Category: Safety

New study contradicts “More Guns = More Crime” theory

Do increased gun sales lead to increased crime rates? According to gun control activists, the answer is “yes,” but a new study published in the Journal of Surgical Research finds no connection between firearm purchases and the number of crimes. I’m very pleased that Dr. Mark Hamill, a trauma surgeon and associate professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center who was a primary author and researcher for the new study, could join me on today’s Cam & Co to discuss his findings and the current state of “gun violence” research in the medical community.

For this particular study, Hamill and his associates used both national and state-level data on crime rates between 1999 and 2015 as well as NICS reporting data over the same time period as a reasonable proxy for gun sales. Hamill hypothesized beforehand that there would be no correlation between gun sales and crime rates, and as it turns out, that’s exactly what researchers found.

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 naïve 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.

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.

This study follows on previous research released by Hamill and others back in 2019 that examined concealed carry laws and crime rates; looking to see if changes to a state’s concealed carry laws resulted in more crime overall. Just as in this most recent study, the data found no significant association between “shifts from restrictive to nonrestrictive carry legislation on violent crime and public health indicators.”

As Hamill says, the results make sense. Most people who legally purchase and lawfully carry firearms are never going to commit a violent crime, so increasing the number of those who are legally exercising their Second Amendment rights shouldn’t result in more violent crime. As for gun sales and crime rates, while the number of firearms sold might vary from year to year, the number of privately-owned firearms in the United States continues to increase. If more guns equated to more crime, then we’d expect to see a steady rise in criminal offenses year after year. Instead, a graph of violent crime rates going back to 1900 shows that crime tends to ebb and flow in waves that can last for decades.

Note, by the way, what happened to the homicide rate in the years after the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968. While homicide rates had been fairly flat throughout most of the 1960s, there was a sharp increase starting around the time the GCA became law, and a steady decline didn’t begin until more than two decades later in the early 1990s.

That crime decline generally continued until 2020, when shootings and homicides soared in the midst of the COVID-19 shutdowns, disruptions to the criminal justice system, riots, and a pullback from proactive policing strategies. Gun sales also exploded in 2020, but despite the assertions of some gun control activists that the increase in gun purchases must have played a role in the increased violence, there isn’t much evidence that was the case, as even some anti-gun researchers have acknowledged.

Dr. Garen Wintemute of the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis investigated a possible relationship between 2020’s gun sales and the increase in crime and found none.

“Instead, [researchers] concluded that unemployment, economic disparity and physical distancing exacerbated by the pandemic were far more potent predictors of increased violence,” the FiveThirtyEight article notes.

Hamill’s study comes at a time of heightened interest in the gun control debate within the medical community, including a special issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association dedicated to examining “gun violence” and advocating for a host of new gun control laws. Hamill says that unfortunately there does seem to be a bias towards gun control among many researchers, and described how this most recent study was actually rejected by another journal; not because of any issues with the researcher’s methodology, but because the journal’s editor didn’t like the results.

Thankfully this new paper found a home at the Journal of Surgical Research, and I would encourage you to not only read the paper but share its findings far and wide. More guns does not equal more crime, and we’ve got the data to prove it.

If the left wants to try stuff on this side of the pond, we’ve got a remedy we’ve retained since we were still colonies.

HOMICIDAL URGES ON THE LEFT
If you have the feeling that liberals would like to kill you, you aren’t paranoid. You are catching on.

Around the world, we are seeing increasingly violent talk from the Left. All too often, that talk has led to violent action. When Congressman and Senate candidate Tim Ryan says “we’ve got to kill and confront” the movement of “extremist Republicans,” you are right if you think he means you.

This liberal outrage comes from the U.K.: a video game in which you try to kill Margaret Thatcher. The game is endorsed by a former leader of the Labour Party:

Jeremy Corbyn has been pictured playing a video game modified to let players kill Margaret Thatcher.

The former Labour leader was pictured playing the Thatcher’s Techbase game on a console at Left-wing political festival The World Transformed (TWT).
***
On Thursday night, Mr Purvis tweeted a photograph of Mr Corbyn, the independent MP for Islington North, using the console and posing alongside it, with the caption: “He liked the game.”

I’ll bet he did. Can you imagine the fallout if someone produced a video game where the object was to murder, say, Barack Obama? No, I don’t think you can. But killing conservatives is all the rage.

A description of Thatcher’s Techbase written by Mr Purvis on its release read: “On Sept 24, Margaret Thatcher will rise from her grave. Only you can send her back to hell.

“Faced with the return of one of humanity’s greatest threats, you have no choice but to head to the 10th circle of hell: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Margaret Thatcher is back from hell, and the lady’s not for returning.”

The cover art for the game pictures Baroness Thatcher, who died in 2013, with devil horns, demon eyes, fangs and a gun for an arm.

Here is Corbyn playing the kill-Thatcher game:

I am afraid that political violence is going to get a great deal worse before it gets better.

Yes

Should We Train for the Trends or the Outliers?

The world of self-defense is defined by extreme positions; in particular, when dealing with the use of the handgun for personal protection, most take their sides on what we should be training for. The majority of concealed carriers will regale the troupe of “three yards, three shots, three seconds.” There is some validity to this mantra; most civilian-oriented defensive shootings are resolved quickly, with only a few rounds fired, and take place at close range. The problem is, however, that this is a common theme but hardly a rule. There are numerous examples of incidents that demanded far more rounds fired or happened at far greater distances than this.

