Category: Safety

I’ve got a phone number for him – 1-800-CRY-BABY Waaaahhhhh.

Joe Biden Complains About ‘Ridiculous’ Number of Gun Sales After Synagogue Terrorist Incident

President Joe Biden complained about the number of guns sold in the United States after an armed terrorist suspect took four hostages at a Texas synagogue on Sunday.

“There’s so many guns that have been sold of late; it’s just ridiculous,” Biden said when asked by reporters on Sunday about gun control after the incident.

Biden noted that suspect, Faisal Akram, 44, a British national, had allegedly purchased his gun on the street, before the incident.

“The guns are — we should be — the idea of background checks are critical,” he said, but admitted that “you can’t stop something like this if someone is on the street buying something from somebody else on the street.”

Biden said that country had failed to “focus as hard as we should and as consistent as we should” on issues like gun purchases, gun sales, and “ghost” guns.

Akram was killed by the FBI Hostage Rescue Team, nearly eleven hours after he entered the synagogue. None of the hostages were harmed.

Biden called the incident “an act of terror” but said he did not know why Akram was demanding the release of Aafia Siddiqui, known as “Lady al-Qaeda” imprisoned at Fort Worth for trying to kill American soldiers.

“I don’t– we don’t have I don’t think there is sufficient information to know about why he targeted that synagogue, why he insisted on the release of someone who’s been in prison for over 10 years, why he was engaged, why he was using an anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli comments,” Biden said.

Just me, but if your congregation doesn’t allow for people to carry, find one that does.

Synagogue standoff shows why we need guns during worship

Imagine you’re sitting in your place of worship, and some psychopath comes in and decides no one gets to leave. His intentions are unclear, but there’s no doubt he’s dangerous. After all, he’s armed and is threatening, if not in words, then in mannerisms.

That’s the reality we saw unfold for some people in the Texas synagogue standoff over the weekend.

The FBI and local police said at a news conference Saturday night that three hostages who were held in a Colleyville synagogue for nearly 11 hours are unharmed and the hostage-taker is dead after a hostage rescue team breached the building.

Authorities said the hostage-taker was killed in a shooting but did not answer a question about whether he was shot by law enforcement or if the gunshot was self-inflicted. The man claimed to have explosives, according to statements he made on livestreamed video, but police have not commented on whether any weapons were found.

Exclusive video taken by WFAA-TV photographer Josh Stephen shows at least some of the hostages running out of a door at the synagogue just before FBI agents enter the building. The footage, shot just before 9:15 p.m., shows a man who appears to be holding a gun following the hostages as they escape, then almost immediately going back inside.

Officials said the rescued hostages are being interviewed by the FBI and will be reunited with their families as soon as possible. Authorities did not release the name of the hostage-taker or the ages of the hostages, but did confirm they were all adults.

Absolutely horrifying, to say the least.

As noted, the hostage-taker is dead. He’s also been identified by police.

The FBI on Sunday identified Malik Faisal Akram, a 44-year-old British national, as the man who held four people hostage at a Texas synagogue in an hours-long standoff Saturday before a rescue team entered the building and killed the suspect.

An FBI Hostage Rescue Team killed Akram after the hostages were released around 9 p.m. local time, the agency said. Crime scene investigators at the Beth Israel Congregation in Colleyville, Texas — about 15 miles from Fort Worth — recovered one firearm they believe belonged to Akram, a spokesperson for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told CNN.

Of course, the FBI says it doesn’t know the motive, seemingly trying to deflect from this being a case of terrorism.

And, in theory, it may not be. I don’t think that’s likely, mind you, but whatever.

However, what isn’t being talked about is how there are still people who see this who think guns shouldn’t be allowed in our houses of worship, regardless of religion.

Some will somehow delude themselves into thinking that if Texas didn’t permit guns in churches to any degree, this wouldn’t have happened. We know this to be true because the laws against taking hostages worked so well. I mean, how can you have a synagogue standoff if there’s no standoff possible? Too bad this jackwagon decided to ignore all those laws.

So, if he’d ignore them, why wouldn’t he ignore the ones saying he couldn’t bring a gun?

Yet, there have been some unconfirmed reports floating around that Beth Israel Congregation’s rabbi didn’t permit firearms in the synagogue. If that is, in fact, the case, then none of the hostages were legally allowed to carry a gun because Texas law allows places of worship to decide for themselves whether to permit firearms or not.

Had one of them been armed, the situation may have turned out very differently. Malik could have come in just the same, of course, but he may have ended up dead hours earlier, and all that would have been left for law enforcement was to clean up the mess.

