Category: Safety

President Trump needs Tier One military protection
Delta, DEVGRU (Seal Team -6) operators far superior to Secret Service.

President Donald J. Trump and the entire country have been lucky — twice — but the problem with relying upon luck as an executive protection strategy is that luck can eventually run out.

The United States Secret Service had their chance to protect our 45th and possibly 47th President. They failed miserably, two times, and a good man was murdered and three people — including the former president — were wounded because of their ineptitude.

Rather than ordering immediate firings, all the Secret Service offered an angry public was excuses. President Trump’s protective detail was “redlined” they claimed, suffering from too much overtime. As a result, a handful of unfit and inexperienced DHS agents were seconded to the President’s protective detail, but only after watching a two-hour webinar. One of the DHS agents couldn’t even holster her Glock.

While senior FBI and Secret Service officials dither, dodge and dick around over who is to blame, President Trump remains protected mostly by sheer luck and a lot of prayers.

This. Must. Change.

Trump’s sleepy Secret Service detail should be fired and quickly replaced by blue and green guys from JSOC’s Special Mission Units.

Delta and DEVGRU Tier One operators are infinitely superior to the poorly trained clock-watchers in the Secret Service. They’re faster, fitter and far more professional. They shoot with surgical precision and operate regularly on a zero-fail mission basis — a standard to which the Secret Service can only claim to aspire.

Key to our operators’ success is their training, which includes executive protection and just about everything else, and they don’t deploy alone. Both Delta and DEVGRU have their own highly specialized support elements, which include air assets, drone operators, cyber warriors and intelligence analysts, who are all experts in their fields and far superior to anything the Secret Service could ever dream of bringing to the fight.

It is clear the left will never stop weaponizing unstable individuals with their heated anti-Trump rhetoric. History has shown they’ll watch their mouths for a week or two, but then resume their “threat to democracy” hogwash en masse, as if on cue.

The Congressional investigations into the first assassination attempt will take months and likely blame only low-level supervisors who have already been allowed to retire and keep their federal pensions. Meanwhile, President Trump remains at risk.

By the Grace of God, he survived two assassination attempts. Delta and DEVGRU operators could guarantee there will never be a third.

I can’t say whether or not this Miguel De La Torre is a Christian or not, as that is the purview of God. But, I can say that he’s stuck in the dark ages where the superstition that a thing, an inanimate object has moral agency and somehow has the power to exert influence over a human mind and is what we actually reject.  This mental malady supposedly died out during the renaissance, but apparently has lingered on in the minds of the ignorant or those with a covert political agenda.

Christian Website Writer Claims Guns Cause Sin of Shooting People

Guns don’t cause crime.

I think if most people are being honest, they’ll acknowledge this fact. It might not change their views on gun control, granted, as they’ll likely rationalize it as being really about disarming the criminals or something of that sort, but they’ll acknowledge that guns aren’t causing anything. They’ll just say it’s making the issue worse.

Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is probably someone who should reside in a padded room because it sounds like inanimate objects are talking to them or something.

Normally, though, I tend to not get that worked up by anyone making the claim that guns are the problem no matter how they frame it. I disagree and will often write about my disagreement, but it’s hard to be outraged at something you actively seek out every day.

I tell you that so you understand that when I say that this made me livid, you’ll understand how rare that is.

I won’t repeat the statistics showing that the number of mass shootings in the U.S. in one year exceeds the total of all countries combined for multiple years. Facts make no difference when combating the Second Amendment ideology.

We choose not to change because we confuse our savagery with civilization. We choose not to change because we reject Christianity and other love-based faith traditions.

A foundational principle of Christianity is to put the needs of others before the self. In the first letter to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul writes, “Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall” (8:13, NIV).

The right to consume this gun culture is not only causing others to sin by killing the innocent but advancing the opposing message to life found in the gospel–death.

We reject Christianity and other “love-based faith traditions,” do we?

Well…let me just say that there are certain words I’m not allowed to use on this site. They’re the same words you can’t use on network TV, and for pretty much the same reasons.

Right about now, I want to use all of them.

I reject Christianity because I won’t give up my guns?

Then explain Luke 22:36:

Then He said to them, ‘But now, he who has a money belt is to take it along, and also his provision bag, and he who has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one”

That was Christ telling the Disciples to arm themselves.

I’ll admit not everyone shares my understanding of this passage, but that doesn’t negate its existence.

Further, let’s talk about his comments on Paul, followed by his claim, “The right to consume this gun culture is not only causing others to sin by killing the innocent,,,” for a moment.