On the opposite extreme of the “three rounds, three yards, three seconds” crowd is the “carry as much gun as possible” crowd that tends toward carrying full-size guns with lights, optics, and spare magazines. Of course, in my experience, many who claim to only carry a full-size pistol simply don’t carry any gun much of the time because the full-size gun is more difficult to conceal under many circumstances. Many such practitioners select gear based on the outlier event, such as active shooters with rifles at long distances. Being prepared for the worst may make good sense, but how much more challenging is it to carry such gear and is it worth the effort? And, pertaining to training, should the citizen focus on the trends or the outliers?

There are a number of noted and respected professionals in the field that think little if any, specific credence should be granted to dealing with the outlier event that is the active shooter. As is reasonable, they argue that the chances of being in such an event pale in comparison to the far more likely street-level robbery. While there is no doubt that, statistically, the armed citizen is more likely to be robbed on the street or in a parking lot than being caught in an active killer event, all the statistics don’t matter much to the individual who finds themselves there. Is being in an active killer event likely? Not at all. Is it possible? Sure. Therefore, should time be spent on the more complex problem that is the active killer outlier, or are armed citizens better off focusing on what is more likely?

Continue reading “”

How the US Squandered Its Strategic Minerals

  • While China has been relentlessly pursuing self-reliance when it comes to raw materials — especially strategic ones such as titanium, tungsten and cobalt, which are used in the defense industry — the US for the past several decades has been selling off huge chunks of the strategic minerals stockpile to the extent that the National Defense Stockpile is reportedly reaching insolvency.
  • By comparison, China, as of 2020, was the world’s third-largest exporter of titanium, while the US was the number one destination for the Chinese titanium exports.
  • It is China’s growing influence in Africa, especially through its Belt and Road Initiative, the global infrastructure and economic development project that the Chinese Communist Party launched in 2013, that has helped China achieve such near monopolies when it comes to precious resources and raw materials.
  • The rare earths dependency on China stems in part from the fact that extracting rare earth minerals is an extremely polluting process that China has been willing to undertake, while most other countries have not, including the US, which ironically prides itself on having extremely strict environmental regulations in place.
  • The US, according to Reuters, has only one rare earths mine and no capability to process rare earth minerals. If China were to stop exporting them to the US, the country would fast run out of the basic building blocks required to produce the military hardware that the US needs, not to mention all the other items where rare earth minerals are needed.
  • At present, 40 out of Africa’s 54 countries participate in China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
  • “Beijing has increased its control of African commodities through strategic direct investment in oil fields, mines, and production facilities, as well as through resource-backed loans that call for in-kind payments of commodities. This control threatens the ability of U.S. companies to access key supplies.” — U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 2020 Report to Congress.
While China has been relentlessly pursuing self-reliance when it comes to raw materials — especially strategic ones that are used in the defense industry — the US for decades has been selling off huge chunks of its strategic minerals stockpile. Pictured: A front-loader shifts soil containing rare earth minerals, to be loaded on ships at a port in Lianyungang, China, on September 5, 2010. (Photo credit should read STR/AFP via Getty Images)

“The PRC’s [Communist China’s] long-term goal,” the Pentagon wrote in 2020, “is to create an entirely self-reliant defense-industrial sector—fused with a strong civilian industrial and technology sector—that can meet the PLA’s needs for modern military capabilities.”

Continue reading “”

Raising age to buy rifles in Texas won’t prevent mass shootings. There’s an obvious reason why

Before the Uvalde school attacker perpetrated obvious felonies such as capital murder and aggravated assault — before he even pulled the trigger — he had already committed numerous crimes.

Among them was bringing a firearm on school premises, making a menacing public display of the weapon, and trespassing on school property. Some people think there ought to be another law, as if just one more penal provision would have averted the tragedy in Uvalde.

They are demanding that Gov. Greg Abbott call a special session so the Legislature can outlaw the purchase of semiautomatic rifles by adults between the ages of 18 and 20. Reflexively enacting this gun-control measure would be no quick fix for school shootings, however, in no small part because it is patently unconstitutional.

And it would be wrong. Young adults have the same rights as other adults, including the right to self-defense. The Heritage Foundation notes that “Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times annually.” Though no government agency tracks those incidents and records the ages of those who defended themselves, many are surely younger than 21.

We can’t answer lawlessness with more lawlessness or a disregard for the Constitution. Even the notoriously liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with that.

This year, the court held that California violated the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it imposed a blanket ban on the sale of semiautomatic rifles to young adults between the ages of 18 and 20. Holding that such rifles are not “dangerous and unusual weapons,” which would have left them unprotected under Heller, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the age-based ban unconstitutionally deprives young adults of their right to lawful self-defense within the home.

The Second Amendment argument against a young-adult rifle ban has only gotten stronger with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark opinion in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, handed down after the May 24 Uvalde shooting. As Justice Clarence Thomas explained in striking down New York’s scheme to prevent carrying a handgun for self-defense, the days of treating the Second Amendment as a second-class right are over.

Going forward, lower courts will have to scrutinize modern laws for consistency with the constitutional text and history. The court’s decision has already changed the Second Amendment landscape in Texas, according to a respected federal judge in Fort Worth. This past month, Judge Mark Pittman held that the Bruen decision overrules 5th U.S. Circuit Court decisions allowing a young-adult handgun ban.

On this basis, he has issued an injunction against a Texas law that prevents young adults from getting licensed to carry handguns in public. In addition, the Texas Constitution independently guarantees a Texan’s “right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself.”

A young-adult rifle ban from the Legislature, whether enacted in a special session or in the regular session beginning in January, would not make Texas schools any safer. It would not even go into effect before being enjoined as unconstitutional — on the strength of that Ninth Circuit ruling, which struck down an identical provision.