That would have been a win for everyone there.

Instead, it seems they weren’t allowed to.

But again, that’s based on reports I haven’t been able to confirm just yet. If those aren’t true, well, then it’s still a stark reminder of why people need guns in churches, synagogues, and any other place of worship you care to name. This synagogue standoff was unpleasant for all involved, but we’ve seen far worse committed in places of worship.

This is bad, but I’d much rather experience a hostage situation than a mass shooting. Even if you go home, the trauma of talking about being inside during the synagogue standoff is nothing compared to the trauma of seeing people gunned down before your very eyes.

However, both can be prevented by carrying a firearm. It’s just that simple.

Update, if you haven’t already heard:

All hostages safe. Bad guy dead.

And to add. If your congregation doesn’t have some sort of security plan, get one in the works. You’re not playing the odds, you’re playing the stakes.

This is why you should always carry in Church……….

Update: Apparently the man is holding 4 members of the congregation hostage to trade for his sister who is in a federal prison for terrorist attacks on U.S. military personnel in Pakistan.

 

When the anti-self defense writer uses ‘information’ from the Brady pro gun control group, he immediately showed his views were not based on actual biblical principles, even though scriptures were used to support them. (Remember, satan himself quoted scripture for his own nefarious purpose)
But read both at your convenience

Guns or Roses?

The issue of Christians owning and using guns, especially against other humans, has been debated almost since firearms and gunpowder appeared in Europe in the 13th century. In today’s fragmented religious environment, many opinions are advanced in churches, in the public square, and on media. Seventh-day Adventist Christians, often influenced by polarizing political, social, or cultural viewpoints, debate this issue both publicly and privately. We asked two authors with contrasting opinions to engage in an imagined conversation with a respected Adventist friend who holds a different opinion about this divisive topic, each explaining their viewpoint from a Christian and Adventist biblical worldview.—Editors.

Continue reading “”

‘Just call the police’: The Insufferable White Privilege of Gun Control Advocates

The concept of privilege gets a bad rap in many circles, and understandably so. Many have taken it way too far, using it as a means of bullying their political opponents into submission. But while the excesses of this rhetoric are certainly problematic, I don’t think we should do away with the concept entirely. Behind all the moral grandstanding lies a kernel of truth, one that can provide some valuable insights if applied correctly.

The principle, essentially, is that certain people have unearned advantages, and those advantages can shape how they see the world. Affluence, for instance, can make someone blind to the needs of the poor. Likewise, those with an above average aptitude, intelligence, or physical appearance might find it difficult to relate to those who were not equally endowed with those gifts.

The problem with this blindness is that it can easily lead to hubris, that is, unwarranted self-confidence. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of privilege is thinking we know the best course of action for a given situation when we really don’t.

The classic example of this is the story of a famous French queen who, upon hearing that the peasants had no bread, simply replied, “then let them eat cake.” She was so unfamiliar with their circumstances that the solution she dismissively prescribed was positively laughable. Another example of privilege was when the lockdown elite told us to “just stay home,” seemingly oblivious to the fact that staying home is simply unfeasible for many working class people.

Now, progressives think they’re pretty good at pointing out places where privilege is leading to blindness and hubris (indeed, they often see privilege even where it doesn’t exist). But there’s one occurrence of privilege that always seems to get a pass, and that is the privilege associated with gun control.

Continue reading “”

Defending Armed Self-Defense
It’s easy for many people to see the harm that guns are involved in every day in America, but much harder for them to see the harm that gun prohibition causes.

Gun control laws are wrong because they violate the right to self-defense. Gun control laws are wrong because they were historically crafted with discriminatory intent and create racially disparate outcomes today.

These are two distinct arguments against laws that limit private gun ownership. Libertarians, typically among the staunchest of fans of self-defense and self-determination, have tended to focus on the first. But the second is also important, both on its own merits and because it helps people otherwise concerned about discrimination understand why it is inconsistent to support such laws.

One can make the rights argument a couple of different ways. The first is to start from the belief, shared by many, that human beings are endowed by their Creator (or nature, or their shared humanity, or the universe, or even cultural patrimony) with certain inalienable rights, the right to self-defense among them. Once that is established, protections for those who wish to buy, keep, and use the tools of self-defense, including guns, follow close behind.

