Category: Safety

We need gun rights because men aren’t angels

Being an advocate for individual rights and civil liberties can be difficult. When terrorists attack, when the economy fails, when a pandemic strikes, and yes, when evil visits schools , the natural instinct is to demand security above all else.

So, after each tragedy, I easily understand the reaction that soon fills my social media feeds: “We have to do something. There should be laws restricting guns so they don’t get in the hands of these deranged murderers.”

The logical impulse for those of us who defend private gun ownership is to avoid such discussions altogether, to let the passions settle. But on the contrary, it’s more important than ever to present our position with clear-eyed resolve.

Even against the backdrop of each latest tragedy, I still support the fundamental right to armed self-defense. Especially in an imperfect world where madness abounds, I oppose policies that would restrict legal gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.

I say this despite having grown up in Canada and never owned a gun. I’ve shot handguns and rifles about a dozen times at friends’ invitations but have never gone hunting. For about a decade before moving to the Virginia suburbs, I lived in Washington, D.C., where, despite the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in Heller, it’s still hard to obtain a firearm and near impossible to carry one legally. So I hope you can accept that I’m not a “gun nut.”

But you don’t have to be crazy about guns to recognize that no law could make the 400 million firearms in America disappear. Even making it illegal to own a gun wouldn’t prevent a criminal or madman from carrying out the malevolent deed to which he has committed himself. Robust policies to prevent legal gun ownership only translate to guns being overwhelmingly possessed by those willing to break the law — that is, criminals.

Continue reading “”

Written after the Parkland School shooting, but still applicable today

Israel Has Only Had 2 School Attacks in 44 Years, Here’s How They Make Sure Their Kids Are Safe

In the wake of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting that claimed 17 lives last week, there has been a renewed debate surrounding gun control and children’s safety, leading some to make a comparison to the changes Israel made in response to a terror attack more than four decades ago.

In 1974, Palestinian terrorists took over the Netiv Meir Elementary School in what has been called the “Ma’alot Massacre,” which left 22 children dead and many others injured.

The attack forced Israel to come up with a solution in order to prevent such a situation from ever happening again. The nation requires its schools to have a security system, and that policy is still going strong after 40 years.

The results are clearly evident, as there have only been two successful attacks at Israeli schools since 1974, according to Dr. Ted Noel, writing in American Thinker. Noel wrote that “in both cases, the bad guys were killed by armed teachers.”

According to Red State, Israel’s Ministry of Education funds school security, which ranges from shelters and fences to armed and trained guards at every gate.

To take it a step further, Israel also prepares its students and teachers for the slight chance a gunman does get through security by teaching them to be proactive in times of terror by barricading a door or sensing the ripe opportunity to get away safely.

The guards on the doorsteps of Israel’s schools are also trained to look for any suspicious activity, which usually deters anyone with ill intent from entering in the first place.

That added layer of protection, argues Noel, is a proactive step in shielding children from the gunman. Once the shooters are past school gates, the damage is irreversible and quick to happen since any and all faculty and students immediately become targets.

“The Israelis saw this and got busy,” Noel wrote. “They knew that the vast majority of terror attacks are stopped not by police, but by armed civilians.”

“So they started training teachers in firearms use,” he added. “Those teachers took out the bad guys in the two incidents since the Ma’alot Massacre.”

Noel wrote that once a shooter is no longer in a “free fire zone,” the situation — and the possible outcome — is likely to change, as he becomes a potential target.

“On top of that, he doesn’t know which of the staff might be ready to shoot, or where they might be coming from,” Noel said. “In short, only an idiot would try to shoot up a school with a trained staff of shooters.”

This sentiment was echoed by CNN‘s Steve Cortes, who suggested that guns may not be the problem in the U.S. as much as America’s lack of security when it comes to its children. Cortes compared Wednesday’s shooting not just with Israel, but a disaster that didn’t involve any bullets whatsoever.

“Since the awful Our Lady of the Angels elementary school fire of 1958, which killed 92 students and 3 nuns, there has not been a large casualty school fire in America,” Cortes wrote. “Why? Because we took myriad precautions since then: better fire exits, more extinguishers and sprinklers, routine fire drills, etc.”

“Water squelches a fire,” he added. “And only a gunman, I would argue, can stop another gunman.”

The recent conversation around gun control suggests that an added layer of protection would not only improve school security but also prevent the government from infringing on the Second Amendment, as well as prove that guns aren’t necessarily the problem — people are.

Cortes added to this idea when he argued that stricter gun control laws have failed the world, as seen in the 2015 Paris Bataclan nightclub attack and numerous other incidents, as those who wish harm upon others will always find a way to do so.

“Evildoers, by definition, do not respect our rules and will find ways to skirt them,” Cortes added, suggesting the only sure-fire way to combat these horrific acts is to improve school security and put America’s children first.

“Let’s value our children like the treasure they are and guard them accordingly,” he said. “How? Let’s start with key cards, fences, entry checks, biometric scanners, and — yes — armed guards, and a lot of them.”

Flashback 30 Years: Guns Were in Schools… and Nothing Happened

This article was originally published in 2018.

The millennial generation might be surprised to learn that theirs is the first without guns in school. Just 30 years ago, high school kids rode the bus with rifles and shot their guns at high school rifle ranges.

After another school shooting, it’s time to ask: what changed?

