Man shot multiple times trying to rob store in Northeast Philly

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — A 26-year-old man was shot multiple times by the manager of a dollar store he attempted to rob in the Castor section of Northeast Philadelphia on Sunday, police say. The shooting happened on 6900 block of Bustleton Avenue at the Grace Dollar Store at around 4:15 p.m.

Police say the 26-year-old man was shot twice in the chest and multiple times in the groin and leg area. He was placed in critical condition and got transported to Jefferson-Torresdale Hospital for further treatment.

Police say no weapons were recovered. The 26-year-old man is being held as a prisoner.

The manager who fired the shots was not hit in the incident, according to police.

Reminder: The Club Q Shooting May Not Be What the Left Wants You to Believe It Is

Late Saturday night, police responded to a shooting at a gay nightclub called “Club Q” in Colorado Springs, Colo. According to reports, five people are dead and at least another 18 were injured.

It’s early enough that those numbers could change. Yet, before we even know all the facts, the left has already decided who is to blame: Republicans.

“Every GOP politician spewing anti-LGBTQ rhetoric bears responsibility for the Colorado Springs shooting,” claimed Rep. Nydia Velasquez (D-N.Y.) on Twitter. “Every GOP politician who says that guns aren’t the problem bears responsibility for the Colorado Springs shooting. Enough.”

Actually, I say enough with the finger-pointing. Leftists do this every time there’s an incident they can exploit for political gain. For example, in June 2016, a shooter killed 49 people at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando. The media quickly sought to blame conservative Christians for the shooting, concluding that the shooter specifically targeted the Pulse nightclub because it was a gay nightclub.

This wasn’t true.

For starters, the shooter wasn’t even Christian; Omar Mateen was Muslim and had pledged allegiance to ISIS.

Nor was the shooting about anti-LGBT hate. As Vox reported in April of 2018, “There’s now conclusive evidence that the shooter wasn’t intending to target LGBTQ people at all.”

According to a report from the Huffington Post titled “Everyone Got The Pulse Massacre Story Completely Wrong,” also published the same month, “Mateen had never been to Pulse before, whether as a patron or to case the nightclub. Even prosecutors acknowledged in their closing statement that Pulse was not his original target; it was the Disney Springs shopping and entertainment complex.”

Despite this, the myth that the attack was a hate crime specifically targeting the LGBT community remains alive and well. There’s even a planned memorial and museum — yes, a museum — dedicated to perpetuating the lie that this was an LGBT hate crime.

 Club Q issued a statement describing the Saturday shooting “hate attack.”

“Club Q is devastated by the senseless attack on our community. Our prays [sic] and thoughts are with all the victims and their families and friends. We thank the quick reactions of heroic customers that subdued the gunman and ended this hate attack,” the club posted to its Facebook page.

When people like Velasquez and countless others on social media try to blame Republicans for the shooting or immediately conclude it was a “hate crime,” they are part of the problem. According to the most recent report I can find, the suspect has been identified, but no motive has been determined yet by law enforcement.

There are reports that the shooter was also behind a 2021 bomb threat, for which he was charged with two counts of Felony Menacing and three counts of First-Degree Kidnapping. It is not known why, if this is the same person, he was out on the streets already, but his violent history would seem to point to mental health problems, not a political agenda.

So, let’s not forget that even The Huffington Post admitted “everyone got the Pulse massacre story completely wrong.” Maybe before people jump to conclusions about the shooter’s motives, we should wait for the details to be confirmed. Anything else is irresponsible.

Observation O’ The Day

Hi 97 Percent Team,

Thank you for putting on yesterday’s conference. I am a gun owner and member of the firearm community based in Chicago. I share your desire to decrease gun deaths and find common ground. As a sign of my good faith intentions, I recently put on a Safe Storage presentation with a Moms Demand Action representative for our school community despite vehemently disagreeing with their public policy platform.

I feel that the strongest part of yesterday’s presentation was the Hot Button Topics discussion between Amy Swearer and Fred Guttenberg. I am still shocked that Fred wold be willing to sit down with Amy. More conversations like that need to happen where each side sits down with one another to try and have good faith conversations.

I am writing after watching the entirety of yesterday’s presentation. I watched because I was interested in what the panel, which included elected officials and other policy makers, would put forward as give and take compromises to get the gun community onboard. Unfortunately I feel as if it was a hugely blown opportunity on the whole as zero policy compromises were put forward by any of the speakers except Dr. Seigel.