The heart-wrenching tragedy in Uvalde has generated universal agreement that something must be done to avert a repeat of what happened there. Identifying the villain of Uvalde was easy; calibrating a meaningful response to the attacker’s murderous rampage will be hard.

It will take months of difficult deliberation for the Legislature to understand and address the interrelated problems of gun violence, mental health, school hardening, and law-enforcement failures. But there can be no unconstitutional lawless shortcuts.

Instead of passing a young-adult rifle ban that will immediately fail judicial scrutiny, the Legislature should continue working on bills that will actually make schools safer, without trampling the constitutional rights of law-abiding Texans.

Robert Henneke is the executive director and general counsel at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a think tank based in Austin.

Denver Gazette: Gun control hits a wall in Colorado

Gun-control measures enacted in Boulder County have been placed on hold by the federal courts; left in doubt by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and, as reported in The Gazette last week, stymied even more amid further court developments here in Colorado.

All of which should prompt advocates of more restrictions on firearms to ponder shifting tack in the campaign to curb gun violence. If the courts are turning out to be no friends of more gun control, perhaps it’s time for policy makers to move beyond tilting at the Second Amendment.

How about focusing instead on steps that likely would draw little opposition while making a real difference — like beefing up security at our children’s schools? Let’s have more police deployed as school resource officers. And tighter limits on access during the school day. There’s even a program that has been training faculty and staff in firearms use if needed to defend kids at dozens of participating school districts around the state.

Such alternatives to more gun control make all the more sense considering the inherent futility of attempting to legislate an end to gun violence. Rebranding firearms as “assault rifles” and banning them; limiting the capacity of gun magazines, and other knee-jerk responses were always more about sending a message in the wake of a shooting tragedy than about providing any realistic hope of heading off the next one.

Last Friday, a federal judge declined to combine four different lawsuits brought by right-to-arms advocates against Boulder County and the cities of Boulder, Louisville and Superior. The local governments had enacted similar firearms regulations, including bans on large-capacity magazines and on so-called assault weapons.

U.S. District Court Judge Raymond P. Moore, whose court is handling the lawsuit against Superior, declined that city’s request to merge all the court actions. The result could be conflicting rulings between various judges as to whether the local ordinances violate the Second Amendment. But as Moore observed, “if anyone thinks the district court is going to have the last say on this, they’re kidding themselves.” Perhaps there’s no harm, then, in giving each lawsuit its full day in court in light of the long legal journey that lies ahead.

The laws are not in effect thanks to court-issued restraining orders. That’s pending further proceedings and maybe even the resolution of the entire court challenge. Which could take years.

Underlying all of it is the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which set a higher bar for gun restrictions to pass constitutional muster.

Given a new prevailing philosophy on the Second Amendment at the nation’s highest court — and lower courts’ pragmatic deference to it — the prospects for imposing new restrictions gun ownership appear a lot dimmer than they used to. Gun control could become the dog that won’t hunt.

Coloradans across the political spectrum should resolve to lower the odds of random violence where they can, in ways that actually work. Our schools — the scene of some of the worst shooting tragedies in Colorado and across the country — are a good place to start.

Denver Gazette Editorial Board

Murphy Blocking Cruz School Security Bill Says It All

United States Senate – -(AmmoLand.com)- The next time some anti-Second Amendment extremist claims that those of us who object to gun control aren’t trying to prevent school shootings, the objection of Senator Chris Murphy to Ted Cruz’s School Security Enhancement Act should be thrown in their face.

Second Amendment supporters are all too aware of how anti-Second Amendment extremists weaponize mass shootings in general and mass shootings at schools in particular against our rights. Cruz’s legislation would allow current Student Support and Academic Enrichment grant programs to be used to improve the security at schools.

This sort of thing is – or should be – a no-brainer all around. Who doesn’t want safe schools? Chris Murphy, for one, it seems. What could he find so objectionable about Cruz’s legislation, which doesn’t even permit the use of the grants to arm teachers or train them?

We can quibble whether or not Cruz should have allowed the grants to be used to arm teachers. On the one hand, arming teachers does generate controversy (a voluntary program really shouldn’t, but we’re not in an ideal world). On the other hand, if Murphy won’t even support measures to improve school security that don’t involve guns… what do we have to gain by taking armed teachers off the table? That can be discussed later.

The topic for now, must be Murphy’s decision to object to even bringing such a measure up for debate. This is a no-lose proposition for Second Amendment supporters, especially if we make a lot of noise about it now. If we are seen working on efforts to deter, prevent, or mitigate mass shootings – including efforts that don’t involve guns – we have a chance to head off attacks.

As has been discussed on these pages earlier, Murphy has pushed legislation that would prohibit any sort of federal funding for law enforcement in schools. In other words, what he is proposing would actually make repeats of Sandy Hook, Parkland, and Uvalde not only much more likely to happen but also to rack up the kind of body counts that force us into a major action in defense of our rights.

Why would he remove something that could deter or mitigate attacks? That is a question we’d see him asked if the vast majority of media outlets were honest. We don’t have that world today, so much of it could end up needing to be done by Second Amendment supporters at town meetings. Those in Connecticut should press Murphy on this and demand an explanation.

Remember the time it took for cops to arrive at Sandy Hook? It was ten minutes – 600 seconds. The long periods of inaction by law enforcement at Parkland and Uvalde also should be kept in mind. Murphy’s past track record of smearing Second Amendment supporters means he has forfeited any claim to receiving the benefit of the doubt from Second Amendment supporters on this matter as well.

One final thing: Working to prevent school shootings with legislative proposals like what Senator Cruz proposed is not being a “Fudd.” The fact is, we should be trying to head off these shootings – it’s in our interest to do so, just look at the aftermath of Parkland.