Cross guns off the list of things that changed in thirty years. In 1985, semi-automatic rifles existed, and a semi-automatic rifle was used in Florida. Guns didn’t suddenly decide to visit mayhem on schools. Guns can’t decide.

We can also cross the Second Amendment off the list. It existed for over 200 years before this wickedness unfolded. Nothing changed in the Constitution.

That leaves us with some uncomfortable possibilities remaining. What has changed from thirty years ago when kids could take firearms into school responsibly and today might involve some difficult truths.

Let’s inventory the possibilities.

What changed? The mainstreaming of nihilism. Cultural decay. Chemicals. The deliberate destruction of moral backstops in the culture. A lost commonality of shared societal pressures to enforce right and wrong. And above all, simple, pure, evil.

Before you retort that we can’t account for the mentally ill, they existed forever.

Paranoid schizophrenics existed in 1888 and 2018. Mentally ill students weren’t showing up in schools with guns even three decades ago.

So it must be something else.

Those who have been so busy destroying the moral backstops in our culture won’t want to have this conversation. They’ll do what they do — mock the truth.

There was a time in America, before the Snowflakes, when any adult on the block could reprimand a neighborhood kid who was out of line without fear.

Continue reading “”

Another School Shooting in a Place where teachers and staff were banned from carrying guns

A shooting at a Texas elementary school left [18] children and [2] teacher[s] murdered. While about 30% of school districts in Texas 2020 had armed teachers and staff, unfortunately, the Robb Elementary School in the Uvalde, Texas CISD doesn’t appear to be one of them. Their firearm regulations are detailed here. There are no provisions in their regulations for teachers or staff to carry.

The attack in Buffalo, New York illustrates once again how these murderers are attracted to places where the victims are not armed. In his manifesto, he wrote: “areas where CCW are outlawed or prohibited may be good areas of attack.”

Unfortunately, as we found in our 2019 study, despite 20 states allowing teachers or staff to carry guns, all the school shootings have occurred in schools that don’t allow them to carry. From the abstract of our study.

Continue reading “”

Uvalde, Texas school shooting: 14 students, one teacher killed, suspected shooter dead, Gov. Abbott says
Salvador Romas,18, killed multiple children and a teacher at an elementary school in Uvalde, a small city located 80 miles west of San Antonio, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said

A mass shooting at a Texas elementary school killed 14 children and one teacher Tuesday and the suspected gunman was killed, Gov. Greg Abbott said.

Abbott identified the suspect as Salvador Romas, a Uvalde resident, who is also dead and acted alone, authorities said. He had a handgun and possibly a rifle when he opened fire at Robb Elementary School, he said. Two police officers were shot and wounded but were expected to survive, Abbott said.

“Texans across the state are grieving for the victims of this senseless crime and for the community of Uvalde. Cecilia and I mourn this horrific loss and we urge all Texans to come together to show our unwavering support to all who are suffering,” he said in a statement.

The shooter was likely killed by responding officers but the investigation was still ongoing, authorities said.

A law enforcement officer helps people cross the street at Uvalde Memorial Hospital after a shooting was reported earlier in the day at Robb Elementary School on Tuesday. (Billy Calzada/The San Antonio Express-News via AP)

The Texas Department of Public Safety and the Texas Rangers have been instructed to work with local law enforcement.

As the incident unfolded, Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin told Fox News that the shooter had become barricaded inside. The school, located 80 miles west of San Antonio, serves students in the second, third and fourth grades.

“There is an active shooter at Robb Elementary. Law enforcement is on site,” the school posted on Facebook shortly after shots rang out. “Your cooperation is needed at this time by not visiting the campus.”

University Health in San Antonio said it received two patients – a child and a 66-year-old woman who is in critical condition. The condition of the child was not released. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has been briefed on the shooting.

The agency is also coordinating with local and state authorities. Uvalde Memorial Hospital said Tuesday evening it was having an emergency blood drive on Wednesday, though it was not clear if the event is related to the shooting.

The Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District first reported the school lockdown at 11:43 a.m. local time.

“Please know at this time all campuses are under a Lockdown Status due to gunshots in the area. The students and staff are safe in the buildings,” the district had said in a message to parents.

The district initially asked parents not to pick up their children and that students needed to be accounted for before being released. Parents were notified to pick up their children around 2 p.m.

All district and campus activities, including after-school programs and events have been canceled. Parents were being asked to pick up their children at their regular dismissal times at their school campus. School bus transportation has also been canceled.

Police officers will escort students to the parent vehicles.

Folks, I don’t know how many times I’ve posted about this.
IF THE SCHOOL YOU SEND YOUR CHILDREN TO DOES NOT HAVE ARMED SECURITY ON SITE, and by that I mean not just uniformed armed ‘School Resource Officers’, but also armed teachers and staff, you do not have a ‘Gun Free Zone’ but a shooting gallery with your children as the targets.

It’s a continual amazement to me that parents apparently have to still learn this the hard way

BLUF
Gun-control advocates predict increases in murders with constitutional carry, but the data says otherwise. Self-defense is a natural right. That right can be restricted when there is a strong reason to do so; for example, people confined in prisons are not allowed to possess firearms. But, the opponents of constitutional carry across society have not met their burden of proof.

The Statistical Truth About the Impact of Constitutional Carry

When it becomes clear that a popular change in state law does something fundamentally good for citizens’ freedom without doing harm, it becomes much easier to get legislators to do the right thing. This is part of the reason for the quick spread of constitutional-carry laws, which now cover half of the states, as of press time. (A state is “constitutional carry” if a law-abiding adult who can legally possess a handgun does not need a permit to carry that handgun concealed for lawful protection.)