Many members of the gun community showed up to watch in the hopes that we may have found a partner where we could work together. Instead we were shown a parade of speakers who have all publically asked for or voted recently for assault weapons bans. Governor Roy Cooper, Rep Moulton, Rep Dean, are all elected officials who have publicly pushed for bans and made clear yesterday that not only are they unwilling to remove these bans (despite the organization’s stated policy as presented by Michael Seigel) but rather they said explicitly that they are just waiting for the opportunity to have the votes to pass it in Congress. Congressman Moulton even threw in the usual talking point about shooting deer with AR-15s and needing better aim. Is insulting comments REALLY how you intend to find common ground with the majority of responsible gun owners who train to use their firearms not for hunting, but to defend themselves and family? Our supposed “voice at the table” Former Rep Walsh put forward no push back but rather spent most of the panel virtue signaling his hatred of the NRA (who we all hate too btw). There was not one word, not one proposal that was put forward as a give-and-take compromise with the gun community. That first panel lost many of us but I continued watching.

Former Schumer aid Emily Amick’s social media is full of video clips demonizing gun owners who own AR-15s, calling for an end to the filibuster to push gun ban proposals, and glowing videos of Congressman Cellini saying “spare me the constiutional right bull sh*t.” How was including her, who again has shown no sign of willing to compromise on any policy, intended on getting buy in from the gun community?

What was the point of allowing WH Assistant Stefanie Feldman to read a 5 minute speech about Biden’s domestic policy, including once again her emphasizing that he wants to ban assault weapons and if you don’t agree with the ban then you don’t actually care about crime? Again not one word about compromises that the administration is willing to make with the gun community.

The gun community has a huge amount of respect for Stephen Guttowski and I am glad you included him in the discussion. Stephen’s method and podcasts, calmly discussing the DETAILS of firearm policy and law should be how 97 Percent moves forward in discussions with the gun community.

Unfortunately I’m not sure your organization will get the chance after yesterday’s conference as much credibility was lost. You simply cannot parade out a bunch of speakers, many of whom are board members, who have publically been strong advocates of gun bans and then ask us to trust your organization because…… your official platform says you don’t want an assault weapons ban? We all remember Conor Lamb campaigning with video of him shooting an AR-15 and then voting to ban them this year.

Richard Aborn (instrumental proponent of 94 AWB), Rep Steve Israel (proponent of AWB and on recent 97% podcast spoke favorable of NY’s Bruen-response bill and explained his idea of compromise as “getting 60% rather than 100%” of gun control policies he wants), and Rep Moulton (who’s service I respect yet again just voted for an AWB), are all prominent members of your board. Why should the gun community trust you???

So when will the gun community trust you? When you come forward with REAL policy compromises as well as fight to overturn abusive laws. We want to stand shoulder to shoulder with you in calling out California’s Handgun Roster or New York’s post-Bruen concealed carry restrictions. We are willing to discuss federal Universal background checks in exchange for national concealed carry reciprocity. A federal license (with training perhaps!) in exchange for not needing FFL NICS checks for transfers. These were the types of discussions we were expecting when we showed up to watch yesterday. The ONLY person who in good faith touched on any of this was Dr. Siegel.

I will end with a humorous fictional story written about someone attending the conference in-person that is circulating among the gun community.

https://hwfo.substack.com/p/ninety-seven-percent

I hope your organization will take this criticism to heart and revamp how you plan on engaging in good faith with the firearm community. Many of us are still willing to talk, but not just about how much we are willing to give up in exchange for nothing.

Best,
David Rice
Chicago

If I was he author I wouldn’t have made a joke out of it. Likely some demoncrap transvestite sodomite could take it as a serious suggestion. Yes, that’s how warped they are.

If Democrats want to win back rural voters, there’s only one way to do it

Agricultural-themed drag shows.

Okay, just kidding. Yes, if Democrats want to claw back any semblance of competitiveness and representation in rural America, they’re going to have to kiss the sweet, sweet cash of the gun control lobby goodbye and end their hostility to the Second Amendment that has become increasingly central to the party’s identity over the past three decades.