The Founders, not ones to pussyfoot around, put keeping and bearing arms right there in the Bill of Rights (although there, as in so many other places in the founding documents, one last pass by an especially pedantic copy editor could have saved the nation in general and the Supreme Court in particular quite a bit of trouble). The Founders were, at best, imperfect scribes of whatever rights people might in fact possess. But they did an astonishingly good job of capturing a laundry list of rights that the state ought not abridge, and they got them written down rather clearly and in short order, all things considered.

One need not be convinced of the existence of God-given rights to conclude that the harsher forms of gun control are unacceptable and unjust rights violations. “I contend that individuals have a prima facie right to own firearms, that this right is weighty and protects important interests,” the philosopher Michael Huemer wrote in one of the more famous modern arguments against such restrictions. While “the right to own a gun is both fundamental and derivative,” he suggests, “it is in its derivative aspect—as derived from the right of self-defense—that it is most important.”

Continue reading “”

Nicolas Cage: Actors should know how to use a gun

Guns are a part of Hollywood and have been since it’s inception. Actors have been slinging guns since the silent movie days, the early years when westerns reigned supreme at the box office.

Despite the legions of actors and extras who have had guns in hand on the screen–both big and small–accidents have been fairly rare. Brandon Lee was the example that stood out to me for ages.

That was before Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger on a gun and killed the cinematographer and wounded the director of the film Rust.

To say that has been a major topic of discussion in movies and television circles would be putting it mildly and plenty of people have offered opinions.

Now, another big name has some thoughts on what happened.

Continue reading “”

Facts and Fantasies about Guns and Gun-Control

The gun-control lobby started it. Then, the legacy media joined in and told us that guns and gun owners were dangerous. Their solution is to register and regulate guns and gun owners. They claim their gun-control will somehow, someday, take the guns out of the hands of criminals. If you only read their words then you might be persuaded. Let’s fill in the facts that the gun-prohibitionists left out. Gun-control laws do more harm than good.

armed defenders save lives

Honest gun owners use a firearm to stop a violent crime about 1.7 million times a year. That is a little over 45-hundred defensive-guns-uses a day. That massive benefit overshadows all the other problems we have with the criminal use of firearms. Legally justified armed defense is dozens of times more frequent than the suicides and accidents we see with firearms. It is hard to overestimate the importance of armed defense. Disarming honest gun owners in the hope of disarming criminals is a disaster since armed citizens do so much good.

Continue reading “”

Lesson to be learned:
Situational Awareness™ is as important as what you’re carrying.

St. Paul, MN Concealed Carrier Killed While Trying to Intervene In a Liquor Store Shoplifting

When it comes to carrying for self-defense, good training, tactics, practice and the use of common sense go a long way to make a person harder to victimize and/or kill. Then there’s the case of the St. Paul, Minnesota good Samaritan with a carry permit who was shot and killed with his own gun after intervening in a liquor store shoplifting attempt.

It happened on December 27th when Kenneth Davis Jr. interceded to try to help the store stop a man trying to shoplift a bottle of vodka.

Davis brandished his gun after the shoplifter claimed to have a gun in his backpack. The shoplifter, Trinis Edwards, then left the store.

But minutes later, however, when Davis left the store, Edwards confronted him in the parking lot. The shoplifter sprayed Davis with pepper spray and then the two men scuffled.  Davis tried to produce his handgun from his jacket and failed.

Davis lost control of his handgun and it fell to the ground. Edwards came up with it and shot Davis to death.

Continue reading “”

Just me, but if in that situation, I wouldn’t waste precious time to see if the bear spray worked. The bear would start getting shot. When our church mission group went up to Fort Yukon, Alaska back on 2004, I carried a .45 Colt Ruger Redhawk loaded with 300gr Freedom Arms jsp made for the .454 Casull, to a little over 1100 fps.

BLUF:
These incidents reveal bear spray to be far from the cure-all initially claimed in numerous early articles. Those articles were based on inappropriate comparisons of studies involving firearm effectiveness and bear spray effectiveness in wildly different conditions.

Fatal Bear Attack, Full Can of Bear Spray was Deployed by Carl Mock

On April 15, 2021, Carl Mock was attacked by a grizzly bear, just outside of Yellowstone park. Mock was an accomplished woodsman and guide. He did not have a firearm with him. He had bear spray.  He used the bear spray, but was fatally injured.

This correspondent, with questions directed to Montana Fish and Wildlife Morgan Jacobsen, was able to determine bear spray had been used in the incident. Initially, the use of bear spray was reported as unknown by ktla.com:

Mock when attacked had bear spray — a Mace-like deterrent meant to protect against attacks — but officials said they did not know if he managed to use it. Bear spray canisters have safety tabs to prevent them from going off accidentally and the safety tab on Mock’s bear spray was off, Jacobsen said.