Second Amendment supporters have a chance to immunize themselves to some degree from attacks in the wake of the next school shooting. If they can seize this chance, it will help efforts to defeat anti-Second Amendment extremists at the federal, state, and local levels via the ballot box.

Demand for private security is booming in Minneapolis.

In June 2020, the Minneapolis city council famously vowed to defund the police department. Though their plans fell through, the fully funded MPD is nonetheless struggling. More than 250 officers have resigned or retired since then. Earlier this year, the Minneapolis supreme court ruled that the city has a duty to staff the MPD with a minimum of 731 sworn officers, but the department is at least 100 officers short of that target. Meantime, crime has spiked, with 96 homicides in 2021—doubling the number in 2019 and tying a 1995 record.

Private security has stepped into the breach. The number of licenses approved for new private providers rose from 14 in 2019 to 27 in 2021, according to data from Minnesota’s Board of Private Detective and Protective Agent Services. Demand is exploding as businesses increasingly opt for private guards over off-duty cops.

Christopher Forest started his private security firm, Unparalleled Security, after the rioting of 2020. Today, he has 175 employees. Forest did not set out to start a private security firm, having previously worked as CEO of Minnesota’s largest valet-parking company. But after June 2020, his clients began approaching him with requests for security guards. These clients had once hired off-duty police officers for their security needs, but the MPD’s image after the George Floyd killing made that more difficult.

“I think it just had to do with the temperature in the room when you have a police officer in a venue versus an unarmed security guard,” Forest says.

Michael MacDonald, who runs a smaller private security firm called JomsVikings Protection and Security, agrees. “Stores do not want cops out in front because of the negative attention it can bring to their facilities,” says MacDonald. His license to operate was issued July 31, 2020. Today, he has 18 full-time and ten part-time employees.

High crime means that new clients, such as movie theaters, are entering the market for private security, says Richard Hodson, the chairman of Minnesota’s Board of Private Detective and Protective Agent Services. Hodson says he knows of a retired police officer who recently got a license to run his own private security firm but has had to turn down contracts because he cannot hire enough guards to staff them. Demand exceeds supply.

Businesses still fear negative publicity from taking an aggressive enforcement stance. Forest says retail clients instruct his guards not to confront shoplifters. “Retail is in a place where they do not want you to even address the person,” he says. “You are not to talk to them. You are not to approach them. You are not to ask to see the items in their bag. If they are purchasing something, you are asked to not look at the receipt. You are 100 percent visual deterrent, and that is all.”

That approach isn’t universal. MacDonald says that his guards sometimes confront shoplifters, but never aggressively. “When we zone in on the individual who is stealing, we go over there and we say, ‘Hey, man, we know you stole. Can you just put it back and then leave?’ We start with that approach. We don’t go right to the top,” he says. “I will only take a contract for a store if there is a clear understanding that we are strictly there for employee safety. We are not loss prevention.”

Should guards call police to stop crimes in progress? MacDonald’s personnel tend not to do so for shoplifting. Forest says that some of his guards who work for hotels do intervene if guests are engaging in illegal activities; in theory, they should call the police, but they usually don’t. “If it is not a life threatening situation, the police do not show up,” Forest says. “They let my guards de-escalate on their own.”

Even a nonconfrontational approach can escalate. MacDonald describes an incident that occurred in July: “A guy stole a bag of chips and shoved it down his pants. Our guy made an approach and was like, ‘You can keep the chips, but you still got to go.’ Well, the guy brandished a firearm out of his bag. So our guy pulled his firearm. And then the guy took off running. But our employee had the level of training to remember that he could still re-holster it, and he does not have to engage any further.” That incident merited a rare call to the MPD. “If it gets higher than a theft, like what happened with my employee, then the cops will actually come, because otherwise they are not coming,” says MacDonald.

Some Minneapolis residents still prefer to hire off-duty cops, whom the department makes available through what it calls the “buyback program.” The upscale Lowry neighborhood established the Minneapolis Safety Initiative for off-duty police to conduct patrols. Residents are trying to raise $210,000, suggesting a recurring contribution from their neighbors of $220/month for at least six months. The Minneapolis Safety Initiative attracted significant coverage, including criticism from some who argue that wealthier neighborhoods are purchasing scarce police hours.

Nevertheless, demand for private security is growing. MacDonald and Forest expect to see significant expansion in the year ahead. High crime and police shortages are changing the public-safety landscape in Minneapolis.

Analysis: How 50 Million Defensive Gun Uses Played Out According to a Massive Survey

The largest-ever scientific survey of gun owners found Americans used a gun in self-defense at least 1.67 million times per year. But the poll did a lot more than just count defensive uses; it also detailed how, when, and where they happened.

The National Firearms Survey, conducted by Georgetown University Professor William English, presented a ton of information on key questions surrounding guns in America. It found gun ownership is diversifying and gun carry is broadly popular. It found about a third of gun owners have owned an AR-15 or similar rifle and 50 percent have owned magazines holding more than ten rounds–key information for the legal battles over whether they can be banned.

And, of course, it also found a large number of American gun owners report using their guns to protect themselves. 31.1 percent of gun owners said they’d used a gun in self-defense. That equates to about 25.3 million Americans, according to English.

While a plurality of respondents said they’d only been involved in a single defensive gun use, the majority said they’d used a gun for self-defense more than once. That’s how English determined there were about 50 million reported defensive uses. He found the yearly rate of 1.67 million by dividing that total by the number of adult years the respondents had lived.

English said he did it that way to address one of the critiques of previous survey-based estimates of defense gun uses, which relied on people recounting not only that they used a gun in self-defense but that it happened in the last year.