Even as recently as 2010, a full quarter of the Democrats in the U.S. House were rated “A” by the National Rifle Association, but those days are long gone. Less than 1% of the Democratic caucus voted against the ban on so-called assault weapons that cleared the House earlier this year, and rural voters know that the candidate with the “D” behind their name is going to be a reliable vote against their rights, even if they don’t make gun control a priority on the campaign trail.

I saw this in my own congressional district this year, where Democrat Josh Throneburg ended up getting a little more than  42% of the vote in VA-05, which sprawls from the suburbs of Richmond up past Charlottesville and all the way down to Danville on the Virginia/North Carolina border. It’s a safe Republican district, but Rep. Bob Good won by 18-points on a better-than-expected night for Democrats overall. I saw no mention of gun control in any news story quoting Throneburg, and he didn’t seem to make it a huge issue, but quietly tucked away on his campaign website you could discover that on board with creating a number of new criminal offenses out of our right to keep and bear arms, including banning permitless carry and passing a federal “red flag” law.

On Election Day, Throneburg won the progressive enclave of Charlottesville with an incredible 87% of the vote. It didn’t matter. He was crushed in rural county after rural county; Good had six counties where his margin of victory was 50-points, and seven more where he won by at least 30-points. The only other part of VA-05 that went for Throneburg was the portion of the city of Danville inside the district’s borders, and that was a much closer six-point win for the Democrat.

The rural numbers are just gruesome for lefties who know the party needs to compete in rural America:

  • Pittsylvania County – 75% Bob Good
  • Campbell County – 77% Bob Good
  • Powhatan County – 75% Bob Good
  • Hanover County – 70% Bob Good
  • Charlotte County – 69% Bob Good

These are the same counties that turned out in historic fashion and helped send Republicans to victory in all statewide elections last year, and a big reason for that enormous turnout was to deliver political payback to the Democrats who used their newfound majority in 2020 to ram through a host of gun control measures (though they failed in their attempt to impose a semi-auto ban on Virginians). These voters are simply not going to side with a candidate who believes that cracking down on law-abiding gun owners and criminalizing a fundamental right is the answer to addressing violent crime or has anything to do with “common sense gun safety.”

But are Democrats willing to give up the significant financial support of the gun control lobby and focus on things like community gun violence intervention programs and other ways to reduce crime that don’t involve turning the Second Amendment into a second-degree felony? No way.

Over at The Nation, the founders of the Democratic group Rural Urban Bridge Initiative offer  some suggestions to Democrats for making inroads with rural America, but nowhere do they come close to telling candidates to ixnay the ungay ontrolcay alktay. In their larger report on Democratic messaging with the folks in the hinterlands, however, they do offer up a  nugget of advice

Among the bigger national issues, guns and abortion generally cannot be avoided on the campaign trail but must be discussed with respect for different points of view. As with most everything else, this begins with listening. In some instances, “agreeing to disagree’” is the best outcome achievable. This generally earns the candidate more respect than either a dogmatic insistence on their position, or avoidance of the issue by pivoting to more comfortable issues.

Hey look, I respected Josh Throneburg for running. He seemed like someone completely out of touch with the Fifth District, which is to be expected since he moved to Charlottesville just three years ago, but I saw him as a nice enough guy with bad ideas. It’s the bad ideas that prevented me from voting for him, not his personality or willingness to listen.

If Democrats want to bridge the urban/rural divide, they have to accept that it’s not a messaging problem. It’s a policy problem, and the biggest issue of all is the Democratic insistence that peaceable gun owners are the real problem when it comes to “gun violence.”

Honestly, I’d love to have a difficult choice when I walk into the voting booth on Election Day, especially since the Fifth District Republic Committee has not held an open primary for our congressional seat since 2018, choosing instead to go with a closed convention that denies the vast majority of voters in our district the opportunity to vote in what would be the most competitive race of the election cycle given the district’s conservative bent. Bob Good won the general election by 18 points, but I don’t know that would be the case in an open GOP primary.

Regardless, whoever the Republicans did pick would be a strong Second Amendment supporter, unlike the Democrats who keep trying to convince themselves that, if only they use the right messaging techniques, they can trick the rubes into voting for something they’re firmly against.

It doesn’t really matter if you accuse us of 
 or patronizingly express support for the Second Amendment and banning some of the most commonly-sold firearms in the same breath, we know what the Democratic Party stands for when it comes to our right to armed self-defense; they don’t believe it’s a right at all. And as long as that’s the case, the rural vote will never swing back in their favor.