Another part of the reason for the fast spread of constitutional-carry legislation is the NRA Institute for Legislative Action’s (ILA) team, which has worked across America to bring the facts to state legislators. They have been so effective that a majority of state legislators in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana and Ohio most-recently opted to get their state’s bureaucracies out of the way of their law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

An underlying reason this has been an effective push is the basic fact that law-abiding American citizens are not problems that needs to be solved. Despite what the Biden administration argues, armed citizens help to keep individuals safer. Nevertheless, each time a constitutional-carry law comes up for debate, gun-control groups argue that getting the government out of the concealed-carry-license business will result in “Wild West-style shootouts” on the streets. But each time these laws pass, the data clearly shows that doesn’t happen.

This has been a big change from a few decades ago when Vermont was the sole state with constitutional carry. The term “constitutional carry” comes from legal history; when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, constitutional carry—either open or concealed—was lawful in every state.

Still, as more and more states return to the original understanding of the right to bear arms, opponents warn that constitutional carry (or “permitless carry”) will cause murder rates to increase; for example, Eugenio Weigend, director of the Gun Violence Prevention program at the Center for American Progress, says that constitutional carry will “raise some confrontations in some places, further escalating violence to reach lethal levels.” Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group Everytown for Gun Safety says states that have moved toward constitutional carry are “abandoning core public safety standards.”

While Vermont has long had constitutional carry, thanks to the 1903 state supreme court decision State v. Rosenthal, the move toward constitutional carry in the 21st century started with Alaska in 2003.

In this article, we present the data about what actually happened when states adopted constitutional carry. The data comes from a report co-written by Alexander Adams and Colorado State University Professor Youngsung Kim. (The data and code are available at: https://github.com/K-Alexander-Adams/Am1st)

Except for Vermont, all the states that currently have constitutional carry already had “shall-issue” licensing systems for concealed carry. That is, applications for concealed-carry permits could not be denied simply because the licensing official did not like citizens carrying firearms.

So, why did the NRA work for constitutional carry in those states? Because even a fairly administered shall-issue system can take weeks or months for a license to be issued. The delays can leave the innocent defenseless for too long; this is especially true for victims of stalkers and for people fleeing domestic violence. The same is true when civil order breaks down, such as during riots or natural disasters—times when law enforcement is often overwhelmed. Some licensing offices, for example, shut down or slowed down during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Even when a state statute sets up a fair process for licensing, local governments can find ways to manipulate the system to delay applications. This has been a long-standing problem in Denver, and is one reason why civil-rights activists are fighting for constitutional carry in Colorado.

A second reason for constitutional carry is cost. To some people, spending a few hundred dollars for fees, fingerprints and so on is no big deal. But for lower-income people, the financial barrier of a licensing system can be severe to prohibitive. Constitutional carry also eliminates the possibility of bias against any racial, gender or socio-economic groups in the permitting process.

Even in constitutional-carry states, many people still choose to obtain permits. Permits make it easier to carry in other states when traveling, because many states have laws that recognize the permits issued by some or all other states. Depending on state law, a permit may allow carrying in some places where constitutional carry is not allowed. 

carry states graphic

How Does Constitutional Carry Impact Crime?
How can we determine the effects of constitutional carry? One approach would be to just compare current crime rates in states with and without constitutional carry; for example, Vermont, with constitutional carry, has much less crime than neighboring New York, which does not. The same is true for Utah versus Colorado. But skeptics would accurately point out that other differences between the states could account for the differences in crime rates. Portions of New York, for example, are more urbanized than Vermont. 

Further, because crime rates change over time, looking at several years is more revealing than just a single year.

To get answers, Adams and Kim studied all 50 states and the District of Columbia from 1980 to 2018. Their study also accounted for 30 control variables—that is, factors other than constitutional carry that might raise or lower a state’s crime rate. The control variables included population density, alcohol consumption, poverty rates, unemployment rates, the Fryer crack-cocaine index, incarceration rates, age cohorts in five-year blocks from age 15 to over 65 years of age, police per capita, other gun control (such as “assault-weapons” bans), racial variables and more.

To show how important it is to consider control variables, we will first show you the results without them, and then the results with the control variables included. 

Here is a short explanation on how to read the tables. Suppose you flipped a coin 100 times, and 65 of those times, it came up heads. Does that prove the coin was biased (unevenly weighted), or could the results just be random chance? In social science, the probability that the result was not due to chance is called “statistical significance.” In the tables, if there is less than a 1% chance the result is due to chance, the result has three asterisks. If the probability that a result is random is less than 5%, there are two asterisks. If less than 10%, there is one asterisk. Traditionally, statisticians use the 5% cut-off to call something “statistically significant,” but they also report results for 1% and 10%. We do the same.

Homicide and suicide rates

Continue reading “”

At Real Clear Politics: When Misinformation Drives Bad Policy

The CPRC commissioned a survey by Real Clear Politics. Dr. John Lott wrote a new piece at Real Clear Politics on the survey evidence.

To President Biden, public health researchers, and the media, violent crime is all about guns. But a new survey finds that people are badly misinformed about how much violent crime involves guns. The average likely American voter is way off, thinking that over 46% of violent crimes involve guns. In fact, the true figure is less than 8%.

