Category: Safety

On this day in history, Nov. 17, 1871, National Rifle Association founded by Civil War veteran Union officers

Former Union officers, who had led the costly battlefield effort to free 4 million Americans from bondage, chartered the National Rifle Association (NRA) in New York City on this day in history, Nov. 17, 1871.

Civil War veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate created the organization after they were “dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops,” states the NRA in its online history.

The association was determined to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis,” Church wrote in a contemporary magazine editorial, the NRA reports.

Ambrose Burnside was the first president of the fledging organization.

General Burnside led federal troops in many of the early encounters of the Civil War. He served as governor of Rhode Island after the war, from 1866 to 1869.

Following his stint as NRA president (1871-72), Burnside served as a U.S. senator from Rhode Island from 1875 to 1881.

Ambrose Burnside
Portrait of Ambrose Everett Burnside (1824-1881), American Army officer for whom sideburns are named. A top Union general in the Civil War, he was a governor and U.S. senator from Rhode Island, as well as first president of the National Rifle Association. Undated photograph by William Brady.

Several other Union officers shaped the NRA during their stints as president of the organization in its earliest years.

Continue reading “”

Natural Law, Scripture and the Right of Self Defense

Now that Republican leaders have fended-off the widely anticipated Red Wave, Left-leaning politicians who are keen on relieving Americans of their constitutional rights can pursue their previously unspoken agenda.

Gun control wasn’t a big issue in the midterm elections, largely because most Americans don’t like it. But now that the dust has settled, the American Left is free to seek more gun control.

Congressional Democrats and the Biden administration are emboldened to renew their efforts to impose gun control. In Oregon, new gun restrictions are being celebrated by the Left because people must now receive permission from the government before being allowed to purchase a firearm for self defense or sporting. Regrettably, this law was widely promoted by a number of churches and synagogues in the state.

The authoritarian Left in America hates the Second Amendment. One of their arguments theorizes that our gun rights should be eliminated because AR-15s were not available to the Continental Army at the Battle of Yorktown, just muskets and bayonets.

Extending this logic to the First Amendment, perhaps we should ban cable news and Facebook because they too did not exist in the mid-18th century. I’m not convinced that would be proper but it might be kind of fun to do it for a couple of weeks just to see what happens.

We’re led to believe that our Second Amendments rights are a freakish aberration in our Constitution, that guns are the root of much evil. In truth, the principles behind the Second Amendment are really old. Ancient, in fact.

In his 1754 treatise on The Absolute Rights of Individuals, the distinguished English jurist William Blackstone wrote of “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” and the importance of “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence (sic).”

Blackstone’s writings were designed to improve upon the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which included the right for some people to bear arms, though it was not a universal right.

Before legal and political thinkers specified the right to bear arms, scholars and theologians were promoting the concept of the right of self defense and the right to resist tyrants. During the Great Reformation, Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon and others affirmed the right of self defense, which was a very scary idea for 16th century European theocrats.

In affirming self preservation, the Reformers did not contemplate the people defending themselves with strongly worded letters to Rome protesting public disembowelment. They presumed people would be armed with weapons of the day.

The Magna Carta did not guarantee the right to bear arms but it did provide the right of resistance should the king not abide by its terms. This also presumes the right to bear arms. It’s no coincidence that when King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, the English nobles who attended the ceremony carried swords.

The Dooms of King Alfred required Anglo-Saxon landowners to provide men, ready to fight, in defense against the 9th century Viking raiders who frequented England’s shores. Like the Magna Carta, Alfred also presumed the men of his kingdom would be armed.

This acknowledgement of self defense as a God given right isn’t limited to the Anglo-Saxon or European traditions. Going back as far as 124 BC, Chinese Emperor Han affirmed the right of people to arm themselves, “to prevent tyranny and to punish evil.”

Ancient as these civic traditions of self defense are, most are predated in scripture. The Gospel of Luke records Jesus Christ telling his disciples before his betrayal, “Let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.” Whether Jesus meant this literally or figuratively is subject to debate but the underlying wisdom is unambiguous: be prepared because the future is dangerous.

Biblical Christianity doesn’t merely permit us to defend ourselves, it demands we defend our families. Paul’s first letter to Timothy reads, “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

This involves more than providing food and shelter; it also means protecting our loved ones from assault, rape, and murder. Apparently, some of Oregon’s so-called faith leaders are not familiar with this New Testament passage. More’s the pity.