Betcha this will get more widely covered than the 4 dead coeds in Idaho.

5 people dead and 18 injured in mass shooting at Club Q in Colorado Springs

Five attendees were murdered and another 18 injured after a shooter opened fire at a gay bar in Colorado Springs.

Colorado Springs Police first got the call around 11:57pm for a an active shooter at Club Q.

They are taken to local hospitals.

“They did find one person inside who we think is the suspect,” said Lt. Pamela Castro of the Colorado Springs Police Department. “Right now, the suspect is being treated, but in police custody.

Castro did not explain whether the suspect was included in the count of those who were hurt in the shooting.

The police have chosen not to comment on any possible motives. According to the Captain of the Colorado Springs Fire Department, Mike Smaldino, eleven ambulances responded to the area after receiving many calls to 911.

Castro stated that they would be staying put for “many, many hours to come.”

In a statement on social media, Club Q said it was “devastated by the senseless attack on our community” and offered condolences to victims and their families.

“We thank the quick reactions of heroic customers that subdued the gunman and ended this hate attack,” the statement said.

Castro stated that “this was not an officer-involved shooting,” despite the fact that the police have not yet disclosed the specifics of how the shooting came to a close.

Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2022

A copy of our newest report is available here (please download). Copies of our annual reports from 2014 through 2021 are available here.

As the United States is moving into a post-pandemic era, the number of concealed handgun permits has continued increasing. The figure now stands at 22.01 million – a 2.3% increase since last year. Unlike gun ownership surveys that may be affected by people’s unwillingness to answer personal questions, concealed handgun permit data is the only really “hard data” that we have. This increase occurred despite 24 Constitutional Carry states that no longer provide data on all those legally carrying a concealed handgun because people in those states no longer need a permit to carry. A 25th state, Alabama, has also adopted Constitutional Carry, but its law doesn’t go into effect until January 1, 2023…

These numbers are particularly topical given that the U.S. Supreme Court in June struck down New York’s “May-Issue” Concealed Handgun Law, affirming a constitutional right to bear arms. The decision will have a major impact conconcealed carry laws in the seven states that had “May-Issue” type rules…

What might happen to the number of permits in those seven states? Illinois, which was also forced by an earlier court decision to adopt right-to-carry rules, may serve as an example. While Illinois has done its best to make getting a concealed handgun permit expensive and difficult, the latest numbers show that over 4.5% of its adult population now has a permit. If the seven “May-Issue” states have a similar experience as Illinois, it implies an additional 2.7 million concealed handgun permit holders in the United States.

John R. Lott, Jr., “Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States: 2022,” Social Science Research Network, November 17, 2022.

 Among the findings of our report:

  • Last year, the number of permit holders continued to grow by about 488,000. At 2.3% growth over 2021, that is the slowest percent and absolute increase that we have seen since we started collecting this data in 2011. Part of that is due to the number of permits declining in the Constitutional Carry states even though it is clear that more people are legally carrying.
  • 8.5% of American adults have permits.  Outside of the restrictive states of California and New York, about 10.2% of adults have a permit.
  • In seventeen states, more than 10% of adults have permits. Since 2019, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota have fallen below 10%, but they are now all Constitutional Carry states, meaning that people no longer need a permit to carry. The concealed carry rates for Connecticut, North Carolina, and Wisconsin have risen to above 10% this year.
  • Alabama has the highest concealed carry rate — 32.5%.  Indiana is second with 23.4%, and Georgia is third with 15.5%.
  • Six states now have over 1 million permit holders: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Florida is the top states with 2.57 million permits.
  • Twenty-five states have adopted Constitutional Carry for their entire state, meaning that a permit is no longer required. Because of these Constitutional Carry states, the nationwide growth in permits does not paint a full picture of the overall increase in concealed carry. Many residents still choose to obtain permits so that they can carry in other states that have reciprocity agreements, but while permits are increasing in the non-Constitutional Carry states, they fell in the Constitutional Carry ones even though more people are clearly carrying in those states.
  • In 2022, women made up 29.2% of permit holders in the 15 states that provide data by gender, an increase from the 28.3% last year. Seven states had data from 2012 to 2021/2022, and permit numbers grew 115.4% faster for women than for men.