Eight months later, the investigation of the incident is over.

Continue reading “”

Of Course Violence against Government Can Be Justified

The media have been making a big deal over a Washington Post/University of Maryland poll which finds that 34 percent of Americans believe violence can be justified against the government. It’s a poll meant to feed the hysteria over the Capitol Hill riot and embarrass Republicans into supporting “voting rights” bills and so on.

Despite the framing of most reaction stories, the question wasn’t about January 6. It was: “Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to take violent action against the government, or is it never justified?”

Ever? Of course it is. It’s a failure of our civic education that 100 percent of respondents didn’t answer yes. The ability to resist a tyrannical government is a foundational American idea. It was the justification for the founding revolution. It, not hunting or skeet shooting, is the core reason for existence of the Second Amendment — which, Joseph Story, an associate Supreme Court justice, said best, “offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers.”

Incidentally, the participants were asked to provide instances when violence against the state would be justified, and all of them are perfectly reasonable:

Government violates or takes away rights or freedoms/Oppresses people – 22 percent

Government no longer a democracy/ Becomes a dictatorship/Coup/ Military takes over – 15 percent

Government violates constitution — 13 percent

Government abuses power/Tyranny — 12 percent

Government is violent against citizens/Safety at risk – 11 percent

Contemporary liberals often view this form of rhetoric as an endorsement of treason because they view our rights as an arbitrary and malleable cluster of edicts handed down by the government. What sneering contemporary critics fail to comprehend is that the founding generation believed that those who would undermine the universal and inalienable liberties of the people laid out in the Constitution were traitors.

Now, I don’t believe there was any justification for the rioting on January 6. But if the Post was interested in extracting even marginally useful information, it would have asked if people thought there was a justification for January 6 violence, rather than a separate question about the veracity of the 2020 election followed by a broad question on violent resistance. Though a specific question almost certainly wouldn’t have brought back the intended result.

Trending Data Among Women First-Time Gun Owners

According to the NSSF, approximately 11 million Americans purchased their first firearm in the past 2 years, and it is estimated that half of them were women. A Girl & A Gun Women’s Shooting League (AG & AG) polled new members who were new gun owners to learn more about them. This article provides trending data among this demographic.

AG & AG offered the same survey to new members over the past two years. If a woman indicated she was a new shooter (acquiring a firearm within the past year), she was asked additional follow-up questions. The responses for the new-shooter specific questions totaled 1,176 women responses in 2020 and 1,706 in 2021, providing a good glimpse into general trends of this specific demographic.

Continue reading “”

Carrying a Gun Is Part of Being a ‘Free American’

Breitbart News interviewed Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) at Turning Point USA’s Americafest and he told us carrying guns for self-defense is critical to the American experience because the founders placed such high value on life.

We asked Biggs, “Why is it important that I can own a gun, carry a gun, that your wife can own a gun, carry a gun, that my wife can do the same. Why is this important?”

He responded by pointing out two reasons, the first of which he described as the “philosophical reason.”

Biggs outlined, “The Founders said this is what we need to have to preserve a free form of government. Their position was, you need to be able to have this militia, this group of citizens, because you don’t want the government to be putting their thumb down on you, because they are just coming out of King George doing that, so that’s number one.”

He then explained: “The second thing is when you start talking about my wife or me or someone else, we’re talking about self-defense, and the first liberty is the right to life. So, if you can’t defense yourself against the bad guys you start looking like the 12 cities in America that have the highest homicide rate in their history.”

Biggs added, “You don’t want to look like that. You don’t want to look like Venezuela. You want to be a free American and the way to be free and reduce crime is to allow people to carry guns.”

Regarding Biggs’ reference of 12 cities that broke their annual homicide records in 2021, ABC News listed those 12 cities but omitted the fact that they are all Democrat-controlled.

The cities are:

  • Albuquerque, New Mexico
  • Austin, Texas
  • Baton Rouge, Louisiana
  • Columbus, Ohio
  • Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Louisville, Kentucky
  • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Portland, Oregon
  • Rochester, New York
  • St. Paul, Minnesota
  • Toledo, Ohio
  • Tucson, Arizona

When Rich People Are Under Threat, What Do They Reach For?

We’ll grant the point that voting in Beverly Hills was a red spot in the middle of blue, but 44% of the folks would still forcibly take guns away from ordinary people.

So what does it look like when rich people come under threat?