By comparison, men’s fellowship at the church I attend in Texas includes presentations from local theologians and Bible scholars, group discussions on church doctrine, study of scripture, prayer, and range time with pistols and rifles.

When modern politicians seek to relieve us of our Second Amendment rights, they are contradicting millennia of common law, natural law and scripture. They are embracing the policies of tyrants who know that unarmed people are docile subjects rather than free citizens.

If we are denied the right of self defense, it’s only a matter of time until we’re denied others.

DRGO Study Says NO Link Between Legal Gun Sales & Violent Crime

BELLEVUE, WA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership (DRGO)—a project of the Second Amendment Foundation—has released a new study showing there is “no association between increased lawful firearm sales and rates of crime or homicide.”

The study, by DRGO member Mark Hamill, MD, FACS, FCCM, is titled “Legal Firearm Sales at State Level and Rates of Violent Crime, Property Crime, and Homicides” and is published in the Journal of Surgical Research. Dr. Hamill worked with a team of nine other doctors to reach their conclusions.

Dr. Robert Young, Executive Editor of DRGO, says “This confirms what those of us already know who follow all the research by medical, criminology and economic experts,” said DRGO Executive Director Dr. Robert Young. “Lawful gun possession is in no way related to homicide or other crime rates, and the constant drumbeat of anti-gun researchers and activists is a house built on sand.”

“DRGO is an important project of the Second Amendment Foundation,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “because anti-gun billionaires such as Michael Bloomberg are funding research that tries to portray guns and gun ownership as a disease.”

The new report is based on a detailed, objective 50-state analysis of data from the National Instant Background Check System, the Department of Justice Uniform Crime Reporting program, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System covering the years 1999-2015.

Dr. Hamill is an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Nebraska, a longtime gun owner, and a law enforcement officer in his previous career. His experience, expertise and thoroughness makes his team’s findings unimpeachable. In 2019, he published earlier research, “State Level Firearm Concealed-Carry Legislation and Rates of Homicide and Other Violent Crime” in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons. In this, he and his co-authors do the same careful work analyzing 30 years of data state-by-state.

“The take-home from these two studies is that neither lawful gun ownership nor concealed carry regimes can be correlated with rates of homicide or other crime,” Dr. Young said.

Read more at DRGO: “Dr. Hamill vs. the Empire (Again)” and in Hamill et al’s two papers.

Governor wants money to arm teachers, staff inside Mississippi schools

JACKSON, Miss. — Gov. Tate Reeves said he wants Mississippi lawmakers to put up more money to put armed teachers and staff inside schools.

The governor released his 2024 Executive Budget recommendation Tuesday for the coming legislative session. Included in the recommendations is a program called the Mississippi School Safety Guardian Program, which Reeves said is in response to a rash of school shootings across the nation.

Under the proposal, teachers or staff members would be nominated by the school district to undergo a thorough training program on active shooter situations and issued a gun, holster and bullets. The Mississippi Department of Public Safety would train the selected staff members.

“While law enforcement is the best-case scenario, having someone who is on the scene trained with a firearm that could possibly stop a shooter before more lives are lost is a good thing to have,” said Public Safety Commissioner Sean Tindell.

The governor’s plan pays $500 a month to the personnel who are trained for the enhanced safety role.

Akemi Stout, president of the Jackson Federation of Teachers, doesn’t support the proposal.

“How can this be to be so important to arm educators? People are afraid of their guns, so imagine if there is an instant where there is an armed intruder in the school and that person freezes, or the gun is taken from them,” Stout said.

Supporters point to the Pearl High School shooting, where an assistant school principal retrieved his weapon from his car to stop the shooter.

Also included in the governor’s budget recommendations are eliminating the state income tax, advancing the “new pro-life agenda,” giving Mississippi children “a first-rate education,” lowering health care costs and building a “high-quality” workforce.

“Our ultimate aim is straightforward: to advance responsible policies that lay the foundation of a strong society and allow Mississippians to flourish,” Reeves said in a statement. “We will maximize freedom, we will protect your rights and safety, and we will build a future that every Mississippian can be proud of. In other words, my budget continues to put you – the taxpayer – first.”

Lawmakers return to the Capitol in January for the start of the session.