Now, Paul is talking about a specific situation that, in my understanding, is hypothetical. If something I do causes others to sin, I should stop doing that thing. Yet the author claims guns are causing people to kill folks.

That’s ridiculous.

Guns are a tool, but the actions are still the willful acts of people. Guns cause nothing on their own because they’re incapable of causing anything on their own. All they could potentially cause is displacing air. As such, this claim that guns are sinful because they cause people to sin is asinine.

I don’t pretend to be the best Christian out there, but I’m genuinely troubled by the onslaught of anti-gun Christians running around trying to pretend they’re the true believers, ignoring anything to the contrary, and now seemingly claim that guns, by their very existence, make people kill.

They’re guns, not cursed objects capable of exerting a will all their own on the possessor.

Meanwhile, people like the writer are those who seek to pervert God’s word to fulfill their own earthly agenda. Talk about sinful.

Blue States Can’t Ban Your Guns So They’ll Punish You For Using Them.

Try as they might, blue cities and states can’t seem to ban their citizens’ guns. They’ve enacted handgun bans, “assault weapons” bans, registration mandates, taxes, and levied confiscatory fees on guns, ammo, and carry permits. As a result, they’ve been challenged at every turn by those who take the Second Amendment at its word. And then Bruen came along and made the job of civilian disarmament even more difficult for aspiring tyrants.

What’s a gun-banner to do then? Simple. Make life hell for anyone who dares to use a gun they own, particularly in self-defense. Look no further for an example than what happened last night in Newton, Massachusetts.

A group of people were holding a peaceful pro-Israel rally when a Hamas supporter began yelling at them from across the street. The Hamasnik, who apparently couldn’t abide free speech being exercised in his presence, ran through traffic and assaulted one of the Israel supporters, jumping on him as his back was turned.

Watch video of the altercation here . . .

It’s hard to imagine a clearer case of self-defense after the Hamas supporter tackled a man who has been identified at 47-year-old Scott Hayes of Framingham, Massachusetts. It’s been reported that Hayes is a lawful gun owner and permitted carrier, though the police investigation is ongoing.

Continue reading “”

No. Trying to harm me, or mine is immoral.
Not possessing the means to stop someone trying that

Catholic News Site: Gun Ownership is Immoral

Whether someone owns a firearm or not is a personal decision. I respect how people reach that decision just so long as it doesn’t involve trying to make my decision for me. That includes people who decide that they think owning a gun is immoral. If they confine that to themselves–saying it doesn’t fit with their view of morality, for example–then no worries. If they say that my owning one is immortal, then we have an issue.

Most folks have the good sense not to take that position. They might think it, but they know that they’re going to stir up some hate and discontent by openly saying it.

It’s even worse when they use the worst possible examples to justify it.

And that’s just what the former president and editor-in-chief of Catholic News Service did when he decided to write a piece for a Catholic website with the headline, “Is it time to talk about the morality of gun ownership?”

It starts with this:

Imagine yourself in your house. A neighbor is banging on the front door and yelling. Or there are noises outside, a car window being smashed. What do you reach for?

Susan Lorincz reached for a gun. Embroiled in a dispute with her neighbor, Lorincz, standing behind a locked and bolted metal door, fired a bullet through the door, killing Ajika Owens, single mother of four.

Jason Lewis reached for a gun and went out at 3 a.m. to investigate when he heard noises on his street. Three teens were breaking into cars. When he yelled at the kids, he thought one of them was running toward him. He fired, killing 13-year-old Karon Desean Blake.

Lorincz is white. Lewis is black. Both victims were black. Lorincz lives in Florida, Lewis in Washington, D.C. Both were convicted in August of manslaughter and face years in prison.

The two stories are exhibits A and B in the madness that has overtaken a country in which there are more guns than people, a country which is unique among advanced countries for the number of deaths caused by guns, a country where lethal violence is considered option No.1 for self-protection of life and property.

Of course, this is a great example of cherry-picking examples to back up your position.

However, he doesn’t acknowledge the people who have used firearms to defend themselves; people who would be dead had they been unarmed. It happens more times than the alternative he presents here.

But with this as the initial framing of his piece, writer Greg Erlandson adds:

If guns weren’t involved, if fear wasn’t a factor, if the nightmare threat scripts that run in our minds hadn’t kicked in, Owens and Blake would be alive today. Instead of a gun, Lewis might have picked up a phone. Instead of a gun, Lorincz might have called 911.