Not surprisingly, those who believe that most violent crime involves guns are more likely to view gun control as the solution.

Biden has given four major speeches on violent crime (here, here, here, and here). Each one of them was focused on enforcement of gun control laws. In the four speeches, he mentioned “gun” or “firearm” 179 times. The term “weapon,” sometimes in connection with “assault weapon,” was used another 31 times.

The words “crime,” “violence,” or “violent” were mentioned about half as often — 94 times. He only mentions the words “murder” or “homicide” seven times in these four presentations, which involve guns at a higher rate, and entirely omits them from his two most recent talks.

But this “guns first” approach to reduce overall violent crime ignores a basic fact – over 92% of violent crimes in America do not involve firearms. Although Biden blames guns for the increase in violent crime, the latest data show that gun crimes fell dramatically.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey, in the latest year available (2020), shows that there were 4,558,150 rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults, and the FBI reports 21,570 murders. Of those, 350,460 rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults (see Table 8) and 13,620 murders involved firearms. So, adding those numbers up, 7.9% of violent crimes were committed with guns.

The new McLaughlin & Associates survey of 1,000 likely voters from April 20th to 26th for the Crime Prevention Research Center shows how misinformed people are. People across the country, of all races and incomes, have wildly inaccurate beliefs about how frequently violent crime involves guns.

Even so, there are large differences across groups. The average Democrat estimates that 56.9% of violent crimes involve guns, whereas the typical Republican gave an answer of 37%. Those with the highest incomes (over $250,000 per year) and those who work for the government give the highest numbers — 56.1% and 51% respectively. Women (50%) believe that more violent crimes involve guns than men do (43%). Urban Americans say 48%, whereas rural Americans say 40%. But the biggest difference is between blacks (59%) and Asians (31%).

The McLaughlin survey also gave people three options on the best way to fight crime: pass more gun control laws, more strictly enforce current laws, or have police concentrate on arresting violent, repeat criminals.

Some respondents at least got it right that less than 20% of violent crime involves guns. Just 8% prioritized more gun laws, and 15% focused on stricter enforcement of existing laws. An overwhelming 71% thought the best way of fighting crime was to arrest violent criminals.

Some likely voters thought that more than 80% of the violent crime involved guns. Most supported either more gun control laws (33%) or more strict enforcement of current gun laws (28%). Only 36% of them wanted the focus on arresting violent criminals.

Those who think that most violent crime is committed with guns consistently support more gun control. Those who don’t believe that instead want to focus on arresting violent criminals and keeping them in jail.

Perhaps the gun control debate would be very different if the media had done a better job of informing people about crime. The most newsworthy cases, unfortunately, don’t tend to be typical of violent crime. Focusing on how to solve eight percent of violent crime does nothing to solve the other ninety-two percent.

John R. Lott, Jr., “When Misinformation Drives Bad Policy,” Real Clear Politics, May 16, 2022.

MAYOR ADAMS OFFERS VERY BAD ‘BE VERY CONCERNED’ ADVICE TO NEW YORKERS

Democratic New York City Mayor Eric Adams was elected to get his city back on a path to safety. He’s instead continued down the path of his predecessors to punish law-abiding New Yorkers. He’s failed to turn the focus and resources towards those that commit crimes and hold them to account.

The result is crime surging and Mayor Adams’s recent “big announcement” was a nationalized gun control plan that will do little in his city.

Mayor Adams is facing the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down New York’s restrictive “may issue” pistol permitting law, his plan is to instill fear over confidence. He told media, “We should be very afraid. I’m very concerned.”

The Stakes
New York is one of just eight “may issue” states that restrict concealed carry permits to law-abiding gun owners based on the whims of bureaucrats. New Yorkers must first prove they have a “good enough” reason before a government agency allows a permit to protect oneself outside the home. This differs from other states where if a firearm owner who passes the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verification and applies for a carry permit, the state “shall issue” the permit.

States with “may issue” restrictions are ripe for corruption. California and New York – specifically in Mayor Adams’s New York City – are prime examples of why the law should be struck down. In 2016, federal prosecutors uncovered a pay-to-play scheme within the New York Police Department’s licensing division where workers were paid thousands of dollars to rubber-stamp carry permits. Four officers connected to the scheme were arrested.

The corruption is disgusting enough but the right for law-abiding Americans to carry a firearm shouldn’t be left to arbitrary whims and inconsistent decision makers. The landmark 2008 U.S. Supreme Court Heller decision recognized the pre-existing right of Americans to own and possess firearms for self-defense. The court will shortly rule on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen challenging New York’s “may issue” law in the coming weeks.

False Forecasting
Mayor Adams likely sees the writing on the walls. Make no mistake, a Supreme Court ruling that strikes down NYSRPA v. Bruen is a good thing for law-abiding New Yorkers and Americans protecting themselves and their families. The prospect of “may issue” laws falling, though, has national gun control groups, President Joe Biden, New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul and Mayor Adams scared.

At a press conference, the mayor was asked about the imminent ruling. The city, despite his new leadership, is still facing an ongoing crime spike and violence.

“This is a significant issue for our city: it is the right to carry. After what we saw what the Supreme Court did on abortions, we should be very afraid,” Mayor Adams said, referring to a pending gun rights case. “In a densely populated community like New York, this ruling could have a major impact on us.” He continued, saying, “But we should all be concerned.”

