do the potential benefits of confronting a criminal shooter outweigh the risks? Ask the 240 parishioners at the West Freeway Church of Christ who were saved as a result of the quick, defensive response by church security members to an active shooter armed with a shotgun. Pose that question to the many dozens of people attending the Club Q on November 19th who did not become victims, thanks to the two club patrons who chose not to run and hide, but quickly tackled the shooter and subdued him with his own firearm.

The Biden administration’s knee-jerk response to any active shooter criminal act, regardless of circumstances, is “GUN CONTROL!” Sometimes, that refrain becomes almost comical in its detachment from the real world.

For example, following the Club Q murders and another by a disgruntled Walmart employee in a company breakroom in Chesapeake, Virginia the same week, President Biden demanded a ban on all “semiautomatic firearms.” Such an absurdly broad strategy would mean outlawing every Glock or Colt Model 1911 handgun, along with hundreds of other models of semiautomatic handguns and rifles owned lawfully by millions of citizens, and that are sold every business day in the United States.

Biden’s statement illustrates the degree to which his administration and its supporters remain ignorant of firearms, firearms owners, and the value of a citizenry that has lawful access to firearms for defensive purposes.

The gun-control shibboleth urged by the Left as the solution to every mass shooting incident, coupled with the government’s “run, hide, and fight” strategy for dealing with an active shooter, make as much sense as advocating duct tape and plastic sheeting as a way to thwart acts of terrorism.

How to Stop School Shootings

My heart sinks every time I see breaking-news graphics announce another school shooting. It’s like a gut-punch — the lost lives, the suffering of the wounded, the horrors the First Responders must encounter, and the families that will never again be whole.

The blame and blood-dancing usually start before the bodies are even recovered. The talking heads call to ban or further regulate firearms, magazines or accessories in common usage, as if the contents of my gun safe located thousands of miles from the crime scene somehow played a role in the killings.

Politicians will gleefully announce new infringements, none of which could have prevented the mass murder, but that is never their intent. They were eagerly awaiting another opportunity to do something that will score points with their base and their donors, as well as disarm law-abiding Americans.

Keep in mind that more than three-times as many people die each year from excessive alcohol use than from firearms, yet no one is calling to ban bourbon or vodka, because the booze-ban industry died on Dec. 5, 1933, while the gun-ban industry sputters on. Their misguided efforts have no chance of ever stopping mass murders because they are solely fixated on banning an inanimate object, while ignoring the person pulling the trigger and those who help facilitate the crime.

In my humble opinion, if we truly want to stop school shootings we should harden the staff, not just the buildings, and we should focus on the other bad actors, too, not just the trigger-pullers. It’s time to start holding parents, law enforcement and the legacy media strictly accountable — criminally, morally and very publicly — for aiding and abetting these preventable deaths.

Continue reading “”

Handgun owners carrying daily in US doubled in 4 years; self-protection cited as main reason: study.

Twice the number of Americans were carrying handguns daily in 2019 compared to 2015, according to a new study published this month.

Around 6,000 gun owners carried handguns every day in 2019, up from 3,000 in 2015, according to a study from the American Journal of Public Health published on Nov. 16.

The number of respondents to the online survey who said they had carried a gun in the last month also nearly doubled from 9 million to 16 million in 2015.

The study focuses

solely on owners carrying a handgun on their person, not in their car.

Twice the number of Americans were carrying handguns daily in 2019 compared to 2015, according to a new study published this month.
The upward trend found in the study comes as states loosen restrictions for carrying a handgun and more gun owners cite protection as a top concern.

A U.S. Supreme Court case last June also overturned strict gun carrying laws in New York.

The authors wrote, “This ruling could further catalyze the loosening of firearm-carrying regulations in different parts of the country at a time when, as our study indicates, trends in handgun carrying already point to more US adults carrying loaded handguns in public places, including without a permit when a permit is required.”

The study authors said a June U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning restrictive gun-carrying laws in New York could “catalyze  the loosening of firearm-carrying regulations in different parts of the country.”