The truth is that we’ve become the monsters in our own nightmares. We buy guns for security, yet feel ever more insecure. We buy guns because we feel threatened, yet we become the threats, not just to others, but to ourselves. More than half of all gun deaths in the United States are suicides. Guns are highly efficient at one thing: projecting a bullet into a neighbor, into a kid, into one’s own head.

No one feels secure: not us, not our neighbors, not our police. So, we buy still more guns. We play out Hollywood tropes, cop show scenarios in our minds. And every now and then, innocents die.

Lorincz and Lewis never planned to kill. They never planned to spend a decade or two in prison for taking someone else’s life. But the gun became the crutch, the protection that they leaned on instead of calling the police or relying on one’s neighbors. The gun is one more symbol of our isolation masquerading as self-reliance.

So clearly, Erlandson’s position is that gun ownership is, in fact, immoral. It’s immoral. He argues that lawful gun ownership is fueling our insecurities, which leads to more people buying guns, creating a vicious cycle.

Yet he ignores the fact that as gun ownership increased year after year for decades–and guns aren’t consumables that wear out quickly, so every gun purchase generally puts more guns in law-abiding hands, often new ones–the homicide rate decreased.

Taking the life of someone who represents no harm to you is immoral. No one argues otherwise.

But I fail to see there being any inherent morality to being a victim, either. There’s no moral superiority in lying dead in a puddle of your own blood simply because you refused to have the means to defend yourself.

Including a couple of examples of manslaughter doesn’t negate the legions out there who have successfully defended themselves with a firearm and done so when their lives were legitimately on the line. Of the two examples Erlandson gives, only one of them was potentially ambiguous enough to actually be applicable to his point.

“But you can call the police.”

The police often show up just in time to draw a chalk outline around your body when someone is threatening your life.

Yes, when someone is stealing from your car, call the cops. When they’re yelling outside and you’re scared, call the police.

When they’re trying to come into your home, knowing you’re there, things are different. Would Erlander have preferred this Texas family be slaughtered by a guy with a machete as they waited for the police to arrive? That’s just one of a legion of armed citizen stories we’ve covered here at Bearing Arms since the site first launched. These are people who fall outside of Erlandson’s ideas of morality, as do I and most of you.

CDC, FBI Hiding Data Showing Good Guys With Guns Save Lives

The federal government no longer enacts the will of the people. It enacts the will of some people, most of whom seem to be unelected bureaucrats who side with an anti-gun agenda. They do not care about our rights. They simply want to see guns restricted, most likely because an armed populace isn’t one that can be run roughshod over.

Advertisement

But good guys with guns cause them a problem. How can you paint the use of guns as an unmitigated evil if good people use them to stop bad people?

What’s more, the federal government has numbers that back up the claim that good guys with guns save lives. However, as John Lott notes over at The Federalist, the feds are hiding them from us.

Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) under the Biden Administration has sought to suppress data proving that armed citizens help prevent crime by removing its estimates of defensive gun uses from its website. For almost a decade, the CDC referenced a 2013 National Academies of Sciences report noting that people used guns to stop crime anywhere from about 64,000 to 3 million times a year.

This decision was taken after gun control activist Mark Bryant, founder of the Gun Violence Archive, lobbied the CDC to remove “misinformation” regarding defensive gun use estimates because of they are cited by “gun rights folks” to stop gun control legislation. Soon after, the CDC took down these estimates and now lists no numbers.

This is probably the most profound case of bias I’ve ever seen. The CDC has the numbers and had enough faith in them to post them, then an anti-gun activist took issue with them and said they prevented gun control from passing, so the CDC took them down.

And they wonder how the Dickey Amendment came into being in the first place.

They knew the truth and suppressed it simply because activists saw the truth as a barrier and asked them to take it down. Would they have done the same with COVID-19 numbers? Would they do the same with drunk driving deaths or childhood drownings?

Of course not. Nor should they. If they believe in the numbers enough to post them, they should have stuck to their guns on this.

But the issue isn’t just the CDC.

Oh no, the FBI has to have its own problems.

The FBI has also shown itself to be susceptible to political pressure. The FBI defines an active shooter attack as occurring when an individual actively kills or attempts to kill people in a populated, public area. This measure includes everything from just one person shot at, even if the target isn’t hit, to a mass public shooting. It doesn’t include, however, shootings involving other crimes, such as robbery or fighting over drug turf.