Legal Firearm Sales at State Level and Rates of Violent Crime, Property Crime, and Homicides

Abstract
Introduction
The effects of firearm sales and legislation on crime and violence are intensely debated, with multiple studies yielding differing results. We hypothesized that increased lawful firearm sales would not be associated with the rates of crime and homicide when studied using a robust statistical method.

Methods
National and state rates of crime and homicide during 1999-2015 were obtained from the United States Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Instant Criminal Background Check System background checks were used as a surrogate for lawful firearm sales. A general multiple linear regression model using log event rates was used to assess the effect of firearm sales on crime and homicide rates. Additional modeling was then performed on a state basis using an autoregressive correlation structure with generalized estimating equation estimates for standard errors to adjust for the interdependence of variables year to year within a particular state.

Results
Nationally, all crime rates except the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–designated firearm homicides decreased as firearm sales increased over the study period. Using a naive national model, increases in firearm sales were associated with significant decreases in multiple crime categories. However, a more robust analysis using generalized estimating equation estimates on state-level data demonstrated increases in firearms sales were not associated with changes in any crime variables examined.

Conclusions
Robust analysis does not identify an association between increased lawful firearm sales and rates of crime or homicide. Based on this, it is unclear if efforts to limit lawful firearm sales would have any effect on rates of crime, homicide, or injuries from violence committed with firearms.

COVID vax makers finally study long-term heart damage as FDA admits bivalent data lacking
HHS corrects stats on tripling of COVID-related pediatric hospitalizations, used to justify booster campaign for kids, after analyst calls out bad data. CNN still hasn’t corrected false report.

More than a year after the FDA added heart inflammation warnings to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines — amid the second academic year of campus vaccine mandates on a demographic at higher risk of severe adverse events — vaccine makers are finally studying the long-term consequences of vaccine-induced myocarditis and pericarditis.

Moderna already has two trials running, while Pfizer said its first trial will start “in the next couple months” and include up to 500 teenagers and young adults under 21, NBC News reported last week. Neither has disclosed the studies on their websites.

The CDC isn’t much further ahead in studying long-term post-vaccination harm. In late September, the agency started contacting people who meet the case definition of myocarditis and have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System.

While an “independent entity” should be reviewing long-term consequences, it’s “puzzling” why Pfizer and Moderna waited so long to follow through on the FDA’s approval conditions, said MIT professor Retsef Levi, lead author of a study on post-vaccination “emergency” heart problems in 16-39 year-olds in highly vaccinated Israel.

Continue reading “”

Why fear is a terrible justification for gun control

“I shouldn’t have to be afraid to go out of my house,” someone will say, usually while trying to voice their opposition to some aspect of gun rights. Gun control advocates often make similar claims, citing their own fear as a reason why they oppose or support some measure or another.

And their fear may certainly feel very real to them.

However, fear is a terrible justification for gun control.

Now, being scared is a powerful motivator. It’s why people do all kinds of things, even if they don’t want to do it otherwise. It’s why scary horror stories of what happens when you don’t do something are such great motivators.

But it’s still an emotion.

When fear is used as an argument to justify some bit of legislation, one should remember that it can also be used to oppose that same bill. After all, one person’s fear may be quite different from another. While some feared armed gunmen in the wake of a mass shooting, others fear being unarmed in the face of a violent criminal.

So now what you’re looking at are warring fears.

I fear being unable to defend my family from an attacker. Is my fear somehow less than the fear that drives many to call for gun control?

“But your fear is irrational. You’re not likely to be attacked,” some might argue, and they’re not wrong. Statistically, I’ll never have to draw my weapon in self-defense at any point in the future. But if that’s the deciding factor, then their fear of being attacked is equally irrational, isn’t it?

And that’s kind of my point.

You see, fear is usually used as a justification for gun control because it’s powerful. Advocates for Second Amendment restrictions want people to be terrified because it’s irrational.

They understand that if you simply use the probability of being the victim of a violent crime is actually pretty high. For example, the probability of being the victim of being robbed is one in 667. Your odds of being the victim of other crimes are also pretty low.

If we’re rational about it, then the debate becomes a different matter. People who are thinking rationally look at this low probability and the fact that criminals obtain firearms through non-lawful means and recognize that gun control isn’t a viable solution to the problem. Some have differing opinions, of course, but as we’ve seen, when there’s little reason for people to be afraid, they tend to support gun rights to a greater degree.