The study’s lead authors were Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, an epidemiology professor at the University of Washington; Amy Gallagher of the University of Washington; Deborah Azrael of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center; and Matthew Miller from Northeastern University, and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

The authors added, “Little is known about the frequency and features of firearm carrying among adult handgun owners in the United States. In fact, over the past 30 years, only a few peer-reviewed national surveys, conducted in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 2015, have provided even the most basic information about firearm carrying frequency.”

In 1994, the percentage of gun owners who said their main reason for having a firearm was protection was 46%, by 2015 it went up to 64% and spiked to 73% by 2019. In 2021, it was 83%.

Only one state allowed permit less handgun carry in 1990 but by 2021 it had increased to 21 states, according to the study.

Instead of Asking How to Stop Mass Shootings, Left Targets Social Conservatives

This week, another evil mass shooter unleashed horror at a gay club in Colorado Springs, killing five and wounding another 25. The shooter—whose name I refuse to mention in order to disincentivize future shooters, who seek notoriety—was clearly mentally ill: Just last year, he reportedly threatened his mother with a bomb, resulting in his arrest.

Yet Colorado’s red flag law, which could have deprived the shooter of legal access to weaponry, was not invoked by either police or relatives. The Colorado Springs massacre, then, is yet another example of a perpetrator with more red flags than a bullfighting convention, and no one in authority willing to take action to do anything about him.

Yet the national conversation, as it so often does, now has been directed away from the question at hand—how to prevent mass shootings—and toward broader politics. Instead of seeking methodologies that might be effective in finding and stopping deranged individuals seeking murder without curbing rights and liberties for hundreds of millions of people, our political and media leaders have decided to blame Americans who oppose same-sex marriage, drag queen story hour, and “family friendly” drag shows. Disagreement with the radical leftist social agenda amounts to incitement to violence, they argue.

Thus, NBC News senior reporter Brandy Zadrozny said, “There is a pipeline. It starts from some smaller accounts online like Libs of Tiktok, it moves to the right-wing blogosphere, and then it ends up on Tucker Carlson or ends up out of a right-wing politician’s mouth, and it is a really dangerous cycle that does have real-world consequences.”

Michelle Goldberg of The New York Times wrote that “it seems hard to separate [these murders] from a nationwide campaign of anti-LGBTQ incitement. … They’ve been screaming that drag events … are part of a monstrous plot to prey on children. They don’t get to duck responsibility if a sick man with a gun took them seriously.”

Brian Broome wrote in The Washington Post that the shooting could not be “blamed on mental illness.” No, he stated, “It’s right-wing rhetoric that sparks these nightmares. … The bottomless list of homophobes and transphobes on the right don’t need to throw the rock and then hide their hands. Instead, they use someone else’s hands entirely.”

The Left’s attempt to lay responsibility for violence at the feet of anyone who opposes the transgressive social agenda doesn’t stop with blame—it extends to calls for full-scale censorship.

“We’re living in an environment that’s driven by two things,” averred Sarah Kate Ellis, CEO of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. “Politicians who are using us to bolster their careers by creating division and hate, and number two is social media platforms that are monetizing hate, and especially against marginalized communities. They’re—they’re choosing profits over hate, and it’s killing, literally killing our community.”

Social media, the logic goes, ought to shut down or demonetize any video disagreeing with the GLAAD agenda.

This is cynical politics at its worst. It’s also nothing new. The Left routinely cites violent incidents as reason to crack down on free speech with which they disagree.

As the inimitably imbecilic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-Instagram, tweeted: “After Trump elevated anti-immigrant & anti-Latino rhetoric, we had the deadliest anti-Latino shooting in modern history. After anti-Asian hate w/ COVID, Atlanta. Tree of Life. Emanuel AME. Buffalo. And now after an anti-LGBT+ campaign, Colorado Springs. Connect the dots, @GOP.”

Yes, according to AOC, virtually every major mass shooting of the past seven years is the result of her political opponents—none of whom has called for violence. But in the world of the Left, disagreement is violence merely waiting to be unleashed. Which is why censorship, they believe, is the only way to achieve a more peaceful world.