List: 11 solutions to thwart school shootings

George Washington University legal advocate John Banzhaf has long led fights for public health, including on smoking, obesity, and discrimination.

But few knew he also has expertise in security, as a former security officer and consultant, career highlights he tapped today to call for major changes in school security to thwart shootings such as the one that killed three at the University of Virginia Sunday night.

While an advocate for arming some teachers, Banzhaf said he realizes that is a sensitive topic in some cities, so he has prepared a list of 11 solutions that are quick to deploy to stop the next shooter from harming students in classrooms.

“Most schools — including many which, like the one in Uvalde (Texas), had been ‘hardened’ — are ill-prepared for an armed intruder, lacking even such basic precautions as classrooms which can be locked from the inside, simple magnetic door-open sensors linked to a WiFi system of the type used in millions of homes,” he said in an email.

Banzhaf passed along his new security list of easy fixes that he published last month in University World News. “Those in charge of educational institutions, as well as those who teach there, should carefully consider taking some simple, proven, and inexpensive steps to substantially improve safety and reduce the chance that they and-or their students will be injured — or possibly even killed — by an active shooter on campus,” he wrote.

The Banzhaf Security List:

  1. Install classroom doors that can be locked from the inside.
  2. Mark each room with an easy-to-find identification and make up-to-date floor plans easily available for first responders.
  3. Provide all administrators and campus police officers with master keys.
  4. Get police door-opening tools such as the Halligan carried by firefighters.
  5. Install magnetic door-open sensors so administrators can see which doors are open or properly closed in schools.
  6. Make it easy to text via cellphone in an emergency.
  7. Distribute kits to help quickly stop the type of bleeding left by standard AR-15 rounds.
  8. On school apps, make sure it’s easy to find ways to contact police and officials in an active shooting case.
  9. Install one-way peepholes in office and other doors.
  10. Make a limited availability of guns and post signs stating, “Warning, some professors are armed.”
  11. Supply nonlethal weapons, such as bear spray or poles.

“To limit the carnage caused by active shooters, as well as the massive resulting potential legal liability, colleges, and universities, both in the U.S. and abroad, should consider taking a number of simple and inexpensive (and therefore reasonable) steps to reduce the risk, and the harm which is expected to be caused this year by active shooters,” said Banzhaf.

An friend terms posts like this übërpösts™ (in other words: It’s looong)
I’ll append commentary and observations from around the net.

Observation O’ The Day
It’s a look into the smartest minds of the enemy. Joe Huffman

The Ad Industry’s Plan to Fix America’s Gun Crisis

If you want a crude sketch of the biggest corporate players in a given year of TV, look no further than the Emmy Award for best commercial. Twenty-five years of winners form an ensemble cast of petty bourgeois preoccupations: Nike, Chrysler, Bud Light. This year’s nominees included a commercial for Meta (the artist formerly known as Facebook), one for Chevy (repping the still-muscular auto spend), two for Apple (a perennial contender), and two for the prevention of school shootings—one of which won the Emmy.

PSAs Killed Cigarettes. Can They Help End Gun Violence?

PSAs Killed Cigarettes. Can They Help End Gun Violence?© Getty; The Atlantic

Continue reading “”

Remember, Professor Yamane is presenting the standard model, not defending it.

This video concludes my ongoing series systematizing the dominant academic approach to understanding Gun Culture 2.0, what I call “The Standard Model of Explaining the Irrationality of Defensive Gun Ownership.”

Here I engage the 5th of the model’s 5 points: That something other than objective risk motivates defensive gun ownership.

From a sociological perspective, that something else centers on the discipline’s Holy Trinity: class, gender, and race. From a psychological perspective, defensive gun ownership is a maladaptive coping mechanism.

More Reasons Anti-Gun Policymakers Are Wrong About Armed Self-Defense

Despite the June U.S. Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which clearly affirmed the right of lawful Americans to carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home, many state and local politicians continue to try to pass more-restrictive laws on firearms carry.

As this was being written, the New Jersey legislature was pushing for a ban on guns in so-called “sensitive places,” while in Longmont, Colo., city councilors were considering similar restrictions.

Unfortunately for the citizens in those jurisdictions, these policymakers ignore the fact that guns are used in self-defense well over a million times each year; in fact, four separate instances of armed self-defense in the last week of October show just how wrong-thinking these gun-ban advocates are.