To compile its list, the FBI hired researchers at Texas State University. Police departments don’t record these cases, so the researchers relied on Google searches to find news stories about these incidents. As such, the FBI’s evidence relies on a dataset that is actively hostile to the truth.

During 2020 and the beginning of 2021, I worked as the senior advisor for research and statistics at the U.S. Department of Justice. My job included evaluating the FBI’s active shooting reports. During my time with the DOJ, I discovered that the FBI either missed or misidentified many cases of civilians using guns to stop attacks. For instance, the FBI continues to report that armed citizens stopped only 14 of the 350 active shooter cases that it identified in the ten years from 2014 to 2023.

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), which I run, has found many more missed cases and is keeping an updated list. As such, the CPRC numbers tell a much different story: Out of 515 active shooter incidents from 2014 to 2023, armed citizens stopped 180, saving countless innocent lives. Our numbers even excluded 27 cases where a law-abiding citizen with a gun stopped an attacker before he could fire a shot.

Overall, the CPRC estimates that law-abiding citizens with guns have stopped over 35 percent of active shootings over the last decade and 39.6 percent in the last five years. This figure is eight times higher than the four percent estimate made by the FBI.

Now, 35 percent isn’t a massive number, but we need to remember that a lot of active shootings are happening in places where there are issues with law-abiding citizens being armed.

Potential mass murderers, for example, tend to favor gun-free zones for their attacks, such as schools like Apalachee High School in Winder. They also like malls, movie theaters, and other places where a large number of people are in one place and are generally disarmed by force of law. That means these incidents are less likely to be met with armed resistance not because good guys with guns don’t stop attacks but because the law makes sure there aren’t any good guys with guns.

Then we have the fact that a lot of other active shooter incidents happen in inner cities. These are often places where gun ownership is discouraged and, in the case of anti-gun states, where the government is outright hostile to the idea of citizens with guns. Before recently, getting a permit might have been impossible, thus making it far less likely a good guy with a gun could be anywhere near the scene of such a shooting.

And this is interesting because Lott wrote this well before the events in Winder.

In that case, school resource officers–good guys with guns, even if it was their job–reacted to the attack and ended the threat with an armed response. They didn’t have to kill the shooter, either. People like that tend to be cowards. Armed resistance scares them and so they surrender, run away, or just about anything else, even if the good guy doesn’t kill them.

For all the talk about gun control in the wake of Winder, I think the more important discussion is putting guns in school staff members’ hands.

Guns save lives, after all.

Reasons for Concealed Carry: My Interview with a Psychopath

By Will Dabbs, MD

In this article, Dr. Will Dabbs discusses why he carries a firearm for self-defense. The article includes discussing a real person with a serious mental illness. Real names have not been used. Nothing in this narrative is intended to disparage or stigmatize those who might suffer from any medical condition. However, it is a dangerous world. It behooves one to face potential danger with his or her eyes open to the risks they might face.

Crazy is a lyrically overused term these days. Psychiatrists institutionally despise that word. Labels are passe in today’s enlightened society. Such antiquated terminology invariably foments subconscious bias.

The reasons for concealed carry in the United States generally relate to self-defense. For each person, that reason is different and can be intensely personal.

What most people mean when they use the word “crazy” is psychosis. Distilled to its essence, this just means disconnected from reality. People with schizophrenia, for example, typically hear voices or, more rarely, see things that are objectively not real. The age of onset is typically late teens or early twenties. The experience is uniformly horrifying for all involved, particularly the patient.

Continue reading “”

Shooting Straight with John Lott

The mainstream media likes to use federal statistics as hooks for their one-sided gun-control narratives. The thing is, many of those statistics are suspect, even those from various federal agencies. The Crime Prevention Research Center’s (CPRC) work goes deep into how factual this “official data” is.

Indeed, when I reached out to John Lott, president and founder of the CPRC, he talked about his time working as a senior adviser for research and statistics at the Office of Justice Programs—a Department of Justice division that doles out about $5 billion in grants each year—during the Trump administration and about his research into crime and gun ownership. He has a lot to say about the statistics these agencies publish. As crime is an important topic in this upcoming election, we decided it was time to speak with Lott about how politically skewed these numbers from federal agencies can be.

Continue reading “”

For some reason, we don’t see any of this around Southwest Missouri.
I wonder why…………

Gang’s Takeover of Apartment Complex is Why People Need ‘Assault Weapons’

When people ask why we need so-called assault weapons, most of us default to point out that we don’t have to illustrate a need to exercise our rights. That is completely true and I’m one of those who has said it time and time again. We don’t, nor should we. If we’re required to show a need, then it’s not a right in the first place. That was the core issue at the heart of the Bruen case, really. The state demanded someone show a need and the Supreme Court said you can’t do that.