In Beverly Hills, even the purchase of a firearm comes with certain…expectations. The city’s only gun store, Beverly Hills Guns, is a “concierge service” by appointment only, for a largely affluent clientele. And business is booming.

Since opening in July 2020, the store has seen upscale residents from Santa Monica to the Hollywood Hills increasingly in a panic following several high-profile smash-and-grab and violent home invasion robberies. The apparent siege has brought in a daily stream of anxious business owners and prominent actors, real estate moguls and film execs, says owner Russell Stuart. Most are arming themselves for the first time.

“This morning I sold six shotguns in about an hour to people that say, ‘I want a home defense shotgun,’” says Stuart, whose store is discreetly located in a Beverly Hills office building, with no sign on the doors, down the hall from a diamond dealer. “Everyone has a general sense of constant fear,  which is very sad. We’re used to this being like Mayberry.”

That fear has the wealthiest of local gentry contemplating every more elaborate security measures: armored luxury cars, safe rooms and bullet-proof glass in their homes. One client asked about creating the “Tony Stark-level” security of a half-dozen automated drones to hover over his house, says Stuart, whose gun store is part of his larger security company, Force Protective Agency. “If you want the Gucci package, it’s going to cost money.”

The security business is experiencing a rebound after a couple of diminished years because of the pandemic. Some firms had their on-site security guards sent home for health and social distancing reasons. Not anymore. 

In Beverly Hills, the craving for additional security dates to the riot that followed an otherwise peaceful Black Lives Matter protest in May 2020, with unprecedented looting along Rodeo Drive that left broken boutique windows  beneath beloved luxury brands: Chanel, Dior, Gucci, Michael Kors, MCM, Ermenegildo Zegna. Last March, a $500,000 Richard Mille watch was stolen at gunpoint from a diner at the Il Pastaio restaurant.  The Dec. 1 home-invasion robbery and shooting death of philanthropist Jacqueline Avant, 81, in her Trousdale Estates home, only accelerated the arms race among the affluent.

I’m shocked.  You mean they want BLM to destroy your city but not their own?  In other news, they are demanding the police do something about it.

Los Angeles Police Chief Michael Moore announced in November he would be setting up a task force to combat home-invasion robberies, which have targeted celebrities and upscale restaurants, according to the Los Angeles Times. Moore indicated the department had not seen violent holdups “like this in decades,” The Times reported.

I wonder where this task force will concentrate their efforts?  Anyway, the rich folks know the police can’t be there all of the time.  They want shotguns.  They want Gucci protection.  They want up-armored cars.  They want drones.

If you demand the same thing, 44% of them will tell you to pound sand.

New laws aren’t about gun owner’s responsibilities

It’s been said that all rights come with responsibilities, and it’s something I thoroughly agree with. You have a right to free speech, but a responsibility to use that responsibly. For gun owners, you have the right to keep and bear arms, but you have an obligation to exercise that responsibility.

This isn’t a controversial point of view, all things considered. Oh, we might debate what one’s responsibilities are as a firearm owner, but I think just about everyone agrees that they exist.

So when the editorial board of the Salt Lake Tribune wrote a headline saying, “The right to bear arms comes with responsibilities, the Editorial Board writes,” I didn’t worry too much.

Then I read it and realized they have a different view of responsibilities than I do.

There are no rights that do not come with responsibilities.

It is no threat to the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to expect people who own firearms to keep their weapons in such a way that they are not likely to fall into the hands of criminals, children or others who have no business bearing them.

As reported recently by The Salt Lake Tribune, Utah is seeing a troublesome surge in both the number of guns stolen and the number of homicides committed with guns. The former statistic jumped 48% from 2011 to 2020, while the latter number tripled. Gun sales are also up sharply and, while that’s not a crime, connecting the dots strongly suggests that many of the people who legally own firearms are not living up to the responsibility of keeping the community safe from their misuse.

There have been attempts in the Utah Legislature to make responsible gun ownership not just a civic responsibility but also a legal obligation. Sadly, but not surprisingly, every attempt to mandate that gun owners secure their arms, or to make giving or lending a gun to someone who later uses in it the commission of a crime something that a person can be sued for, is rejected on the flawed argument that it would impinge on the rights of gun owners.

Of course, the Tribune editorial board doesn’t see an issue with turning a responsibility into a legal obligation. I sure as hell do.

You see, for one thing, we don’t always agree on what’s a responsibility and what isn’t. For another, what makes sense for one person doesn’t make sense for another.