On Halloween night in Spring, Texas, a woman was moving her car into her driveway when two men—one with a handgun, the other with a rifle—allegedly approached her from behind, then forced her back into her home at gunpoint.

According to a report from local media, the woman’s roommate, who was inside the home, heard her screaming and emerged, armed with a handgun to confront the intruders. During the confrontation, he appears to have shot one of the alleged criminals in the abdomen.

Fortunately, neither the woman nor her roommate were hurt. At last report, police were still looking for both of the suspects that entered the home, as well as another suspect that drove them away.

Just two days earlier, an Alabama woman proved that a loaded firearm is much more effective protection than filing a protective order. In the 1:15 a.m. break-in in Hatchechubbee, Ala., the victim shot her estranged husband once in the abdomen.

According to reports, the woman had previously filed an order of protection against the intruder, but it had expired the week before. She was in the process of having the order reinstated when the break-in occurred.

That same day, in Ferguson, Mo., a man who was attacked by alleged carjackers shot one of the three men, who he said was holding a gun, and who he claimed had reached for his car door handle.

Later that morning, a man in a nearby neighborhood looked out of the window of his home and saw what he thought was a body in his backyard, according to a report. Police believe the dead man—who was dressed in a black hoodie, black sweatpants and black tennis shoes—was likely one of the attempted carjackers.

Lastly, in Edinburg, Texas, on Oct. 25, a woman likely feared for her life when someone broke into her house through the garage and tried to get into her bedroom. According to media reports, the woman warned the man that she had called the police and that she was armed.

The man apparently didn’t believe her and, unwisely, continued his attempt to break into the bedroom. That’s when the woman shot him through the bedroom door, ending the attack.

Investigators later found the suspect in a nearby open field with a gunshot wound to the arm. He was arrested and was being held at the Hidalgo County Jail with a $750,000 bond. The woman was shaken up, but unharmed.

The next time a cynical anti-gun politician tells you normal citizens never successfully use firearms for self-defense, just tell them to read the NRA’s Armed Citizen column.

Does Gun Control Save Lives or Cost Lives?

The world is violent. Lots of people think that we should pass more laws to make the world safer and less violent. It sounds obvious that we could reduce the number of criminals who use weapons by passing more gun-control laws. We’re not the first ones to think of that. We have thousands of gun-control regulations on the books already. I’ve been looking at the subject of gun-control and personal safety for a decade. I think gun-control laws put us at risk. The reasons are complex and not necessarily obvious.

Let’s be clear what is not under discussion here. We’re not talking about rights. Some people say they have a right to “be safe”. Some people say they have a right to “self-defense”. What you have a right to do may not have anything to do with how laws actually work in practice. Let’s look at what we already know.

We know that criminals commit violent crimes with a firearm about 510 times a day. That data is from 2019. That is the last year where the FBI has data from all 50 states.

Isn’t it obvious that we need more laws to stop those criminals? Shouldn’t we pass another law even if it only stopped a single crime? Isn’t that the least we should do?

I like that you obey the law and you think other people obey the law too. The problem of violent crime is more complex. There is more violent crime, much more than I’ve mentioned so far.  There are also lots of gun-control laws. Last, and certainly not least, honest citizens stop a lot of violent crimes because the intended victim had a gun of their own. Each of those factors has a vital influence on what gun-control laws can actually accomplish.

While it is true that criminals use guns to commit crimes, criminals also commit crimes without using a gun. In fact, that’s closer to the rule than the exception. Only one-out-of six violent criminals used a firearm (15 percent). That means that taking guns from every criminal would still leave us with a lot of non-gun crime. The remaining five-out-of-six violent criminals would still commit their acts of violence. And that assumes the currently-armed criminal will suddenly become peaceful if we took away his gun. That isn’t very realistic. Taking the gun away from a violent criminal doesn’t turn him into a nice person who obeys the law.

But we have to do something. We can’t just let armed criminals hurt people. Why shouldn’t we pass more laws?

Those are good questions, but what makes you think we haven’t “done something” already? We have over 23-thousand firearms regulations on the books today. And anti-gun politicians pass more gun-control laws every week. We should certainly be safe by now if ink-on-paper was all it took to stop crime. We’ve tried that approach tens-of-thousands of times.

OK, maybe those gun-control laws didn’t work.  We just need to write ones that will.