That extrapolates out to things like AR-15s.

But from time to time, we also see a situation where it makes it very clear that yes, there is a need for such firearms.

In this case, we’re going to talk about an armed gang taking over an apartment complex in Aurora, Colorado.

New video has surfaced showing alleged gang violence at an apartment complex home to some migrants in Aurora.

The video shows the group entering an apartment building with several weapons and then making their way through a door. The scenario took place at The Edge at Lowry apartments, which became a reported crime hotspot in that city.

In the video, men can be seen walking up a stairwell carrying weapons. They can be heard speaking Spanish.

The owners of the video said it was taken shortly before a shootout at the complex that left one person seriously injured. Several vehicles were also damaged by gunfire.

All of the people appear to be carrying rifles and handguns, except for one of the men who can be seen talking on a cell phone. They all then gather around a door and go in.

Another video clip shows what appears to be two men forcing a door open. But what or who they were searching for is not clear.

The video was shot in the building where Cindy and Edward Romero lived until Wednesday. FOX31 caught up with them as they loaded up their stuff and moved out.

“It’s been a nightmare and I can’t wait to get out of here,” former resident Cindy Romero said.

The gang appears to be made up of Venezuelan “immigrants” who have taken to terrorizing the residents of this complex, which houses a lot of other immigrants. There’s no mention of whether they’re legal or not, though I think we all know what the gang’s status actually is.

Yet there are also a lot of Americans there who are being terrorized by this gang.

While this appears to be a complex where people aren’t exactly flush with cash, the truth of the matter is that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms and our financial status is irrelevant. These people have a right to defend themselves, and with the numbers of bad guys we’re seeing here, and the level of armament–all of which is likely illegally obtained–if these bad guys decide to get even rowdier than they already are, it’s not likely to be a good thing to be relegated to defending yourself with a 10-round magazine, much less a bolt-action rifle and revolver like some people want to relegate us to.

For all the vilification of so-called assault weapons we see in the media, they do fill a niche in a self-defense strategy. It might not necessarily be ideal for a lot of circumstances, but when it is ideal, nothing else will do the job nearly as well.

An armed gang taking over and terrorizing your apartment complex sure looks like one of those jobs.

Uvalde Police Timid, Bungling During School Shooting, New Records Reveal
If you want something done right, do it yourself. That includes protecting family, friends, and neighbors.

Perhaps the greatest rebuttal to calls for confidence in police is the conduct of law enforcement officers at Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas. There, on May 24, 2022, almost 400 cops not only stood around while a lunatic murdered children and teachers, but they prevented parents from stepping in to do what those in uniform wouldn’t. Now, new reporting gives greater insight into the depths of the officers’ inaction that day, and just how unwise it is to rely on them for protection.
Documented Police Failures

The failures of police officers in Uvalde aren’t open to dispute.

“At Robb Elementary, law enforcement responders failed to adhere to their active shooter training, and they failed to prioritize saving the lives of innocent victims over their own safety,” concluded a report by the Texas House of Representatives Investigative Committee on the Robb Elementary Shooting.

A U.S. Justice Department review similarly found “failures in leadership, command, and coordination.”

Continue reading “”

Empowering women through self-defense and firearm training
Alpha Female Tactical offers safe learning environment

DEFUNIAK SPRINGS, Fla. (WJHG/WECP) – Firearms are common in the U.S., but not everyone knows how to use them safely. Finding a comfortable learning environment can be particularly challenging for women. Katrina Cain, the owner of Alpha Female Tactical, addresses this need on a private range at Bullets and Bones in DeFuniak Springs.

Cain provides courses and training specifically for women to learn about gun safety and defense. “We wanted to provide a comfortable learning environment for women because it is a male-dominated industry,” said Cain.

The inspiration to start these classes came from Cain’s personal experience. After realizing that few resources and training opportunities were available for women, she decided to take action. “We launched in October of 2020 after I got my concealed carry license and realized I wasn’t shown how to properly handle a firearm—load it, shoot it, or anything. I shot one single bullet, and that qualified me to get my permit at the time. My husband and I felt there needed to be more training for women to become comfortable with firearms.”