How Gun Control Creeps In
Olympian Gabby Franco reflects on Venezuela’s downfall and the need to protect American freedom.

Venezuela is surrounded by paradisiacal turquoise waters in the north and an enigmatic rainforest in the south. There are no seasonal natural disasters—no hurricanes, tornados, blizzards or wildfires—such as there are in various areas of the United States. But an idea that the government should be given so much power that it could take away every right of the individual citizen—even their right to self-defense—did lead to the country’s ruination.

As a former citizen of Venezuela who became a U.S. citizen, I am now hearing many of the same things I heard in Venezuela from certain anti-Second Amendment politicians. I was an Olympic shooting competitor representing Venezuela and am now a lawful gun owner here in America. I don’t want to see this right being threatened again.

It has been eye-opening to visit and meet people from all walks of life throughout the U.S. While many Americans constantly fight to preserve our freedoms, it is alarming how many take those freedoms for granted. That is why I always share my experiences in Venezuela before and after socialist Hugo Chávez took power. My dreams as a young woman, Olympic athlete and college student ended because of the socialist ideas that hypnotized not only the poor but also the educated and powerful. To revive my dreams, I had to leave my country.

Venezuela was once a place where people could find jobs, prosper, dream about their future and, with hard work, succeed, despite social and political issues. My parents were born in a rural town where there were not even flushing toilets until the late 1950s. My mom became a high-school teacher, and my dad was a machinist who dreamed of owning a machine shop. They married in the late 1970s and lived on my mom’s salary for several years as my dad built his business. They showed my siblings and me that dreams are possible with hard work and dedication.

During that time, law-abiding Venezuelans could own firearms and apply for a concealed-carry license. My father was an avid hunter who filled up the freezer with venison, duck, rabbit and any other animals he deemed tasty. Children could go to the gun range with their parents to practice the shooting sports. I was 10 years old the first time my dad took my two sisters and me to the gun range. I needed my dad’s help to load the old Feinwerkbau M65 air pistol we used. But that day changed my life, and I have loved the sport since.

Gabby Franco at 2-gun competition

Gabby Franco is shown here shooting in a 2-gun competition at Shadow Hawk Defense in Hedgesville, W.Va., in 2021.

The shooting sports drastically changed my perspective. At first, it seemed like it might be easy to hit the one-centimeter bullseye at 10 meters. My mind constantly raced, however, and I realized my mindset was the most-significant asset I had to learn to control. Maintaining a steady mind was as important as keeping a steady aim. Part of that mental training was understanding that dedication, sacrifices and rewards were part of my athletic life. I trained approximately four to five hours a day, six days a week, for about seven years until I retired in 2002. I missed school parties, school trips and even my graduation ceremony; however, I finally became a member of the Venezuelan National team, and, at 16 years old, I won my first international medal at the 1997 Bolivarian Games in Peru.

Everything seemed to go in a great direction until I learned that elections have serious consequences. I became aware of how avaricious leaders and elites can pulverize the dreams of hard-working citizens.

Hugo Chávez took power in 1999 and ruled the country via executive orders from the beginning. The terrible implications of his actions were palpable, as he aimed to take farmland away from its owners. Chávez did not waste time in pushing his socialist agenda, influenced by Fidel Castro, seeding hatred and envy amongst Venezuelans. I remember one time a person on a motorcycle stopped next to my dad’s SUV and spat on it. It was a symbolic gesture showing his hatred toward us for having a good vehicle. What this man did not know is that my parents were born poor but rose through their will and dedication.

Hugo Chávez’s actions did not go by unnoticed. A Cuban friend, whom I’ll call Jose, warned many of us at the gun range about Venezuela’s future under Hugo Chávez. These warnings were, as Gabriel Garciá Márquez wrote, a “chronicle of a death foretold.” It was indeed a hard pill to swallow for many, who often replied with something like: “That would never happen here. Venezuela is the richest country in the region. Venezuela is not an island like Cuba.”

Crime is uncontrollable, making Venezuela one of the most-dangerous countries in the world—in part because of its strict gun control … .