Let’s think this through a little more before we propose more laws. Life is more complex than what we see on the news. Bad guys are not the only ones who use guns. Good guys use guns too, a lot. Honest citizens legally use their firearms between 1.6 and 2.5-million times a year to stop violent crime or to prevent great bodily injury. That is over 4,500-times-a-day that honest citizens use a gun to save lives in the United States. Four-out-of-ten households have a gun today. One-out-of-a-dozen citizens are legally carrying a concealed firearm in public every day.

That is hard to believe. Why don’t I know that? How do I know you’re telling me the truth if the news didn’t show those stories?

Those are good questions. Those are brilliant questions. The answer will take more than a minute.

Continue reading “”

Study: 27 of the 30 Cities with Highest Murder Rate Are Democrat Run

A study published by the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Judicial and Legal Studies shows that 27 of the 30 cities with the highest murder rates are controlled by Democrats.

FOX News noted that the study indicates “27….[of the 30 cities] have Democratic mayors. Within those cities, there are at least 14 “rogue prosecutors” either backed or inspired by billionaire Democrat supporter George Soros.”

The Daily Signal reported that the authors of the study–Charles Stimson, Zack Smith, and Kevin D. Dayaratna–noted, “Those on the Left know that their soft-on-crime policies have wreaked havoc in the cities where they have implemented those policies.”

Stimson, Smith, and Dayaratna added:

It is not hard to understand why ‘reforms’ such as ending cash bail, defunding the police, refusing to prosecute entire categories of crimes, letting thousands of convicted felons out of prison early, significantly cutting the prison population, and other ‘progressive’ ideas have led to massive spikes in crime—particularly violent crime, including murder—in the communities where those on the Left have implemented them.

The study undercuts Hillary Clinton’s claim that Republicans’ emphasis on crime and violence in Democrat-run cities was not valid.

On November 3, 2022, CNN quoted Clinton suggesting Republicans were “just trying to gin up all kinds of fear and anxiety in people.”

She added, “[The Republicans] are not dealing with it. They are not trying to tackle it. So I view it as an effort to scare voters.”

Sheriff Judd isn’t a perfect Sheriff, but he’s pretty darn close

Sheriff defends Stand Your Ground law following arrests

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law has been met with controversy for quite some time. A lot of people don’t really understand what’s covered under the law and what isn’t.

The problem is that a lot of those who don’t understand it like to talk about the law as if they do. That leads to a lot of confusion.

And I can’t help but think that’s part of what happened in this case:

A Florida sheriff is justifying his encouragement of residents to shoot intruders “like grated cheese” after two men were charged with opening fire at a woman who they thought was trying to burglarize their home.

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said in an interview with the The Orlando Sentinel published Tuesday that he stood by urging his constituents to use lethal force to defend their homes in the wake of Hurricane Ian. Other Florida officials have offered similar advice to residents. But Judd said two of his constituents took it too far…

Two weeks later, Judd announced at an October 17 news conference that Winter Haven resident Gino  Colonacosta, 73, and his 15-year-old son Rocky Colonacosta had been charged with attempted murder, accused of firing seven times at a woman parked outside their home.

Sheriff Judd went on to explain that the two didn’t understand the Stand Your Ground law, which is completely accurate.

The law in question makes it so you don’t have to retreat if faced with a threat to your life. What it doesn’t do is allow you to shoot someone who is simply in the wrong place at the wrong time but no threat to you.

This whole thing started because some medication was misdelivered. The two accused then reportedly freaked because their Ring doorbell told them someone was there, so they started hunting the intruder, then saw the victim sitting in her car and opened fire. Thankfully, they missed her.

Look, people, here’s how it goes. If someone illegally enters your home when you’re there, that’s usually a safe use of the Stand Your Ground law. If someone threatens you with a weapon, that falls under it, too.

What doesn’t, however, is freaking out because your doorbell tells you someone is outside, so you start blasting the first person you see.

Further, someone sitting in their car and doing nothing is. Not. A. Threat.

If they’re trying to run over you? Sure. If they’re just sitting there? Nope.

Can it be suspicious? Absolutely, especially if they just sit there. After all, they might be casing your house or another for robbery. If they’re just hanging there, call the police and let them investigate.

But they could also be a private investigator checking out one of your neighbors. They could be stopped to make a phone call or check their phone for something. They might be waiting for someone and just got the address wrong.