Firearm thefts are up, but how many of those thefts included guns with some kind of gun lock on them? Many gun owners use those simply because gun safes are big, heavy, and expensive. They’re not an option for a lot of people.

Besides, most mandatory storage laws actually accept the locks as being safely stored.

Yet those locks are relatively easy to defeat if one is given enough time.

See, it’s easy to blame gun owners for the problem and to try to push for some law to make them do what you think is right, but what none of those people ever bother to ask is why are you trying to punish the victims of these thefts, anyway?

Honestly, this idea that gun owners are responsible for gun thefts in some way just sounds an awful lot like telling a woman if she hadn’t been in that part of town dressed that way, she wouldn’t have been raped.

Now, I’m a proponent of securing your weapons when not in use. I actually do think it’s the responsible thing to do. But when it gets mandated, it no longer becomes something you can adjust due to your circumstances. You can’t leave a gun available for your responsible teenager to use to defend themselves from a home invasion. You can no longer keep them in various parts of your home in case you need one and can’t make it to where your weapon is secured.

It removes all ability of the gun owner to determine their own needs.

The truth of the matter is that this isn’t about responsibilities. That’s just a frame the Tribune thought to use in order to make their screed less objectionable. The problem for them is that we see through that kind of thing.

For them, our responsibilities are whatever they say they are and we either do it their way or we’re scum.

I’d say the scum are the people who think they get a say in what we do in our own homes.

The Times May Be A-Changin’

Over time, we’ve seen changes in focus by the hoplophobic elements of society. Originally, it was all about banning handguns or at least “Handgun Control Inc.” The “assault weapon”, that is, the AR ban of 1994-2004 followed, with no discernible effect on crime, homicide, etc. Movement mutation continued, with groups dropping wording advocating bans, moving to claims of fighting pure “violence” and promoting gun “safety”.

Now they want to address “root causes” of violence instead of just restricting legal gun ownership, though still advocating extending background checks while “not taking anyone’s guns”. Intervening within high-crime communities, and with those at high risk of committing and becoming victims of violence, is appropriate, though far more difficult than they may imagine.

Throughout, we’ve had no reason to believe that these anti-gun activists have had any real change of heart. Their “conversation” always comes around to the desirability of somehow limiting the rights of law-abiding American gun owners in some way, even if in “just” creating more hoops to jump through in order to purchase, keep or bear our arms.

However, there is a fundamental factor that will trump all their intentions, both open and disguised. That is us, the people (and voters) of democracies. As Andrew Breitbart famously said, “Politics follows culture” and culture is changing. Much of this is due to the past 2 years of violence approved and applauded by “progressive” politicians who thought this would garner minority votes. Their groupthink about ethnicity blinded them to the reality that people of all ethnicities, communities and societies want crime stopped lest it hit them.

People are simultaneously realizing that they can’t count on being protected and must plan to do that for themselves. Thus the huge rise in gun purchases by more diverse buyers than ever, including women, minorities (especially African-American women) and self-described liberals. It’s been speculated that this increase in valuing self-protection with firearms may transfer to an increase in valuing Second Amendment rights—and now, that’s no longer speculation.

The Trafalgar Group, a non-partisan polling operation, just released a poll in which over 84% of respondents believed that “strict gun laws” either make no difference in or worsen the current surge in retail thefts. Less than 16% believed such laws can make this better.

In November, Quinnipiac found that 48% of those surveyed opposed stricter gun laws versus 47% who support them—following a trend beginning in 2015, now over the tipping point to plurality opposition. Gallup’s polling in November correlates, with a new low of only 52% of Americans caring that “laws covering the sale of firearms” should be stricter (down from a high of 64% in 2019, falling through 57% in 2020).

Meanwhile, ABC/Ipsos found that 66% of Americans disapprove of how President Biden is addressing gun violence (which could imply wanting more or less strict laws). Republicans’ opposition to more gun laws has strengthened, Democrats’ preference for more strict gun laws is lessening, predictably. But the most important political demographic—independents—have shifted dramatically in favor of, shall we say, individual independence on this issue.

In the latest National Firearms Survey published in July 2021, nearly 1/3 of respondents acknowledged owning guns, more than half of those carry them and almost 1/3 of them reported having to use them defensively in one or more of the estimated nearly 1.7 million episodes of self-defense. In 82% of these DGUs, it wasn’t necessary to fire. Almost 80% of these incidents occurred in the defender’s home or on their property, with the rest mostly occurring in public or at work, still a very substantial number.