The mayor is flat wrong. No greater example exists than the recent Brooklyn subway attack, where one individual targeted innocent New Yorkers left defenseless by New York’s strict gun laws.

Continue reading “”

Judge Napolitano is too kind. Actually she doesn’t have blinders on. She’s just another wanna-be tyrant who complains about the Constitutional restrictions on goobermint like they all do.

BLUF:
The governor has blinders on. She complains of too much freedom. In New York, there is too little.

Blaming the Constitution

Within hours of the tragic killings of 10 Americans — nine Black and one white — in a Buffalo supermarket by a deranged white racist last week, the governor of New York began calling for infringements upon personal liberty. First, she argued that social media platforms were somehow liable for these killings since they provided a platform from which the killer could reinforce his hatreds and on which he could manifest them.

Then, she argued that hate speech and incendiary speech should be prosecuted. Finally, she attacked the U.S. Supreme Court, which is about to rule on a challenge to New York’s restrictive concealed carry laws. She said twice that “New York is ready for you.” It is unclear just what she meant, but the implication was that she’d find a way around whatever the court rules.

She uttered a bitter constitutional mouthful.

From the writings and mental history of the gunman, we know that he was and is deeply disturbed. Police brought him to a mental hospital after he made threats at school, and his hatreds were posted on dark websites. Nevertheless, New York gun laws — among the strictest in the country — did not stop him from lawfully purchasing a rifle and the ammunition with which to use it.

The gun control crowd, personified by the governor, makes critical errors in its arguments and shows material misunderstandings of fundamental liberties.

Its critical error is a mistaken belief that someone willing to commit mass murder will somehow comply with gun regulations. It doesn’t matter to the killer what the gun laws are; he will find a way to attempt to kill. What matters is a set of laws with which law-abiding folks do comply, the effect of which is to neuter their ability to defend themselves.

This column has steadfastly maintained that the only language mass murderers respect is their own — violence. Only violence against them, or its serious imminent threat, will stop them.

Continue reading “”

Follow the Science, Unless it Leads Where You Don’t Want to Go

Researchers in California have published the results of a study evaluating the effectiveness of so-called “gun violence restraining orders” (a.k.a. “extreme risk protection orders” or “red flag” orders). Assembly Bill 1014, was enacted in California in 2014, and since then, 19 states and the District of Columbia have adopted similar laws.

Authors of the study, Firearm Violence Following the Implementation of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order Law, include Garen Wintemute, the director of the University of California Firearm Violence Research Center and a “key contributor” who helped draft AB 1014.

Very briefly, these laws create a mechanism that allows a family member, police officer, or some other third party (in California, this includes coworkers, school employees, and teachers) to file a petition in court, supported by allegations that the person named in the petition, at some point in the future, poses a danger to themselves or others by possessing or having access to a firearm. If the court is satisfied that there is some potential of future harm, it issues an order authorizing police to take away all firearms the person owns or controls, and prohibiting the person from possessing or acquiring firearms while the order is in effect. The initial court process may be “ex parte” (without any notice to, or an opportunity to respond by, the affected person) or a full hearing on notice. In California, the ex parte order has a minimum duration of 21 days. Once confirmed in a full hearing, the “temporary” order is in effect for up to five years, although orders may be renewed indefinitely.

The researchers examined whether implementation of the California gun violence restraining order (GVRO) law was associated with decreased rates of “firearm assault” or firearm self-harm between 2016 (when AB 1014 took effect) and 2019. They compared the post-GVRO rate of firearm violence in San Diego County (chosen because it had a “high GVRO uptake” or incidence of GVROs) with the estimated outcome in a synthetic control unit (a combination of California control counties weighted to match the firearm violence trend in San Diego, 2005-2015, as closely as possible). The researchers “hypothesized that the GVRO law would be associated with a reduction in firearm violence.”

The results, though, showed that the GVRO law had no impact – “we found no evidence that GVRO implementation was associated with decreased firearm assault or firearm self-harm at the population level in San Diego.” The researchers sought to qualify this result by noting that the findings could be “partially explained by access to firearms through the underground market,” or “could reflect a true absence of association or limitations of our study; further research is needed to determine which of these is the case.”

Continue reading “”

Dad agrees with me that all these ‘slipped through the cracks’ don’t add up to mere ‘incompetence’.

‘It’s Just Incompetence’: There Were Red Flags Everywhere With the Buffalo Shooter

Rebecca covered this over the weekend. Tragedy has struck Buffalo. A mass shooter gunned down and killed 10 people at the Tops Friendly Market. The shooter, Payton Gendron, was taken into custody. There is a 180-page manifesto that the FBI is currently authenticating. Gendron appears to be a racist and targeted this area due to its high concentration of black Americans.

Unlike other mass shootings, like Boulder in 2021 and the most recent New York City subway shooting, this one will remain in the news. Gendron is white. He’s racist. He’s everything the liberal media wants when an incident like this occurs. Boulder’s mass shooting was committed by a Syrian. The New York Subway shooter was black. Both stories vanished into the ether rapidly because they didn’t fit the liberal narrative. Yet, there’s another common element with this story: the shooter exhibited red flags that authorities knew about but did nothing. 

Gendron threatened to shoot up his high school and was brought in for a mental health evaluation (via Associated Press):

The shooter, identified as Payton Gendron, had previously threatened a shooting at his high school, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press. Buffalo Police Commissioner Joseph Gramaglia confirmed at a press conference that the then-17-year-old was brought in for a mental health evaluation afterward.