However, I listened to my Cuban friend and relied on lessons I learned in the shooting sports to make my decision. You see, shooters learn to control negative thoughts, fears and disappointments during setbacks in competitions. Such a constant exposure made me understand that moving forward amid doubts is possible. I learned that sacrifices and fear of the unknown are part of my journey toward success, even if that means leaving everything behind. I was on the peak of my shooting career. I had participated at the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia. I was a gold medalist at the subsequent Bolivarian and South American Games, and I was an Olympic hopeful for the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens; however, there was no future in the “new socialist Venezuela,” and fear of the unknown would not stop me from seeking a better way of life.

Nonetheless, leaving Venezuela was a difficult decision. My parents and I argued and cried, and I became distant as they failed to change my mind. It was as if they thought Chávez was a temporary nightmare in Venezuela’s history and could not see the real threat. Breaking their hearts was never my intention, but my decision to move to the United States was made. Staying in a socialist state was against my beliefs.

Continue reading “”

Gallup: Support for Gun Control Drops as Gun Ownership Rises

Americans say they are less likely to support tightening gun laws than they were over the summer.

A Gallup poll released on Monday shows a nine-point drop in support for making gun laws “more strict” since the same survey was taken in June. It also shows a three-point uptick in the number of Americans reporting they have a gun in the home. While a majority of respondents report supporting stricter gun laws and having no gun in their home, the gap for both shrunk significantly.

The results reflect a pair of trends in American gun politics.

Support for stricter gun laws tends to peak after high-profile mass shootings and recede a few months later. At the end of May, the murder of 19 children and two adults at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, drove two-thirds of Americans to support new restrictions. But nearly six months and one federal gun law later, support for more restrictions dropped to 57 percent.

The wake of the pandemic and civil unrest has also produced record gun sales in the United States over the past two years. While sales have begun to cool over the past few months, the results of that buying spree are now being reflected in Gallup’s polling on who owns guns. 45 percent now report having a gun in the home, and 46 percent report having one on their property. 33 percent report they personally own the firearm in their house as opposed to a different member of the household. Those measures are at their highest level since 2011, and the polling company hasn’t consistently found gun-ownership rates that high since the early 1990s.

The rising trend of gun ownership combined with weakened support for more gun control could make passing new restrictions more difficult at the national and state levels. Republicans gaining control of the House of Representatives was already going to make new federal gun laws a tall order, but the new polling could complicate things even further. However, the poll, conducted between October 3rd and the 20th, may not reflect the effect recent high-profile shootings at the University of Virginia and an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs, Colorado, will have on public opinion.

Additionally, the poll shows Americans still support stricter gun laws at a higher rate than when the poll was done in October 2021. It suggests that, despite the recent drop in support, Americans remain more supportive of tightening gun restrictions than before Uvalde.

Gallup conducted the poll among a random sample of 1,009 adults. It has a margin of error of +/- four percentage points.

Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2022

A copy of our newest report is available here (please download). Copies of our annual reports from 2014 through 2021 are available here.

As the United States is moving into a post-pandemic era, the number of concealed handgun permits has continued increasing. The figure now stands at 22.01 million – a 2.3% increase since last year. Unlike gun ownership surveys that may be affected by people’s unwillingness to answer personal questions, concealed handgun permit data is the only really “hard data” that we have. This increase occurred despite 24 Constitutional Carry states that no longer provide data on all those legally carrying a concealed handgun because people in those states no longer need a permit to carry. A 25th state, Alabama, has also adopted Constitutional Carry, but its law doesn’t go into effect until January 1, 2023…

These numbers are particularly topical given that the U.S. Supreme Court in June struck down New York’s “May-Issue” Concealed Handgun Law, affirming a constitutional right to bear arms. The decision will have a major impact conconcealed carry laws in the seven states that had “May-Issue” type rules…

What might happen to the number of permits in those seven states? Illinois, which was also forced by an earlier court decision to adopt right-to-carry rules, may serve as an example. While Illinois has done its best to make getting a concealed handgun permit expensive and difficult, the latest numbers show that over 4.5% of its adult population now has a permit. If the seven “May-Issue” states have a similar experience as Illinois, it implies an additional 2.7 million concealed handgun permit holders in the United States.