NSSF also found that 49% more Hispanic Americans (no, none use “Latinx”) purchased firearms in 2020 than in 2019. With 40% of all gun purchases during the past 2 years coming from new gun owners, it’s no surprise that Hispanics (as well as African-Americans) are increasingly voting more for individual rights than for government “protection”.  In Berkeley, California, of all places, the Latino Rifle Association has grown by hundreds of members since 2020. Its “leftists . . . socialists, progressives” members realize that “The police and the government aren’t taking care of me, so I have to do things on my own.”

Funny thing, that’s what conservatives have recognized for generations. And a much bigger organization, the National African-American Gun Association, has added tens of thousands of new members since 2016, accelerating (along with many local gun clubs oriented toward minorities) during the past 2 years.

Even our less demonstrative Anglophone cousins, Canadians and Kiwis, aren’t cooperating any more with government orders to turn in their newly banned guns than Americans have. Neither are turning in their formerly legal, acceptable firearms—only 160 of an estimated 100,000 affected firearms have been surrendered in Canada in a year and a half. In New Zealand, the 2019 ban of most repeating arms “has had no impact on a rise in gun crime and violence”, except for a steadily increasing rate of the offense of still possessing such firearms.

This is precisely the cultural change that precedes and triggers political change. Most Americans already knew that protecting individual rights is the uncompromisable basis of the success of American society and polity. Many others know that now and more are learning. While Donald Trump improved the Republican share of the Black and Hispanic votes (especially among men), this wasn’t about him or the party. It is about the importance of each person’s rights as an American.

Most expect that the Supreme Court will affirm the Second Amendment with a ruling in Bruen voiding New York City’s may- (= non-) issue handgun carry permitting, along with the 8 other states that persist in that tyranny. The “progressive” left will keep caterwauling if they don’t get their way. But should the decision go otherwise, their wailing would be nothing compared to the anger of the majority who are now convinced that individual rights are more important than political correctness. And that would assuredly lead to even greater political change in favor of ensuring those rights.

To paraphrase St. George Tucker, “the true palladium of liberty” isn’t just “the right of self-defence.” The right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and opposing tyranny is necessary to a free people in a free state. But it is a means to the goal, along with representative democracy lustily embraced, which is “to keep our republic” (h/t B. Franklin). The ultimate mark of liberty is individual autonomy, where the rights of the individual are placed above government’s privileges, which are only bestowed by us individuals.

It’s called ‘sowing to the wind’, as in reaping exactly what you asked for, good and hard.

How Defund the Police backfired.

Over the last two decades, progressives have established a new consensus on crime. Nonviolent felonies like shoplifting and drug possession should be reclassified as misdemeanours. Cities should defund the police and spend the money on nurses, psychologists and social workers instead. Offenders should have minimal involvement with the justice system — and be kept out of jail wherever possible.

But now, rising crime is rapidly undermining the progressive consensus. Homicides rose 30% in 2020, and over two-thirds of America’s largest cities will have had even more homicides in 2021 than in 2020. At least 13 big cities will set all-time records for homicides, including Philadelphia, Austin, and Portland. Meanwhile property crimes in California’s four largest cities rose 7% between 2020 and 2021. Car break-ins in San Francisco declined temporarily in 2020, because Covid emptied the city of tourists, but they have since skyrocketed, reaching 3,000 in November. Many residents have stopped bothering to report crime.

Of course, many crime rates are still below what they were in the Eighties. And progressives are right to say that we shouldn’t panic about rising crime, since past panics contributed to cruel and crude responses, including overly long prison sentences with little in the way of real rehabilitation programmes. That’s why, in the late Nineties, I worked for George Soros’s foundation, among others, advocating for drug decriminalisation, reduced sentences for nonviolent crimes, and alternatives to incarceration.

But today it’s clear that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. In 2000, when I stopped working on criminal justice policy, progressives were advocating mandatory rehabilitation as an alternative to incarceration. Now, progressive prosecutors are simply releasing criminal suspects from custody without requiring rehab or extended probation. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for instance, a man who had run over the mother of his child with his SUV was released on $1,000 bail. Neither he nor his SUV were put under electronic surveillance. Soon after, he killed six people and injured another three dozen — by running them over with his SUV.

Continue reading “”

Polls Show More Hispanics Turning Their Backs on Gun Control, Civilian Disarmament Advocates

An Axios/Ipsos poll showed Hispanic swing voters are concerned about crime, criminal violence and personal safety. That finding wasn’t a surprise to NSSF. Hispanic-Americans, along with nearly every other demographic group, are embracing their right to lawfully purchase and own a firearm. Firearm industry retail survey data revealed this growing trend a year ago. That’s when law-abiding Latinos purchased firearms in big numbers and the demographics of America’s gun owners continued to show growth.