However, that doesn’t mean it perfectly captures defensive gun uses. Critics have long questioned the validity of survey-based estimates altogether. Often they argue people who self-report using a gun to defend themselves are often misrepresenting what happened and may have even broken the law during the incident. Another common critique is the number of defensive gun uses doesn’t square with the number of justifiable homicides or criminals treated for gunshots.

Similarly, surveys of self-identified crime victims show a lower rate of self-reported gun defensive uses.

English said his estimates square with reported rates of hospital visits for gunshot wounds if you take the most common form of reported defensive gun use into account: incidents where no shots are fired. The more limited estimates, which put self-defense incidents in the tens of thousands rather than millions, do not account for defensive gun uses where nobody is injured. That’s a subset of events that English’s survey found was massive.

“[I]n the vast majority of defensive gun uses (81.9%), the gun was not fired,” he wrote in the preprint paper on the survey. “Rather, displaying a firearm or threatening to use a firearm (through, for example, a verbal threat) was sufficient. This suggests that firearms have a powerful deterrent effect on crime, which, in most cases, does not depend on a gun actually being fired or an aggressor being injured.”

The survey includes stories from a number of respondents who recount their self-defense encounters, including many who did not fire a shot.

Continue reading “”

How Hochul’s gun laws will make churches less safe

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has been on an anti-gun tirade pretty much since she took office. Any hopes she’d be a smidge better than her predecessor on the Second Amendment have been well and truly dashed. The only thing she may be better on is not sexually harassing her female subordinates.

Following New York’s epic smackdown by the Supreme Court, Hochul and the legislature rushed through a measure seeking to try and adhere to the letter of the Bruen decision only as much as they felt they had to.

Yet that law includes a prohibition of guns at any place of worship.

As noted at our sister site PJ Media, that’s going to make those places of worship a lot less safe.

For your consideration:

  • On June 17, 2015, a man walked into the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., where a prayer meeting was being held. He shot and killed nine people, including the pastor, State Senator Clementa Pinckney. The shooter was charged with a hate crime.
  • November 5, 2017 — a man entered the Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church in Texas. He was dressed in black and wearing tactical gear. By the time he finished shooting, 26 were dead and 20 were wounded.
  • On a Sunday morning in December 2019, a man walked through the door of the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas, and opened fire during services. Two victims died in the attack. The gunman was killed by two parishioners, one of whom was the security guard.
  • October 27, 2018 — a man came into the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh. After shouting “All Jews must die!” he shot and killed 11 people. Six others were wounded. He was known for posting anti-Semitic rants on Gab.
  • One person was killed and three were injured when a man entered Chabad of Poway in California and opened fire with a semiautomatic rifle in April 2019.
  • In January of this year, a man held four people, including the rabbi, hostage at Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas, for 10 hours before being killed by police. The suspect said that he had hidden bombs in undisclosed locations.
  • In May 2022, the New York Post reported a rise in anti-Semitic activity in the city. This included vandalization of synagogues and attacks on individual people.

It should be noted that if you want to go further back, you can find still more places of worship being targeted.

What’s more, many churches and synagogues can’t afford to hire professional armed security, yet there’s no provision in state law for volunteers to step in if the church so desires.

Look, one area where I tend to infuriate my fellow Second Amendment supporters is that I think a property owner has the right to ban guns on their property. I’m fine with laws that give signs the force of law, even. I want to know where I’m not welcome, after all.

But the flip side of that is that I cannot tolerate laws that tell property owners that they can’t make that determination for themselves. That’s precisely what Hochul’s law does since the churches and synagogues are, in fact, property owners in most cases.

Looking at this list, it’s easy to see that places of worship get targeted by maniacs looking to kill as many people as possible.

Hochul and folks like her probably think this law will stop that, but it won’t. I mean, if a law would stop such a thing, then wouldn’t the laws against murder do the trick on their own?

They don’t, though.

Instead, these places of worship cannot allow their congregations to be lawfully armed as a defensive measure. That means these very places become better targets for the deranged.

And when it happens in New York, remember that it was Hochul and her buddies who made that target so attractive.

Tactical gear for women to carry arms

Vicky Johnston, the owner and designer of Her Tactical, joined the show today to talk about her business.

Johnston encourages women to be prepared, be aware, and be ready for anything they may encounter. She shares her self defense skills with others through her company, offering a workshop to help build confidence.

Johnston tells of her story finding items to conceal a gun that work well for women. In her experience, every store she went to only had products for men, so she started her own company specifically tailored for women.

Her Tactical is putting on a workshop in February, and is offering a 15% discount on any concealed carry product purchased using the coupon code “ABC4” on her website.

Concealed Carry Products: https://hertactical.com/

Workshop Registration: https://hertactical.com/workshop/

Stopping An Attack: Stopping an attacker as soon as possible is critical to surviving a criminal encounter.

Regardless of your state of residence, the justification for using deadly force is to stop someone who is placing people’s lives in immediate, serious danger. Of course, it is up to you to know the exact wording and particulars of your state law and abide by them. But, essentially, if we hadn’t taken immediate action, an innocent person would have been killed or sustained serious bodily injury.

It is important to understand that killing the bad guy is not, nor should be, our goal. We are acting because we want to stop the attacker right now, before any further damage is done. By the same token, if the bad guy dies because of our defensive response, that is unfortunate, but it is something he should have considered before placing others in danger.

And, in order to get him to stop as quickly as possible, we place our shots in what we call the vital zone. Rounds fired to the upper chest area are the easiest to make because the target is large. And these shots rely on the loss of blood and drop in blood pressure to incapacitate the criminal. As most deer hunters know, even a heart shot is not an instant stopper. Activity stops when fresh blood is no longer getting to the brain.