There are a thousand good, lawful reasons to sit in your car outside of a home. None of them warrant shooting at the driver and trying to use a Stand Your Ground defense.

“I’m scared” or, “I thought they were up to no good” isn’t covered under the law. It’s not about your impressions of the situation so much as what any reasonable person would believe.

No one is going to look at this situation and assume that the person in the car means anyone harm based on the facts as we know them.

Florida’s Stand Your Ground law isn’t to blame for this. People not understanding the law is, though.

Northwest Body Counts Suggest Time for Change on Gun Control Is Here

It is familiar political ground in the Pacific Northwest, with rising homicide numbers providing strong evidence that gun controls in Washington have been an abject failure.

Seattle has recorded its 52nd homicide, and with two full months remaining in the year, there is no doubt the number will eventually exceed the 53 recorded two years ago. The city, as previously reported, is headquarters to the billionaire-backed gun prohibition lobbying group Alliance for Gun Responsibility. The organization has bankrolled two restrictive gun control initiatives since 2014, making it difficult for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights while demonstrably not accomplishing the promise of reduced gun-related violence and murder.

Down the road 175 miles, Portland is the tarnished gem of Oregon, with more than 80 slayings so far this year and an outlook for hitting a new record. It is against this backdrop Beaver State anti-gunners hope to pass next week a restrictive gun control measure—Ballot Measure 114—that will require a permit to purchase a firearm and add more restrictions including a training requirement.

At least one county sheriff—Brad Lohrey of Sherman County—told Fox News, “It is impossible for us to do what they’re asking us to do.”

In decades past, Seattle and Portland were known as laid-back growing metropolises, with far left politics and lots of tourist attractions. Nowadays, both cities are experiencing drug and gang epidemics, and crime is spiking because police manpower is down.

There may be change coming, in both states. Oregon appears on track to elect the first Republican governor in a generation. In Washington, there could be changes in the legislature and some changes in congressional representation as well. With changes in people, there will be changes in policy, but it all depends upon a strong turnout of gun owners and conservative voters across both states.

Gun politics is playing out in other regions. The Des Moines Register is editorializing against a proposed state constitutional amendment affirming the right to keep and bear arms. Iowa is one of a handful of states without such an amendment, and gun owners are seeking to change that.

But the newspaper is dead set against protecting the right at the state level, continuing a trend where the media uses the First Amendment to throttle the Second. It excoriates the June Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen for opening the door to both legal challenges and court corrections of infringements on the right to be armed. This suggests anti-gunners still haven’t accepted the explanation in Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion that the Second Amendment must be treated like all other rights.

For decades, gun control proponents have had it their way, with incremental imposition of restrictions on gun owners. Violent crime is increasing, not decreasing. Election Day could change that pattern, with a new Congress and power shifts at the state level, rejection of Oregon’s ballot measure and adoption of Iowa’s proposed amendment. At least, that is the perspective of Second Amendment activists who are hoping for a strong turnout of “gun voters” Nov. 8.

The [NO] association between gun shows and firearm injuries: An analysis of 259 gun shows across 23 US cities

Abstract
Guns shows are estimated to account for 4–9% of firearm sales in the US. Increased regulation of firearm sales at gun shows has been proposed as one approach to reducing firearm injury rates. This study evaluated the association between gun shows and local firearm injury rates. Data regarding the date and location of gun shows from 2017 to 2019 were abstracted from the Big Show Journal. Firearm injury rates were estimated using discharges from trauma centers serving counties within a 25-mile radius of each gun show. Clinical data were derived from the National Trauma Databank (NTDB). We used Poisson regression modeling to adjust for potential confounders including seasonality. We evaluated injury rates before and after 259 gun shows in 23 US locations using firearm injury data from 36 trauma centers. There were 1513 hospitalizations for firearm injuries pre-gun show and 1526 post-gun show. The adjusted mean 2-week rate of all-cause firearm injury per 1,000,000 person-years was 1.79 (1.16–2.76) before and 1.82 (1.18–2.83) after a gun show, with an incident rate ratio of 1.02 (0.94, 1.08). The adjusted mean 2-week rate did not vary significantly by intent after a gun show, (p = 0.24).

Within two weeks after a gun show, rates of hospitalization for all-cause firearm injury do not increase significantly within the surrounding communities. The relatively small increase in available firearms after a show and the short time horizon evaluated may account for the absence of an association between gun show firearm sales and local firearm injury rates.