Federal law bars people from owning a gun if a judge has determined they have a “mental defect” or they have been forced into a mental institution — but an evaluation alone would not trigger the prohibition….

Gendron had appeared on the radar of police last year after he threatened to carry out a shooting at Susquehanna Valley High School around the time of graduation, the law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity said. The official was not authorized to speak publicly on the investigation.

New York State Police said troopers were called to the Conklin school last June for a report that a 17-year-old student had made threatening statements. He spent a day and a half at the hospital before being released, authorities said, and then had no further contact with law enforcement.

So, what gives? Why was there no follow-up? I’m sure we’ll know in due time, but the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting in 2018, which sparked another wave of anti-gun activism, was also preventable. In fact, that might be an understatement. Students interviewed after the shooting were not shocked that Nikolas Cruz committed his heinous crime. Also, all three levels of government, state, federal, and local, knew about Cruz’s mental health issues and never did anything. 

Continue reading “”

Again, this IOT (Internet Of Things) with everything digitally connected through the web turns out to not be all it was cracked up to be.

Bluetooth hack compromises Teslas, digital locks, and more

A group of security researchers has found a way to circumvent digital locks and other security systems that rely on the proximity of a Bluetooth fob or smartphone for authentication.

Sultan Qasim Khan, the principal security consultant and researcher with NCC Group, demonstrated the attack on a Tesla Model 3, although he notes that the problem isn’t specific to Tesla. Any vehicle that uses Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) for its keyless entry system would be vulnerable to this attack.

Many smart locks are also vulnerable, Khan adds. His firm specifically called out the Kwikset/Weiser Kevo models since these use a touch-to-open feature that relies on passive detection of a Bluetooth fob or smartphone nearby. Since the lock’s owner doesn’t need to interact with the Bluetooth device to confirm they want to unlock the door, a hacker can relay the key’s Bluetooth credentials from a remote location and open someone’s door even if the homeowner is thousands of miles away.

How it works

This exploit still requires that the attacker have access to the owner’s actual Bluetooth device or key fob. However, what makes it potentially dangerous is that the real Bluetooth key doesn’t need to be anywhere near the vehicle, lock, or other secured devices.

Instead, Bluetooth signals are relayed between the lock and key through a pair of intermediate Bluetooth devices connected using another method — typically over a regular internet link. The result is that the lock treats the hacker’s nearby Bluetooth device as if it’s the valid key.

As Khan explains, “we can convince a Bluetooth device that we are near it — even from hundreds of miles away […] even when the vendor has taken defensive mitigations like encryption and latency bounding to theoretically protect these communications from attackers at a distance.”

The exploit bypasses the usual relay attack protections as it works at a very low level of the Bluetooth stack, so it doesn’t matter whether the data is encrypted, and it adds almost no latency to the connection. The target lock has no way of knowing that it’s not communicating with the legitimate Bluetooth device.

Since many Bluetooth security keys operate passively, a thief would only need to place one device within a few feet of the owner and the other near the target lock. For example, a pair of thieves could work in tandem to follow a Tesla owner away from their vehicle, relaying the Bluetooth signals back to the car so that it could be stolen once the owner was far enough away.

These attacks could be carried out even across vast distances with enough coordination. A person on vacation in London could have their Bluetooth keys relayed to their door locks at home in Los Angeles, allowing a thief to quickly gain access simply by touching the lock.

This also goes beyond cars and smart locks. Researchers note that it could be used to unlock laptops that rely on Bluetooth proximity detection, prevent mobile phones from locking, circumvent building access control systems, and even spoof the location of an asset or a medical patient.

NCC Group also adds this isn’t a traditional bug that can be fixed with a simple software patch. It’s not even a flaw in the Bluetooth specification. Instead, it’s a matter of using the wrong tool for the job. Bluetooth was never designed for proximity authentication — at least not “for use in critical systems such as locking mechanisms,” the firm notes.

How to protect yourself

First, it’s essential to keep in mind that this vulnerability is specific to systems that rely exclusively on passive detection of a Bluetooth device.

For example, this exploit can’t realistically be used to bypass security systems that require you to unlock your smartphone, open a specific app, or take some other action, such as pushing a button on a key fob. In this case, there’s no Bluetooth signal to relay until you take that action — and you’re generally not going to try and unlock your car, door, or laptop when you’re not anywhere near it.

This also won’t typically be a problem for apps that take steps to confirm your location. For instance, the auto-unlock feature in the popular August smart lock relies on Bluetooth proximity detection, but the app also checks your GPS location to make sure you’re actually returning home. It can’t be used to unlock your door when you’re already home, nor can it open your door when you’re miles away from home.

If your security system allows for it, you should enable an extra authentication step that requires that you take some action before the Bluetooth credentials are sent to your lock. For example, Kwikset has said that customers who use an iPhone can enable two-factor authentication in their lock app, and it plans to add this to its Android app soon. Kwikset’s Kevo application also disables proximity unlocking functionality when the user’s phone has been stationary for an extended period.

Note that unlocking solutions that use a mix of Bluetooth and other protocols are not vulnerable to this attack. A typical example of this is Apple’s feature that lets folks unlock their Mac with their Apple Watch. Although this does use Bluetooth to detect the Apple Watch nearby initially, it measures the actual proximity over Wi-Fi — mitigation that Apple’s executives specifically said was added to prevent Bluetooth relay attacks.