The more immediate stop comes from a head shot that impacts the brain or brain stem. The problem here is that the head is a much smaller target and is generally a moving target, as any turkey hunter can testify.

The current trends in thinking are that caliber doesn’t matter nearly as much as penetration. The bullet has to drive deep enough to impact the vitals in such a way as to cause the criminal to stop the attack. Okay, I’ll buy that, up to a point. A large hole in the heart or a major blood vessel is going to leak more blood than will a small hole in the same location.

For this reason, I still recommend the minimum defensive round to be 9 mm/.38 Spl. in size. And the defensive handgun should be loaded with premium bullets from a major manufacturer to insure that it will expand and penetrate in an appropriate manner. There is really no justification for going to a smaller caliber unless the person has some sort of physical problem that prevents it.

Essentially, the smaller the caliber and the lighter the load means that it is going to be even more difficult to get the crook to stop right now. And, remember, that is our goal. If your attacker dies from all those .22 bullets next week, or even in a couple of hours, there’s still plenty of time to continue this grievous attack. It is that attack that we want to stop … and we want to stop it right now!

Largest-Ever Survey of Gun Owners Finds Diversity Increasing, Carrying Common, and More Than 1.6 Million Defensive Uses Per Year

A survey of 16,708 gun owners provides updated answers to some of the most pressing questions surrounding guns in America.

The National Firearms Survey, conducted in 2021 and updated earlier this year, examines the breadth of gun ownership and the use of guns throughout the country. It found more minorities and women own guns than previous surveys indicated, half of gun owners report carrying a handgun for self-defense, and nearly a third report having used a firearm to defend themselves–a number that translates to over 1.6 million defensive uses per year. William English, the Georgetown University professor who created the survey, told The Reload it is the most comprehensive look at American gun ownership yet produced.

“The biggest difference between the results of this survey and many earlier ones is that this survey goes into greater depth regarding types of firearms owned, the details of defensive gun uses, and frequency of defensive carry of handguns,” Professor English said. “This survey is also the largest survey of gun owners ever conducted, providing more statistical power than earlier surveys and much more information about the demographics of gun ownership and use. Its results are largely consistent with other recent survey work when it comes to general ownership estimates, which increases the confidence in its accuracy, but it goes into greater depth with regard to many details of interest.”

The sweeping survey will likely influence both the political and legal landscape surrounding firearms. The debate over guns has primarily centered on how common the ownership of guns is and how often they are really used to protect people rather than endanger them. Much of the evidence cited in that debate is decades old. So, the introduction of not just more thorough but more recent evidence may disrupt the decades-old conversation on guns. Its effect may be particularly stark in federal courts where the Supreme Court has placed significant weight on protecting guns in “common use for lawful purposes.”

The survey could also shake up how academics study guns in America. Up to this point, most gun ownership surveys have not been much larger than traditional public opinion polls. That means their samples can not be generalized down from their nationwide scope to more specific areas, such as the state level, without introducing further uncertainty. Most studies have attempted to control for that uncertainty by relying on indicators of gun ownership, including local suicide rates, rather than direct measurements.

However, Professor English’s survey established a representative sample of gun owners in all 50 states. He said the estimates in his survey are similar to the Rand Corporation’s widely-cited estimates on some of the more populous states but vary significantly in smaller states. The new data has the potential to upend the results of many studies that have relied on less straightforward ways of estimating gun ownership in the area they’re studying.

The survey also advances the understanding of defensive gun use. It shows many American gun owners report actually using their firearms to defend themselves.

“Given that 31.1% of firearms owners have used a firearm in self-defense, this implies that approximately 25.3 million adult Americans have defended themselves with a firearm,” English wrote in a preprint report on the study published on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN). “Answers to the frequency question suggest that these gun owners have been involved in a total of approximately 50 million defensive incidents. Assuming that defensive uses of firearms are distributed roughly equally across years, this suggests at least 1.67 million defensive uses of firearms per year in which firearms owners have defended themselves or their property through the discharge, display, or mention of a firearm (excluding military service, police work, or work as a security guard).”

However, English noted it also paints a more realistic picture of defensive gun use than what’s often shown in movies or TV. Instead of an altercation with many shots fired and the assailant ending up shot, the vast majority of defensive gun uses did not involve the defender firing any shot at all. Brandishing a gun was enough to end the threat to the gun owner in 81.9 percent of cases.

In cases where defenders did fire, a single shot was enough to end the confrontation in nearly half of the cases. Taking two shots was the next most common outcome, with each additional shot becoming less common.

Gun-control advocates and researchers have critiqued survey-based defensive gun use estimates, including the oft-cited work of criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, as overestimates and elevated estimates in the tens-of-thousands range, calling into question the primary practical benefit of gun ownership. English said the paradoxically non-violent nature of most self-defensive use of firearms is why survey-based estimates like his differ significantly from those that use more restrictive metrics, such as the number of justifiable homicides or emergency room visits for gunshot wounds. He said his survey’s estimate aligns well with estimates for the number of emergency room visits once you factor in how few shots defenders say they fire and factor in the likely hit rate of those shots.

“The key to the puzzle is the fact that shots fired in self-defense rarely hit their target,” English told The Reload, citing studies from 2008 and 2018. “Studies of police have found that something like 65-85% of shots fired by officers miss. Note that these are trained professionals, and if they are engaged in a shooting incident, this will typically be pursued at close range until the perpetrator has been apprehended or incapacitated, meaning it’s not sufficient to simply fire a shot to scare an aggressor away. I wouldn’t be surprised if more than 90% of shots fired in self-defense by ordinary people didn’t hit anyone. Ordinary people should be less accurate, on average, than professional police officers. And, in most cases, the spectacle of gunfire is likely enough to get an aggressor to flee, which is sufficient for protecting a victim.”