Cain is not just advocating for safety on the shooting range. As a deputy at the Walton County Sheriff’s Office, she brings her law enforcement experience to her training. “I see the domestic violence, the crimes, and the issues we have—not only here but worldwide. Things happen. We want every woman to be empowered and confident in her ability to defend herself, her children, or her loved ones.”

Courses at Alpha Female Tactical are designed to give women confidence, regardless of their background. “Especially if they’re coming from a place of trauma or have a history with firearm-related incidents or domestic violence. We want to provide a safe and supportive environment for them to learn how to defend themselves.”

Whether new to firearms or looking to advance their skills, women can find valuable resources at Alpha Female Tactical. “We offer everything from beginner classes for those who have never touched a gun to advanced tactical skills. Our classes include concealed carry, self-defense, hand-to-hand combat, pepper spray, non-lethal, and firearms training.”

Cain emphasized the importance of proper training. “It doesn’t help anyone to carry a firearm without the proper training and understanding of how it functions.”

In a world where personal safety is increasingly important, Cain and her team at Alpha Female Tactical are making strides to ensure women feel empowered and capable of defending themselves.

For more information on Alpha Female Tactical and its courses, visit its website or contact it directly at Bullets and Bones in DeFuniak Springs.

Should You Suppress a Home-Defense Gun?

Just a year or two ago things were looking up for suppressors. With the Hearing Protection Act written and in the legislative works, a semi-friendly House of Representatives and Senate, and the White House seemingly friendly towards signing a bill, things seemed positive for getting suppressors out of NFA jail. No more tax stamps, photos, fingerprints, body probes, and year-long waits just to make your gun run quieter.

Then, politicians did the politician dance, meaning they didn’t do a damn thing except fundraise and stump for reelection. Now, the House has flipped and there’s a better chance that Alyssa Milano will become the new NRA President than the Hearing Protection Act passing before Wolf Blitzer takes an anchor job with the Blaze.

Even still, you can buy one, just like before, as long as you’re prepared to wait. So, today’s question is, with all that headache and waiting around just to get your hands on a suppressor, should you ever consider using one on a home defense firearm? As with anything else, there are pros and cons to consider. Here’s a list of things to ponder.

Continue reading “”

Researchers at Duke University release new study on gun violence

RALEIGH, N.C. (WTVD) — Duke University’s recent study on gun violence showed that not even restrictive gun laws are having a significant impact among gun deaths among children.

Since 2020, guns have ranked as the leading cause of death among people between the ages of one to 18.

The study identified 36 firearm laws including expansive background checks, mandatory waiting periods, safe storage provisions and laws that limit access for people at risk of harming themselves or others.

Surprisingly, there were no notable distinctions between states with and without firearm laws when it comes to firearm deaths among children.

There were also no significant reductions in suicide death rates in states with laws setting minimum ages for possession or purchase of firearms.

‘common use for lawful purposes’

Survey Shows Growing Number of Americans Own Guns For Self-Defense

A new survey from the Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention at the University of Michigan has discovered what most of us already knew to be the case: the number one reason why tens of millions of Americans exercise their Second Amendment rights is personal safety.

The survey quizzed about 2,500 gun owners about their motivation to keep and bear arms, and the vast majority of respondents said self-defense was the most important factor in their decision.

Nearly 80% said they were motivated to get a firearm for personal protection, a proportion that appears to have risen over the past 25 years. No single study has tracked the reasons for gun ownership over time, making comparisons inexact, but similar studies have found that about 26% of Americans reported owning a gun for protection in 1999. Various studies suggest that between 60% and 70% of gun owners said protection was their main motivation for having a firearm from 2017 through 2021.

It’s a trend that has roots in the social upheaval of the 1960s, said Dr. David Yamane, a professor of sociology at Wake Forest University who studies gun culture in the United States and who was not involved in the survey.

“It was a time of profound social unrest and social uncertainty, lots of political movements, cultural change, foreign threats, people listening to crazy music, you know, ‘sex, drugs and rock n’ roll,’ political assassination, riots or protest movements in some cities,” said Yamane, who owns a gun and who financially supports organizations that promote gun ownership.

 

Continue reading “”

The Elephant in the Room: Female Secret Service Agents

It was clear today during the House Oversight Committee hearing on the Secret Service’s failure on July 13 that Director Kimberly Cheatle is either a shameless liar or completely incompetent—probably both. Her refusal to answer the most basic questions about the shooting, which nearly killed Donald Trump, has disqualified her for the job—full stop. She needs to be fired, along with other incompetent Secret Service bureaucrats in the agency.