The Range Access Act Would Bolster Public Lands and Gun Rights

As more Americans purchase firearms, opportunities to access shooting ranges on public lands should be expanded. 

A newly-introduced House of Representatives bill aims to bolster public range access for new and returning recreational shooters.

Congressman Blake Moore (R-UT) introduced the timely Range Access Act to “require the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to ensure that each qualifying National Forest and BLM district” designate—at a minimum—one public recreational shooting range without charging a user fee. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which manages the USFS, states some ranges located on National Forest lands impose usage fees. 

“This legislation is an important step in expanding access to recreational shooting practice. Americans from coast to coast love spending time in the outdoors, and expanding our ability to recreate on and enjoy our public lands is one of my core focuses in Congress,” said Congressman Blake Moore in a press release. “The Range Access Act would establish free shooting ranges for sportsmen to safely participate in target practice while supporting our wildlife conservation and local economies.”

The legislation also received praise from the nation’s preeminent shooting sports and conservation organizations. 

“The National Shooting Sports Foundation commends Congressman Blake Moore for introducing this vitally important legislation to increase access for the public to practice marksmanship at safe recreational shooting ranges,” said Lawrence G. Keane, National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “This legislation, which would require the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to have at least one qualifying recreational shooting range in each National Forest and BLM district, is crucial to ensuring safe public recreational shooting. Congressman Moore’s bill would also benefit conservation by reducing pollution at non-dedicated ranges on federal public lands while also generating additional Pittman-Robertson revenue.”

Continue reading “”

Just more willful ignorance

BLUF
The stereotype of gun owners is a lie. The media calls us male-pale-and-stale, and who cares if old white men are disarmed anyway. In fact, gun owners now look like a cross section of the USA. Minority urban women are the fastest growing segment of new gun owners. I think Democrat politicians are afraid that more women and minorities will decide to become gun owners. These new gun owners might enter the culture of armed America and protect themselves.

That fear keeps Democrat politicians up at night.

New Gun Owners are Invisible to the News Media and Democrat Politicians

More people own guns today than ever before. That growth is a continuation of a long term trend that goes back several decades. In addition to that gradual increase, we’ve also seen an extraordinary growth in new gun buyers in the last two years. We had to rewrite who owns guns and why they own them. Today, about four-out-of-ten families have a firearm in their home. Despite the astounding changes in gun ownership, the way some politicians talk about guns and gun owners is out of date. New gun owners are subjected to a crash course in being misperceived and misrepresented by politicians and by the mainstream news media alike.

What is real and what is fantasy?

Sitting President, Joe Biden, echoed old myths about gun owners at a fundraising event in June. He said,

“More people get killed with their own gun in their home trying to stop a burglar than, in fact, any other cause.. Think about that. Because it’s hard to do. It’s a hard thing to do.”

Mayor John Fetterman, the Democrat candidate for the US Senate from Pennsylvania, also felt the need to comment on guns and gun ownership. He said,

“I have seen with my own eyes at the scenes in my community what a military grade round does to the human body.” He said that rifles, particularly modern rifles, should be outlawed.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul said,

“This whole concept that a good guy with a gun will stop the bad guys with a gun, it doesn’t hold up. And the data bears this out, so that theory is over.”

Those statements don’t fit what we know. We know a lot about new gun owners because we talked with them. Gun stores asked new gun owners why they wanted a gun so the gun shop employee could direct the customer to the appropriate products. The industry trade group representing firearms manufacturers and distributors collected those answers. The stereotypical gun owner used to be an old white man who bought a gun to go hunting. Several years ago, personal safety replaced hunting as the major reason new gun owners buy a firearm. Today, gun owners are from every demographic group; male and female, rich and poor, urban and rural. Gun owners represent every ethnic and racial group. About one-out-of-four African-American adults own a firearm. It seems strange that the mainstream media and politicians have deliberately ignored that change.

Continue reading “”

The New York Times Isn’t Comfortable With the Prospect of Constitutional Carry Enabling More People to Protect Themselves

If my research convinces me of anything,” [John R. Lott Jr.] said, “it’s that you’re going to get the biggest reduction in crime if the people who are most likely victims of violent crime, predominantly poor Blacks, are the ones who are getting the permits.”

In Dallas, there has been a rise in the number of homicides deemed to be justifiable, such as those conducted in self-defense, even as overall shootings have declined from last year’s high levels.