Which is why fear is so well-used.

That doesn’t make it a great idea. That fear pushing some for gun control can and should be used to push for gun rights. We need to propel stories of those who were disarmed when they needed their guns the most at the same time as holding up stories like the Greenwood Park Mall.

Again, it’s because fear is a two-way street.

Yes, it’s a terrible way to promote anything, but that’s because it can be used against that thing. It’s well past time we showed gun control advocates just why it’s a bad idea.

Ohio state senator’s new gun bill drops red flag provisions, adds new restraints

In a last-minute change, Ohio state Sen. Matt Dolan, R-Chagrin Falls, has stepped back from his plan to establish a so-called red flag law in Ohio. In its place, Dolan proposed a restriction on future gun purchases after a person is deemed a threat to themselves or others.

Dolan described the changes as a way to better tailor the bill’s impact.

“Talking with the advocates, both on the mental health side law enforcement side, a couple of things became clear. One is that we’re stigmatizing mental illness,” Dolan explained. “Number two is we weren’t capturing the right people.”

Weapons under disability

The measure now hinges on “behavioral risk assessments.” Those reviews consider behaviors like suicidal tendencies, grievance collecting, or making threats. It also weighs contextual factors like whether a person has been through a “personal catalyst event.”

“The idea is we want to make sure that we create a system where they have an assessment done, so we get to the person help,” Dolan said. “And if that assessment reveals that there they are a violent threat, that they are prohibited from getting firearms.”

 State Sen. Matt Dolan, R-Chagrin Falls. Official photo.
[So nice when pictures are added for positive ID, isn’t it?]

Under Dolan’s bill, an assessment which determines a person is at risk of hurting themselves or others would be a disability for the purposes of acquiring, having, carrying or using a firearm.

Continue reading “”

New Jersey: Bruen-Buster Bill Is Back

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- On Monday, November 21, the full Assembly is expected to vote on A.4769.  This legislation started out as a “copy-cat” strategy, mimicking what New York did to lash out at the Supreme Court post-Bruen.  The bill arbitrarily and drastically expands the number of places labeled as “sensitive places” where concealed carry is prohibited.

Over the last month, the bill has been assigned to multiple committees and has been amended several times to clean up drafting errors, among other things.  Incredibly, this bill is so deeply flawed that all of this time and effort has been spent in vain.  Anti-gun Majority Democrats deny that the United States Supreme Court affirmed the right to carry.  The court spoke resolutely and was unambiguous.

Your immediate assistance is needed to help block A.4769, which is unconstitutional and will:

  • Drastically increase the cost of obtaining permits and credentials.
  • Expand the already-rigorous New Jersey training requirements.
  • Use social media and online posts as grounds to deny permits.
  • Require gun owners to acquire insurance, even though it is not known whether or not this type of insurance is even available or legal.
  • Ban carry on all private property unless the owner posts signage permitting it.
  • Expand the number of “sensitive places” to include arenas, parks, beaches, restaurants, and theatres, among other public places.
  • Ban carry at public gatherings.
  • Perhaps most offensively, it would create a special class of public officials who do not need a permit to carry, and these privileged individuals will be exempt from the no-carry zones.

Ultimately, this legislation is destined to end up back where in began – in the courts.  New Jersey has enough serious problems where the Legislature does not need to be wasting taxpayer dollars debating and defending legislation that is already settled law!

America’s Rifle: The Case for the AR-15

This book is the definitive work showing the central place of AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles in the American story. From the founding to the present, rifles and other firearms have played a pivotal role in American history. The story of America’s rifle is largely the story of American history.

There are over forty-four million AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles owned by Americans. Popular adoption on such a monumental scale is indicative of more than a passing fad; only proven utility through long history creates such lasting—indeed growing—demand.

Since the founding of the American republic, rifles—beginning with muzzleloaders and later semiautomatics—have been at the center of American history and pre-history. This book, by renowned historian and attorney Stephen Halbrook, is the definitive account of this centrality of repeating rifles to the American story—from its conception to the present day.

Some factions of state and national politicians now seek to remake America in a different, novel image by rushing to ban and restrict access to firearms that have long been our heritage. As Halbrook decisively shows, theirs is a war against the Second Amendment and the tradition of freedom and self-sufficiency that has sustained our storied past. Our rights hang in the balance—not as lone pillars but, history shows, as dominos ready to fall in quick succession.