NCC Group has published a technical advisory about Bluetooth Low Energy vulnerability and separate bulletins about how it affects Tesla vehicles and Kwikset/Weiser locks.

Chicago homicides in 2022: 204 people have been slain. 

Information about homicides is released daily by the city of Chicago. The release of homicide victims’ names is delayed by two weeks to allow time for the victims’ families to be notified of a death by Chicago police.

The homicide figures do not include killings that occurred in self-defense or in other circumstances not measured in Chicago police statistics. Homicide data from Illinois State Police, which patrols the city’s expressways, also is not included here.

Here’s a TTP ( Tactic, Technique, and Procedure) that I’ll pass along.

The time honored ‘Mozambique Drill’ – 2 to the Chest/1 to the Head – as the ‘go to‘ failure drill has been obsolete in Close Quarters Combat training for quite a few years.
While it is still in the bag of tricks, the new discipline is – 2 the Chest, then go ‘downstairs’ to the pelvic region if those didn’t work.

In these days where actual body armor is more and more prevalent, and in the case of the murderer in Buffalo also adding in a helmet; going for a head shot that will ‘seal the deal’, requires more accuracy than smiting someone hip and thigh.
And while yes, blowing someone’s brains out of their skull will stop things and that right now, there’s lots of major body weight bearing bones, nerves and large blood vessels in a much larger and easier to hit area that extends from just below the navel down to the groin that will stop someone in their tracks too.
And just to reinforce the point, outside of full ‘Rattle Battle’ military armor systems, most body armor stops at that point, just below the navel.

I’m not the only one to take into consideration that it’s likely to be a lot more sporty out there as the spring and summer roll along to election season, so let’s keep up the level of situational awareness.

San Antonio-area school district will now allow qualified teachers to carry a concealed firearm on campus
Teachers who want to carry will have to complete 40 hours of training

A small school district about 25 miles east of San Antonio will now allow certain qualified teachers and staff members to carry a concealed firearm on campus.

The La Vernia Independent School District Board of Trustees unanimously approved the Guardian Program on Monday.

In addition to already having a license to carry, staff members who want to become guardians must complete 20 hours at a firing range, 20 hours of classroom training, pass annual psychological exams, and take random drug tests, KSAT reports.

About 80% of La Vernia ISD staff supported the Guardian Program in a survey that was taken before the board approved it, according to the local news outlet.

Aside from the Guardian Program, Texas schools can also have one school marshal per 400 students who can carry a firearm.

America increasingly is not just gun country but permitless concealed carry country

Second Amendment advocates scored a string of victories in recent years to expand to 25 states the right to carry a concealed handgun without a permit, or what is known as “constitutional carry.”

The trend is poised to continue and tip the balance to more than half the U.S., with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, pledging to get a constitutional carry law through the Republican-run Legislature.

Gun control activists and some law enforcement view the trend as a threat to public safety because it enables people to carry concealed firearms without background checks or other requirements such as firearms training.

Gun rights advocates say background checks and other safeguards are applied nationwide for handgun purchases.

Except for Vermont, which has never regulated carrying guns, states only recently adopted permitless carry. A wave of Republican-run states began passing constitutional carry laws in 2010 after a concerted lobbying effort by the National Rifle Association.

Iowa, Montana, Texas, Utah and Tennessee adopted constitutional carry laws last year. In 2019, Kentucky, South Dakota and Oklahoma approved permitless concealed carry. From 2010 to 2017, laws went into effect in Arizona, Wyoming, Arkansas, Maine, Kansas, Idaho, Mississippi, West Virginia, North Dakota, New Hampshire and Missouri.

Alaska was early to permitless concealed carry, making it state law in 2003.

The popularity of constitutional carry, Bearing Arms Editor Cam Edwards said, is that the constitutional right to bear arms “shouldn’t require a permission slip.”

He said the success of constitutional carry is a continuation of the right-to-carry movement that began in the mid-1980s.

Continue reading “”

Pointless Red Flag Laws

“Red flag Laws”, which allow police to seize the firearms of people accused of being at risk to misuse them, have been passed in 19 states. Do they do what proponents say they do? A recent study by Veronica Pear, PhD and Garen Wintemute, MD, and co-authors says the answer is clearly, “No”. It appeared as “Firearm Violence Following the Implementation of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order Law” on JAMA Network April 5.

In looking at California’s Red Flag law they used methods that are better than those of earlier similar studies. They focused especially on San Diego, whose city attorney was a strong proponent of Red Flag Law use and looked at what changed when California’s Red Flag law went into effect. Using data from hospital reports they studied injuries due to aggressive use of guns. They looked as well at self-harm using guns, again reviewing hospital reports.

Based on data from a number of California counties, trends through the years 2005-2015 were determined regarding aggressive use and self-harm. The authors wanted to see If adopting California’s Red Flag law was followed by a reduction in these incidents below the trends predating the law’s going into effect, which occurred in 2016. Examining 2016-2019 they found that neither aggressive use of firearms nor self-harm from gun use was reduced by the new law. In fact, they found that after the introduction of the law the number of acts of self-harm involving firearms exceeded the prediction, although this result was not statistically significant.

The authors say that their methods were more rigorous compared to others who have examined these questions. Another strength of their study was that itincluded injuries rather than just deaths. They emphasize that one factor in finding no change following the new law may be the availability of illegal guns: if the government takes away guns held legally, those who want to harm themselves or others may seek to obtain guns illegally.