Among other things, she revealed that she didn’t sign off on Trump’s protective plan that day. In fact, she doesn’t sign off on any of the plans. She also admitted that even though she’s deeply involved in the supposed investigation of her agency’s failures (wherein she is investigating herself), she hasn’t bothered to visit the shooting site.

One issue that repeatedly came up during the hearing was DEI hires in the agency and whether the female agents assigned to Trump were qualified for the job. Last year, Cheatle announced a goal of 30% female recruits, along with a whole host of diversity measures.

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) called Cheatle a “DEI horror story.”

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) accused Republicans of racism and misogyny because that’s all she knows how to do.

Republicans have exploited this moment to continue to attack programs for racial justice and gender equity in America. Disappointing, but not surprising. I hesitate to repeat their racist and sexist tropes. But in summary, Republicans have wrongfully and shamefully stated that hiring women and people of color hindered the response to the shooting.

Now, this is part and parcel of Republican strategy to constantly attack necessary diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts to undermine the contributions that women, people of color, the disability community, and others each and every day, and it is disgraceful in the wake of gun violence and tragic loss of life.

Asked about diversity hires at the agency, Cheatle replied that she’s focused on hiring the “best and brightest” and “best-qualified candidates.”

But is that true?

I wrote this on our liveblog the day of the shooting:

It’s time to have an adult conversation about the elephant in the room — women in the Secret Service. The question must be asked: Was Trump’s security detail compromised by diversity hires (women, gays, trans people, etc.)? In the case of women, it’s indisputable that men are stronger and faster than women. No one but the hopelessly deluded DEI enforcer believes otherwise. Someone going by the moniker @eyeslashoposted this chart on X today:


(click on image for a larger one)

It shows how the physical fitness standards are lower for female Secret Service trainees—in this case, pushups, with men’s scores on the left. For a man to be considered “Excellent” in the 20s age group, he must complete 55 pushups; for a woman, it’s only 40. Women can get away with only 26 pushups and still be considered “Good.” (Note: a man in his 20s should be able to do WAY more than 55 pushups.)

Eyeslasho added, “Shockingly, a total of only 6 points is required to pass the four-element test,” which includes pushups, sit-ups, chin-ups, and a 1.5 mile run. “And even if you don’t score 6 points, you can still be admitted upon further ‘review and recommendation.'”

“Overall, I’m not impressed by what is physically required of those who enter the Secret Service,” he concluded.

Neither am I.

We’ve all seen the pictures of a bloodied Trump surrounded by his protective detail. The men on the team were tall enough to place their heads between Trump’s head and the shooter; the female agent was significantly shorter, exposing Trump’s head.

Make no mistake: The agent in the picture above was incredibly brave. She placed her body between Trump and the shooter without hesitation and deserves to be praised for her effort. It’s not her fault that she is shorter than the male agents or that someone at the Secret Service placed her in that position.

Diversity, for its own sake, is ridiculous; diversity in jobs where someone’s life is on the line could be deadly.

I work out with some female law enforcement officers, and they are absolute beasts in the gym. But the strongest women in the gym can’t compete with the men when it comes to strength tests.

If I place my life in the hands of the Secret Service, I want the strongest, fastest, and best-trained agent possible. Women can be incredibly strong and fit and can certainly be well-trained. But if I had to choose between a man and a woman of similar age and training, I’d go with the man every time. If someone’s going to have to carry my lifeless body off a dais, I want the guy with huge biceps and legs like tree trunks. “Yasss girl power!” is not going to cut it.

Yes, I know it’s not politically correct to speak about gender in a way that suggests women ≠ to men, but as the managing editor of PJ Media, I don’t demand political correctness. I don’t force writers to use “preferred genders,” unlike other sites (one of which rhymes with “box”). That decision has gotten us demonetized, throttled, and censored, but we refuse to back down. You should demand no less of the websites you frequent.

The Secret Service’s Day Of Reckoning: What Kim Cheatle’s Evasion Means For America

United States Secret Service Director Kim Cheatle sat before the House Oversight Committee yesterday. The committee subpoenaed Cheatle to ensure her appearance. Her responses were predictable and tiresome. Whenever possible, she deflected questions, citing the FBI’s “ongoing investigation.” Her response to every substantive question was a simple variation on a theme — “I’m not going to get into the specifics.”

It’s a response that has rolled with ease off the lips of FBI Director Christopher Wray whenever confronted with the ire of congressional committee members. Anger — genuine or manufactured — displayed as the result of inexcusable incidents of politicization. But, these sorts of responses to congressional oversight committees have become so common they’re mundane.