Hispanic-Americans aren’t an outlier community and examples are plenty. Suburban swing voters and other minority groups demonstrated similar patterns as they saw policy failures affecting their safety, fully embraced lawful gun ownership and exercised their Second Amendment right.

The Axios/Ipsos poll asked Hispanic-Americans about their top concerns and crime and violence came in at the number two spot at 30 percent – behind only COVID worries at 37 percent. Per Axios, “The finding is a warning for President Biden ahead of next year’s midterms.” A similar Wall Street Journal poll from a week earlier showed Hispanic voters are turning away from Democrats, typically supportive of more gun control, and are now nearly evenly split between their party preference.

The 2022 elections mark the first regular national Election Day since the 2020 election over which time Americans have seen rampant violent crime in cities across the country, calls to defund the police and for prosecutors to go easy on convicted criminals. It also witnessed historic firearm sales.

Continue reading “”

In America’s violent cities, is self-defense the last civil right?

As much as I love sipping political philosophies like fine wine, now isn’t the time. Of all the important questions to be asked in this manic hour, I offer this one: In America’s violent cities, is self-defense the last civil right or a path to the last rite? As violent crime rises and the leftists’ will to fight it plummets, we who are in the midst of daily destruction must make up our minds.

I don’t care if your chosen self-defense item is a knife (a staple in majority leftist/left anarchist cities), slingshot, baseball bat (a favorite of the friend whom I call a force of nature), bow and arrow, pepper spray, fists, mixed martial arts (aka MMA) or whatever else tickles your tactical fancy, it’s clear we’ve got to have our minds made up. We must be armed, not just with the weapons, but also with the will to defend ourselves. Given current headlines on timelines, it’s a no-brainer.

In New Orleans, a local judge’s mother was recently wounded in crossfire and a congresswoman and state legislator were carjacked days ago in their respective cities. When mayhem touches elites, some targets (that is, ordinary citizens) wonder whether the policies those elites support will change? Let’s let that question hang in the air while we stay focused.

I understand what progressive mayors and prosecutors have done to undermine effective policing and violent career criminal convictions. I also understand change won’t happen instantly even if those same actors got religion on public safety overnight.

Targets (i.e., citizens) still face several waves of attacks from a generation that hasn’t faced consequences for its actions. After what conservatives termed “the Ferguson Effect” following Mike Brown’s death and new de-policing benchmarks set following George Floyd’s demise, we face youth who won’t magically stop rampaging on their won. Violent young people’s lifestyles change only after persistent pressure is applied over time.

Police officers, mayors, prosecutors, and judges are instrumental but not fast moving. We targets (aka citizens) must exercise our last right of self-defense, and loudly defend the right to do so, or what we call self-defense will become the equivalent of a last rite courtesy of violent offenders.

Fortunately, self-defense is instantaneous. It isn’t hamstrung by polling and debates in safe chambers. When targets (citizens) decide self-defense is our last right, we won’t be needing our last rites anytime soon.

A Girl and a Gun club empowers female gun owners

Born and raised in Wyoming, Kathleen Wilkinson, 67, was familiar with weapons but had never done any shooting. That all changed when her husband, a Top Gun pilot, passed away in 2020.

Having moved to Grand Junction in 1978, the newly-widowed Wilkinson decided to visit her sister in Oklahoma at a ranch she managed. While there, Wilkinson decided to try shooting for the first time at the ranch’s shooting range. She was able to borrow a rifle, a 9mm semi-automatic pistol, and a .22-caliber revolver. Like a Rambo Goldilocks, the rifle kicked too hard, the 9mm was hard to manage and very loud, but the .22 was just right. With it, she hit the target nearly every time, and that got her hooked.

As soon as she returned home, Wilkinson purchased a .22 revolver. While waiting for the background check, she followed the store employee’s suggestion to visit the Rocky Mountain Gun Club (RMGC). Wilkinson discovered the club rented guns and had a Ladies Day open to nonmembers, and immediately made plans to attend.

On her way out, she saw a flyer for A Girl and A Gun Shooting League’s local chapter. It only took Wilkinson one day to decide she wanted to join.

Gun classes

A Girl and A Gun’s (AG/AG) mission is to encourage women of all demographics to be educated about firearm usage and safety and to promote shooting and competitive shooting sports. Events are designed for all levels of experience, from novice to recreational to competitive.

Continue reading “”