John R. Lott, Jr., “Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2022,” Social Science Research Network, November 17, 2022.

 Among the findings of our report:

  • Last year, the number of permit holders continued to grow by about 488,000. At 2.3% growth over 2021, that is the slowest percent and absolute increase that we have seen since we started collecting this data in 2011. Part of that is due to the number of permits declining in the Constitutional Carry states even though it is clear that more people are legally carrying.
  • 8.5% of American adults have permits.  Outside of the restrictive states of California and New York, about 10.2% of adults have a permit.
  • In seventeen states, more than 10% of adults have permits. Since 2019, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota have fallen below 10%, but they are now all Constitutional Carry states, meaning that people no longer need a permit to carry. The concealed carry rates for Connecticut, North Carolina, and Wisconsin have risen to above 10% this year.
  • Alabama has the highest concealed carry rate — 32.5%.  Indiana is second with 23.4%, and Georgia is third with 15.5%.
  • Six states now have over 1 million permit holders: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Florida is the top states with 2.57 million permits.
  • Twenty-five states have adopted Constitutional Carry for their entire state, meaning that a permit is no longer required. Because of these Constitutional Carry states, the nationwide growth in permits does not paint a full picture of the overall increase in concealed carry. Many residents still choose to obtain permits so that they can carry in other states that have reciprocity agreements, but while permits are increasing in the non-Constitutional Carry states, they fell in the Constitutional Carry ones even though more people are clearly carrying in those states.
  • In 2022, women made up 29.2% of permit holders in the 15 states that provide data by gender, an increase from the 28.3% last year. Seven states had data from 2012 to 2021/2022, and permit numbers grew 115.4% faster for women than for men.

Legal Firearm Sales at State Level and Rates of Violent Crime, Property Crime, and Homicides

Abstract
Introduction
The effects of firearm sales and legislation on crime and violence are intensely debated, with multiple studies yielding differing results. We hypothesized that increased lawful firearm sales would not be associated with the rates of crime and homicide when studied using a robust statistical method.

Methods
National and state rates of crime and homicide during 1999-2015 were obtained from the United States Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Instant Criminal Background Check System background checks were used as a surrogate for lawful firearm sales. A general multiple linear regression model using log event rates was used to assess the effect of firearm sales on crime and homicide rates. Additional modeling was then performed on a state basis using an autoregressive correlation structure with generalized estimating equation estimates for standard errors to adjust for the interdependence of variables year to year within a particular state.

Results
Nationally, all crime rates except the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–designated firearm homicides decreased as firearm sales increased over the study period. Using a naive national model, increases in firearm sales were associated with significant decreases in multiple crime categories. However, a more robust analysis using generalized estimating equation estimates on state-level data demonstrated increases in firearms sales were not associated with changes in any crime variables examined.

Conclusions
Robust analysis does not identify an association between increased lawful firearm sales and rates of crime or homicide. Based on this, it is unclear if efforts to limit lawful firearm sales would have any effect on rates of crime, homicide, or injuries from violence committed with firearms.

Why fear is a terrible justification for gun control

“I shouldn’t have to be afraid to go out of my house,” someone will say, usually while trying to voice their opposition to some aspect of gun rights. Gun control advocates often make similar claims, citing their own fear as a reason why they oppose or support some measure or another.

And their fear may certainly feel very real to them.

However, fear is a terrible justification for gun control.

Now, being scared is a powerful motivator. It’s why people do all kinds of things, even if they don’t want to do it otherwise. It’s why scary horror stories of what happens when you don’t do something are such great motivators.

But it’s still an emotion.

When fear is used as an argument to justify some bit of legislation, one should remember that it can also be used to oppose that same bill. After all, one person’s fear may be quite different from another. While some feared armed gunmen in the wake of a mass shooting, others fear being unarmed in the face of a violent criminal.

So now what you’re looking at are warring fears.

I fear being unable to defend my family from an attacker. Is my fear somehow less than the fear that drives many to call for gun control?