However, Congress plays a significant role in the automatic and cavalier dismissals of pointed questioning by agency heads. Oversight has become a joke. Unless you’re a Trump appointee or official, contempt of Congress has absolutely no meaning. Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro are the only two examples in living memory of the efficacious use of Congress’ power of contempt. It seems only Democrats have the political will.

Cheatle easily dismissed the blustery, reddened faces congressional inquisitors assumed, like so many tomatoes set atop starched collars. Cursing and grandstanding only serves to elicit reshares on social media, and ensures a few early afternoon hits on broadcast news channels. All very important if you’re obsessed with the perpetual fundraising cycle, and convincing gullible constituents you really care one whit about their questions or concerns.

How do I know this is all a put-on? I’ve witnessed it firsthand. As a member of a dignitary protection detail, I’ve seen behind the veritable curtain, and witnessed the handshaking, back slapping, and laughing transform into Oscar winning tragedies of political theater when the cameras and lights come on. The outrage is a ploy — maybe not for everyone, but for most.

The American people can do the analysis for themselves. Congress doesn’t have the power to fire Cheatle directly, that option is solely within the purview of the lame duck president Joe Biden. But, Congress does control the purse strings, and the power to arrest and jail for contempt.

Cheatle followed the disaster of July 13th with a disastrous day before Congress. With nine days to anticipate obvious questions, she refused to provide a real answer to a single one. There’s no question she has access to accurate, preliminary findings — information the public has a right to know. A quick perusal of the operations plan would tell her who was responsible for covering the building from which the shooter fired.

Democrat members of the House Oversight Committee like Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC) used the publicity opportunity to vamp for gun confiscation. Norton asked Cheatle, “Would Secret Service protectees be safer or less safe if people could carry handguns in D.C?” What that has to do with the most significant Secret Service failure in almost fifty years is beyond the powers of mortal reason.

Incompetence is a feature of Democrat party policy, politics, and governance at every level.

Cheatle also failed to convincingly defend the men and women who responded within three seconds of the first shot fired on the July 13th assassination attempt, or to debunk the plethora of wild conspiracy theories infesting the dark environs of social media.

Keyboard jockeys immediately pounced on the female members of Trump’s protection detail, zeroing in on one in particular who seemed overcome by events. Though performance was certainly an issue during some of the tactical movements leading to securing Trump in his limousine, these criticisms are coming almost exclusively from people who have no dignitary protection background. The same critics have failed to realize the potentially pivotal role played by the Butler County Sheriff’s deputy who was boosted to the roof where the would-be assassin had positioned himself. It is highly likely that the actions of this deputy saved Trump’s life, having disturbed the shooter’s firing rhythm.

Ridiculous conspiracy theories abound. Rep. Jake LaTurner (R-KS) leveled a series of important questions, asking Cheatle to provide detail to dispel the growing body of wild and uninformed narratives surrounding the assassination attempt. She refused.

A particularly laughable theory posits that an FBI Assistant Director (AD) was placed behind Trump in the crowd during the rally. Any surveillance professional knows how ridiculous it is to suggest that an AD would be involved in surveillance at all, much less in one where she’d be placed directly behind Trump, in a position to be photographed countless times. But, this is the kind of nonsense that flourishes in the absence of information from professionals who are in the position to know.

Cheatle did get one thing right: she called the January 13th assassination attempt the worst lapse in decades. Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) called her incompetent, and demanded her instant resignation. Failing that, Turner called on Biden to fire her immediately. More notably, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) compared Cheatle to former USSS Director H. Stewart Knight after the Ronald Reagan assassination attempt, citing his resignation. Khanna said flatly, “I think you should resign.” Humorously, though stated in the most grave tones, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) called Cheatle, “a DEI horror story.”

It has been often said that the Secret Service’s duties are a “no fail mission.” That’s absolutely true. The responsibilities of dignitary protection are too weighty to allow for chance, mistake, or complacency. There are no take backs or do overs. That’s why former Director Stewart tendered his resignation. However, providing an acceptable level of transparency is also a no fail mission. Without it, as we have seen, everyone loses faith in our democratic institutions. That is an existential threat.

We must not just demand, but secure accountability from our representatives. We have an unparalleled opportunity to do just that this presidential election cycle. Trump can exercise executive authority to correct the leadership problems at the Secret Service, the FBI, and across the deep state apparatus.