English said his survey addressed another common critique of previous work in the field. He said previous studies that tried to estimate yearly defensive gun uses relied on respondents not only remembering that they used a gun in self-defense but also that it happened within the previous year. English designed his questions to avoid that pitfall, betting people are more likely to remember if they experienced a traumatic defensive encounter rather than the exact timeframe it happened in.

“My survey took a different approach, asking about defensive use at any time, not simply the last year,” he told The Reload. “The results show that this is not a rare event at all, with something like a third of gun owners reporting having used a gun in self-defense. Because of how the question was asked, I don’t have to engage in the exercise of extrapolating out estimates from measures of rare events in a restricted window of time.”

There are other potential weaknesses of English’s approach, though. He noted the survey only asked questions about defensive gun use to those over 18 years old and those who self-identified as gun owners. He said that might explain why his yearly estimate is on the lower end of Kleck’s previous estimates, which topped out at 2.5 million per year.

“There are also reasons to think that the [defensive gun use] estimates of this survey are conservative,” English said. “Kleck had found that a large proportion of those who had used guns in self-defense did not personally own a gun.”

English also looked at areas beyond what other researchers had attempted to survey at scale before. The survey found that AR-15s and similar rifles are in the hands of a wide swath of American gun owners, as are magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. What’s more, it found carrying pistols for protection is commonplace as well.

“In sum, about 31.9% of U.S. adults, or 81.4 million Americans, own over 415 million firearms, consisting of approximately 171 million handguns, 146 million rifles, and 98 million shotguns,” English said in his report. “About 24.6 million individuals have owned a up to 44 million AR-15 and similarly styled rifles, and 39 million individuals have owned up to 542 million magazines that hold over ten rounds. Approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. A majority of gun owners (56.2%) indicate that they carry a handgun for self-defense in at least some circumstances, and about 35% of gun owners report carrying a handgun with some frequency.”

The survey of over 44,000 Americans, from which 16,708 gun owners were identified for further questioning, was conducted through the internet between February 17th and March 23rd 2021 by the polling firm Centiment. It is part of a larger research project by English on guns in America. He said he plans to publish several more academic papers on it in the coming months, ultimately culminating in a book on the topic.

Gun control fans won’t like lessons of New Zealand

When the Christchurch massacre took place, New Zealand acted. They responded to what happened the same way American anti-gunners would have us react. They banned AR-15s and went on a rampage of stomping on the gun rights of folks there.

Of course, New Zealand doesn’t have a Second Amendment. There’s no protection of gun rights. In fact, gun rights aren’t even acknowledged as rights there, which is a bit of an issue as well.

However, right now, the biggest issue is how the country tripped over itself passing gun control, yet absolutely none of it worked.

Gun control laws disarm victims, not criminals. That’s common sense to everyone but the politicians who promise peace, rainbows and dancing unicorns if only you’ll give up your firearms.

New Zealand’s gun control advocates — including Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern– remain slow on the uptake of that fundamental principle of life. In multiple gun confiscation drives, the Kiwi government grabbed most of the good guys’ guns. And now, a year after the final confiscation push, gun-related violence has reached new, record levels.

Try to suppress your shock and surprise.

Is it really that bad? Are the good folks over at The Truth About Guns spinning things a bit to make a point?

Actually, no, they’re not.

Rates of injury and death caused by firearms are tracking higher than ever before.

Data released by police under the Official Information Act shows 10 murder or manslaughter deaths in 2022, up until 31 July. There were 11 in total in 2021.

Injuries are also running at a record rate, on track to exceed 300 firearm-related injuries for the first time. In 2021, there were 298 gun-related injuries recorded by police, the highest ever.

Now, the numbers aren’t overly impressive, but we have to remember that New Zealand has a total population of just over 5 million people. If you put all of them together in one city, it would only be the second-largest city in the US by population.

Yet those 5 million are spread out over 103,000 square miles, which is enough to drive down the violent crime rates all by itself.

That said, comparing their numbers to ours is silly. Other countries aren’t the United States and vice versa. When looking at the impact of gun control, one thing you have to look at are the trends from before and after its passage.

Prior to Christchurch, New Zealand’s homicide rate was pretty low. In fact, the 49 people killed in that massacre were enough to produce a nearly 254 percent increase in the homicide rate that year, which is kind of telling all on its own.

Yet since then, we’re clearly seeing homicides increase as well as violent crime as a whole. That’s likely because criminals no longer have much reason to fear ordinary citizens. They can kill as they want with impunity because no one is there to stop them.

Oh, sure, the police may come looking for them, but few criminals believe they’ll be caught. They tend to think that if no one is there to prevent a crime, no one will know who did it. That’s not quite true, as we know, but that’s how they tend to think.

New Zealand gave those criminals a gift.

What’s more, American gun grabbers want to give our own criminals the same gift. However, the carnage here would be orders of magnitude worse by virtue of this country simply being more violent. Take away good guys’ guns and watch how the bodies pile up.

If it’s happening in New Zealand, there’s not a shred of doubt that it would happen here.

And this is what gun control got them.

Even if you dismiss gun control as causing this issue, you cannot ignore that it did nothing to prevent it, which is par for the course and why it’s so infuriating that people still push it.

Texas private school to allow staff to go about day armed

Armed staff may well be the best way to protect students in our schools. Yes, it’s a shame that we should even need to have this discussion–our schools should be safe from such monsters–and in a perfect world, we wouldn’t have to. Yet we don’t live in a perfect world, though. We live in this one.