“We’ve had justifiable shootings where potential victims have defended themselves,” said the Dallas police chief, Eddie Garcia. “It cuts both ways.”

Last October in Port Arthur, Texas, a man with a handgun, who had a license, saw two armed robbers at a Church’s Chicken and fired through the drive-through window, fatally striking one of the men and wounding the other. His actions were praised by the local district attorney.

Michael Mata, the president of the local police union in Dallas, said that he and his fellow officers had seen no increase in violent crime tied to the new permitless carry law, though there were “absolutely” more guns on the street.

Sheriff David Soward of Atascosa County, a rural area south of San Antonio, said he had also seen no apparent increase in shootings. “Only a small percentage of people actually take advantage of the law,” he said.

— J. David Goodman in Texas Goes Permitless on Guns, and Police Face an Armed Public

HOUSTON — Tony Earls hung his head before a row of television cameras, staring down, his life upended. Days before, Mr. Earls had pulled out his handgun and opened fire, hoping to strike a man who had just robbed him and his wife at an A.T.M. in Houston.

Instead, he struck Arlene Alvarez, a 9-year-old girl seated in a passing pickup, killing her.

“Is Mr. Earls licensed to carry?” a reporter asked during the February news conference, in which his lawyer spoke for him.

He didn’t need one, the lawyer replied. “Everything about that situation, we believe and contend, was justified under Texas law.” A grand jury later agreed, declining to indict Mr. Earls for any crime.

The shooting was part of what many sheriffs, police leaders and district attorneys in urban areas of Texas say has been an increase in people carrying weapons and in spur-of-the-moment gunfire in the year since the state began allowing most adults 21 or over to carry a handgun without a license.

At the same time, mainly in rural counties, other sheriffs said they had seen little change, and proponents of gun rights said more people lawfully carrying guns could be part of why shootings have declined in some parts of the state.

Far from an outlier, Texas, with its new law, joined what has been an expanding effort to remove nearly all restrictions on carrying handguns. When Alabama’s “permitless carry” law goes into effect in January, half of the states in the nation, from Maine to Arizona, will not require a license to carry a handgun.

The state-by-state legislative push has coincided with a federal judiciary that has increasingly ruled in favor of carrying guns and against state efforts to regulate them.

Continue reading “”

 

Fourth Amendment Forbids Handcuffing Driver Just Because He Has Gun + Gun Permit
“Any contrary holding ‘would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protections for lawfully armed individuals’ by presuming a license expressly permitting possession of a firearm was invalid.”

From Friday’s decision in Soukaneh v. Andrzejewski, written by Judge Janet Bond Arterton (D. Conn.):

Continue reading “”

Massachusetts Gun Control Scheme an Abject Failure

Gun Related Homicides Increased 111% Since 1998 Gun Control Act

2020 Massachusetts Department of Public Health Report on Deaths Still Reflects the Commonwealth’s Gun Laws are an Unmitigated Disaster!

On Thursday, October 27, 2022, Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) released a report reflecting a nearly two-fold increase in gun related homicides in Massachusetts. The report included data taken directly from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health’s Injury Surveillance Program (ISP). The report breaks down gun deaths in the Commonwealth into three categories: Homicides, Suicides, and Accidental deaths.

“What just jumps off the page is the more than doubling of gun related homicides since the passage of the 1998 Gun Control Act,” said Jim Wallace, Executive Director of GOAL. “For more than two decades we have constantly heard that Massachusetts is leading the nation in ‘common sense’ gun control laws. Using the State’s own data, we are proving that is simply a false and dangerous narrative.”

Using the State’s own data, the report reflects an 111% increase in gun related homicides since 1998. Gun related suicides are down a few points, but that marginal success is outweighed by a huge increase in suicide by hanging/suffocation. Virtually no gains have been made in accidental gun deaths as those numbers were so minuscule already.

It is GOAL’s hope that the legislature will finally see what this so-called, gun control effort for what it really is. An affront to our Second Amendment civil rights. There is absolutely no way to justify what has been done to the Second Amendment Community in the name of “safety”. One of the first things the legislature needs to address in the next legislative session is a complete revamp of the State’s gun laws in a manner that respects our community’s civil rights. Further, the political leadership needs to start addressing the human criminal element head on and the growing mental health crisis.