“But your fear is irrational. You’re not likely to be attacked,” some might argue, and they’re not wrong. Statistically, I’ll never have to draw my weapon in self-defense at any point in the future. But if that’s the deciding factor, then their fear of being attacked is equally irrational, isn’t it?

And that’s kind of my point.

You see, fear is usually used as a justification for gun control because it’s powerful. Advocates for Second Amendment restrictions want people to be terrified because it’s irrational.

They understand that if you simply use the probability of being the victim of a violent crime is actually pretty high. For example, the probability of being the victim of being robbed is one in 667. Your odds of being the victim of other crimes are also pretty low.

If we’re rational about it, then the debate becomes a different matter. People who are thinking rationally look at this low probability and the fact that criminals obtain firearms through non-lawful means and recognize that gun control isn’t a viable solution to the problem. Some have differing opinions, of course, but as we’ve seen, when there’s little reason for people to be afraid, they tend to support gun rights to a greater degree.

Which is why fear is so well-used.

That doesn’t make it a great idea. That fear pushing some for gun control can and should be used to push for gun rights. We need to propel stories of those who were disarmed when they needed their guns the most at the same time as holding up stories like the Greenwood Park Mall.

Again, it’s because fear is a two-way street.

Yes, it’s a terrible way to promote anything, but that’s because it can be used against that thing. It’s well past time we showed gun control advocates just why it’s a bad idea.

Gun ownership not to blame for rural suicides

It’s long been known that the majority of so-called “gun deaths” were suicides, not homicides. They tend to get lumped in there just to make the number look a whole lot scarier.

Lately, though, anti-gun crusaders aren’t doing that. They’re treating suicide as a separate thing, which is good. Unfortunately, they still seem to think that gun control is the answer.

Then again, when you have people who claim high levels of gun ownership are driving suicides…

In 2020, the rural gun death rate was 28% higher than the urban rate. Nonmetropolitan counties reported 17.01 deaths per 100,000 residents, compared to a rate of 13.19 in urban America, according to CDC reports.

Although urban areas have higher rates of gun homicide, rural places have higher firearm deaths overall because suicides make up about two thirds of gun deaths nationwide, said researcher Michael Siegel of Tufts University School of Medicine. Siegel says it is important to categorize gun deaths into three groups.

“There’s firearm homicide, there’s firearm suicide, and then there’s unintentional injuries,” Siegel said.

Siegel said that the high rates of suicide in rural America can be explained in part by the prevalence of gun ownership. While 46% of rural residents say they own guns, only 19% of urban residents say they own guns, according to PEW Center studies.

“Because we know that guns are the most lethal means for suicide, if a gun is available, a suicide attempt is likely to result in a death,” Siegel said. “Whereas, if there aren’t guns around, other methods that people might use to attempt suicide are not as lethal.”

The piece then goes on to advocate for mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases and red flag laws.

However, both of those measures focus on the tools used, not the causes of suicide. A suicidal person may well shift to another method, and while they might not as lethal, there are methods damn near as deadly.

First, let’s acknowledge that Tufts University is also the facility that’s mentioned alongside 97Percent in a recent story we covered. It seems there’s an anti-gun bias at the university.

Moving on, though, it needs to be understood that suicide is the problem, not guns. Firearms have been with us for centuries and have been a viable method for taking one’s life for just as long. Yet suicides have been with us for ages. The first recorded suicide was over 4,000 years ago in Persia.

Yet as that link notes, we may not have a good grasp on what drives suicide.

So when you look at the divide between rural and urban areas with regard to this issue, why are you focusing on guns and not on potential contributing factors?

For example, the median rural income is 25 percent lower than the median in urban areas. While some of that difference is eaten up by the higher cost of living in urban areas, not all of it is. We’ve long known that economic factors may trigger suicidal ideations in an individual, so why isn’t that part of the discussion?

Most likely because that doesn’t fit the narrative. Working to increase jobs in rural areas, which would drive up wages, wouldn’t advance the gun control agenda, whereas out-of-context statistics and so-called experts talking out of their posteriors does.

That’s all there is to it.