As a result, bad things happen in schools, as we’ve seen all too recently. What’s more, armed staff actually can protect our kids.

For one private school in Texas, that fact stands and they’re not going to pretend it doesn’t.

Faith Academy is planning on implementing a program that will allow teachers and staff to carry weapons at school.

The private Victoria Christian school is joining several area school districts in taking advantage of a Texas law that gives school officials the authority to let private individuals have guns on school premises, which is otherwise illegal.

This provision is often called the “guardian plan” or “guardian program,” though that name is not official.

Unlike most of the public school districts that have implemented such a plan, Faith’s teachers and staff will have the guns on their person during the school day, according to Principal Larry Long.

These staff members will be trained and certified, but I’m mostly shocked at the idea that some of the armed staff in the public schools don’t carry the firearm on their persons.

What are they supposed to do, ask the mass shooter for a time-out so they could get their guns? “Excuse me, Mr. Killer? Can we press pause for a moment so I can get my gun, then we can do this all fair-and-square?”

Yeah, let me know how that goes.

Victoria Academy is clearly thinking straight on this. If the teachers have their guns on their person, they can respond in an instant, as opposed to potentially having to run to wherever they’re stored and gaining access under stress.

Look, schools are a favorite target of mass shooters. Part of the reason for that is because they know they’re unlikely to face much in the way of armed resistance. The idea that the supposedly armed staff don’t actually have ready access to their weapons isn’t likely to be much of a deterrent.

Yet this case? Yeah, I can see things going very differently if someone were to pick this school.

However, I also think that it isn’t going to happen. For one thing, mass shootings at a school are very rare, but also because now people know the teachers at Victoria Academy are armed and will have their weapons on them.

The two things combined provide a blanket of protection over this school like few others.

Anti-gun voices can scream about armed staff at schools if they want, but we’ve seen too many instances where a good guy with a gun made the difference. The last thing I want to ever write about again is innocent kids being killed in their classrooms.

Teachers and staff with guns can make sure I never do.

Don’t Believe Anti-Gun Lies About Armed Self-Defense

Most America’s 1st Freedom readers are well aware that anti-gun politicians, gun-ban advocates, and the so-called “mainstream” media tend to play fast and loose with the facts. One specific area where they tend to flat out lie is in the frequency of armed self-defense episodes by law-abiding Americans.

“People very rarely use guns successfully to defend themselves from crimes—both in their homes and in public,” Laura Cutilletta, managing director for the anti-gun Giffords Law Center, wrote in a recent op-ed titled “Debunking the ‘Good Guy with a Gun’ Myth.”

Cutilletta further pontificated: “Having access to a gun doesn’t better protect people from being injured during a crime compared to other protective actions like calling law enforcement or fleeing the scene.”

Of course, she’s completely wrong, as we’ve detailed before. Back in 2013, even the Centers for Disease Control wrote: “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

Four Southern gun owners became living proof of that fact during a five-day period in late August.

On Aug. 28, in League City, Texas, a couple was at their home in a trailer park at about 10 p.m. when a man broke into the trailer and threatened them with a knife. Fearing for their lives, one of them fired a shot, hitting the intruder.

Officers responding to the shooting found the home invader dead inside of the trailer. The incident is being investigated as an act of self-defense.

A day earlier, in Loganville, Ga., a 23-year-old man had gone to attend a family event when another man approached him and started an argument. The man told police officers that he retreated and attempted to get away, but the other man pursued. Believing the aggressor to be armed and fearing for his life, the first man shot him.

The attacker was taken to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead. While it has been reported that “(e)vidence at the scene corroborated” the claims of the man who said he acted in self-defense, police continue to investigate the case. No charges have been filed.

Three days before that, a Boones Mill, Va., homeowner used his legally owned firearm to defend himself and his family. According to media reports, a man unknown to the homeowner came to the house and an altercation ensued. The homeowner shot 26-year-old Christopher Hill, who died at the scene. Police are still investigating the incident.

That same day, in Hialeah, Fla., a man used his firearm to protect himself during an alleged road rage incident. Police say one man blocked in another man’s car with his own, got out of the vehicle, approached the other car in an aggressive manner, and confronted the other driver.

Fearing for his life, the second man shot the aggressor in the chest, killing him. Police are still investigating the incident and treating it as a case of armed self-defense.

“This case is still open and active but appears to be an act of stand your ground,” the Hialeah Police Department told Local 10 News via email. “The shooter is fully cooperating in the incident and is facing no charges as of this writing.”

The truth of the matter is, armed citizens across the country save their own lives and the lives of others many times every day. The anti-gun narrative that says otherwise is clearly fake news.

Armed Citizen Stops Man Randomly Shooting People in Detroit; 3 Dead 1 Wounded

It took an armed citizen to stop a man that was randomly shooting people in Detroit that spanned over two hours.

This past Sunday, a 19-year-old man started randomly shooting people. He shot and killed three people, including a 28-year-old and a 43-year-old.

The shooter then shot a 4th person, who was an 80-year-old man walking his dog. A neighbor witnessed the incident, grabbed his gun, and fired back at the suspect.

“He saw my weapon, and he went from predator to prey. He had that look of shock,” said the neighbor. via WXYZ

Another neighbor said he saved the 80-year-old man’s life because had he not shot at the suspect, he would have walked up and shot the victim multiple times like he did his other victims.

The suspect was arrested a few hours later and is currently in custody pending charges.

This senseless act of violence was only stopped due to someone else having a gun to stop the threat. And this is why you should always carry and be prepared to use your gun in self-defense. If only someone were there to stop the threat before this coward could take his first victim.