Different states have adopted these laws under different labels, including: Extreme Risk Protection Orders, Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Orders, and Risk Protection Orders. Gun Violence Restraining Orders is the term used in California. “Red Flag Law” is a general term that encompasses all these.

Proponents stress their potential to prevent harm although, as this study by Pear and associates indicates, this is highly questionable. At the same time, the threats to Constitutional rights are minimized or ignored, which go beyond just threats to the Second Amendment. These threats include undercutting the right to due process. Is the person whose gun may be seized entitled to the presumption of innocence? What is the standard of proof – clear and convincing evidence? Or just a preponderance of the evidence? Is the subject entitled to legal representation? Shall rules for the admissibility of evidence be followed?  Readers can no doubt think of other similar questions.

Strangely, if a Red Flag process leads to your losing your guns in Indiana, they may be destroyed! If you lose your driver’s license, is your car crushed? If you’re disbarred, are your law books burned?

Throughout their report Pear et al stress the shortcomings of laws in preventing violence, and with regard to aggression the authors pay little attention to the perpetrators.

The NRA has seemed to tread cautiously on Red Flag Laws. This may involve not wanting negative press regarding this issue to contaminate efforts to support the Second Amendment in other ways. The NRA has at least called attention to the due process issues, some of which are noted above.

The bottom line: There’s little to recommend Red Flag Laws. The findings of this study reinforce what gun owners have been saying all along. The surprise is that it comes from Wintemute’s group, which usually finds ways to endorse firearm restrictions. 

.

While I don’t agree with the premise that possession stats should be publicized, the fact that ‘more guns’ means ‘more safety’ is undeniable.

More guns, more safety

Late in 2008, the Memphis Commercial Appeal, a leading Tennessee newspaper, unleashed a whirlwind of controversy when it decided to publish a database of all state residents with permits to carry handguns. The information was already available through the Tennessee Department of Safety, but the state website wasn’t especially user-friendly.

With the publication of the newspaper database, however, it became easy to search for people with gun-carry permits by name, ZIP code, or city. For a while, the database was the most viewed item on the newspaper’s website, with more than 65,000 page views per day.

Firearms owners and their advocates were furious, as WMC-TV reported at the time:

Some Mid-South gun owners are outraged over a website that lists handgun carry permits, claiming the site gives away too much personal information.

Tom Givens, who runs the Range Master pistol range, said the database, published by the Commercial Appeal, has many of his clients upset.

“First, it’s an invasion of privacy,” Givens said.

Using the database, a visitor to the website can look up the name of anyone who has a permit to carry a hand gun in the state of Tennessee.  Information listed includes the owner’s year of birth, along with his or her city, state, and ZIP code of residence.

Givens said his phone has been ringing off the hook from clients upset about their personal information being so accessible.

“By publishing this database your employers, your co-workers, church members, even relatives that may not know you have a permit, now know that you’ve got one,” he said.

On gun owners’ message boards, complaints abounded. A common concern was that residents with carry permits would be put at particular risk, since the paper’s database enabled any would-be thief looking for a gun to steal to know exactly where to find them. “I’m not happy about it at all,” fumed one resident on the City-Data web forum:

I’m not a criminal — just a law-biding citizen who has a clean background and has undergone background checks in order to exercise my right to protect myself from all the thugs in this world. I could see the database used to “shop” for homeowners to rob who probably have guns in the house. I see no legitimate reason to have this information online other than to demonize permit holders in some way.

The National Rifle Association’s CEO and executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, denounced the Commercial Appeal for engaging in what he called a “hateful, shameful form of public irresponsibility.” Added another NRA official: “What they’ve done is give criminals a lighted pathway to [burglarize] the homes of gun owners.”

But the paper’s editor, Chris Peck, argued that newspapers should be a comprehensive source for community information, and that it was neither illegal nor unethical for the Commercial Appeal to make public records more accessible to the public. In fact, he pointed out in a lengthy column, the Commercial Appeal eliminated street addresses and birth dates from the Department of Safety data it published. That meant that the “posted list of permit holders for concealed weapons has less information about individuals than the phone book, your voter registration form, or the credit card you use to buy dinner at a restaurant.”

As for the potential danger to gun owners from burglars looking for weapons to steal, Peck turned that argument on its head:

Think about it for a minute. Many, if not most, households in Memphis possess a firearm. So you don’t really need a list to find a house with a gun.

And, if criminals were checking the permit-to-carry list before picking a target, would they likely choose a house where they know the owner could be carrying a gun, or would they more likely steer away from that house to avoid a possible confrontation?

Neither logic nor common sense is carrying the day on this issue. It’s emotion.

Peck went on to explain why, in his view, there was “a powerful case to be made both for a permitting process to carry concealed weapons and for keeping that permitting process public.” The Commercial Appeal, he insisted, “isn’t anti-gun” but “pro-news and -information.”

I thought it was a good column, though I doubt it changed the minds of LaPierre and the gun owners who were certain the Commercial Appeal’s reasons for publishing the database weren’t benign. I’d guess, too, that they didn’t buy Peck’s contention that, far from endangering them, the database would lead criminals to avoid their homes.

But now we know: He was right.

After Memphis-area gun permit data was published, districts where more residents were licensed to carry saw a decrease in crime.

Continue reading “”