Halbrook comprehensively reviews the historical, legal, and policy arguments advanced by gun prohibitionists and demonstrates that these bans are deeply antagonistic to our history, our interests, and our Constitution.

MEDIA LOSES ITS MIND OVER “RAMBO STYLE KNIFE” USED IN IDAHO QUAD-MURDER

That the media is prone to hyperventillation over anything weapon-related should hardly come as a shock. Our friends in the firearms community face it all the time when the media label what to many is just a light range trip worth of guns and ammunition an “arsenal”. Well they are at it again, and this time it is the knife community’s turn in the barrel, as the media frenzy over the quadruple homicide in Moscow, ID rages.

If you haven’t tuned into the news this week, 4 University of Idaho students were brutally stabbed to death over the weekend, and the Police seem to be at a loss. Their decision to focus on the potential murder weapon, looks to this reporter like an attempt to give the media anything in the face of very few public leads. The murder weapon remains undiscovered.

I am not a forensic expert by any means, though I took a few forensic anthropology classes in graduate school and I understand how the coroner reached their conclusion as to the nature of said weapon. The wound channels from the stabbings would have particular characteristics in terms of size and shape, and from this they have deduced that they match the characteristics of one of the most, if not the most mass-produced and iconic American fixed blade knives, the USMC Mark 2., commonly known as the KA-BAR.

KA-BAR USMC MK. 2 (from KABAR.com)

From Idaho Statesman:

Moscow police appear to be searching for a “Rambo”-style knife involved in the killing of four University of Idaho students, a store manager said Wednesday. Scott Jutte, general manager of Moscow Building Supply, told the Idaho Statesman that police have visited the store more than once to ask whether the retailer sold anyone Ka-Bar brand knives, which are also known as K bar knives. Idaho State Police spokesperson Aaron Snell told the Statesman on Thursday that detectives visited several local hardware stores that may carry “fixed-blade type knives,” but that they weren’t solely asking about Ka-Bar knives.

Ka-Bar, of Olean, New York, manufactures military-grade blades that were originally designed for use by American troops in World War II.

Jutte said a police officer stopped by the home improvement store and lumber yard off North Main Street in Moscow to speak with him on Monday. “They were specifically asking whether or not we carry Ka-Bar-style knives, which we do not,” Jutte said in an interview. “If we did, we could’ve reviewed surveillance footage. But it wasn’t something I could help them with.” Jutte said he is familiar with the military-style weapon, even though his store doesn’t sell it.

He says he is “familiar with the “military style weapon””…

I am trying to figure out what is specifically “military” about the KA-BAR, other than its history of course. The name of the Mk. 2 in Government-bureaucratese is “Knife, Fighting Utility”. Fighting is a verb, something you could do with it, not a description. I can fight you with a stapler. An entrenching tool is a devastatingly effective melee weapon. We don’t call a “Fighting Shovel”, no matter how efficiently it can be used as such.

Utility is a good descriptive word, as they are used for everything from prying open crates to opening ration cans. The “KA-BAR” (originally made by Camillus, PAL, and others under WWII contract) was much better at these tasks than the WWI era M1918 Trench Knife, with its more fragile, less utilitarian stiletto blade and single grip knuckle-duster hand guard.

The USMC Mk.2, now manufactured by KA-BAR Knives Inc. of Olean, New York, remains one of the most popular fixed blade outdoor knives in existence. A good portion of this is due to its military heritage. Many a serviceman or has carried the knife on deployment, even into combat just like their grandfathers before them. They are an heirloom quality tool, and it is entirely possible that someone actually carried their Grandfather’s own knife in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Of course plenty of civilians, this writer included, own one as well. It is an extremely robust and useful knife to have in the woods. It can shave, baton, drill, and all of the other tasks one might need in the field. I imagine that there is at least one in 20% or more of households in Idaho given the lifestyle and demographics. And that doesn’t count other fixed blade hunting knives as well of which Idaho most certainly has an abundance.

I feel for KA-BAR, which is being dragged by the media online. They slant their coverage to imply that anyone who owns this most common of fixed blades is some sort of survivalist nutball. It is expected, but disheartening.

Where they have made a heck of a jump is to apply the “Rambo” label to the knife. Rambo carried two different Jim Lile custom knives in the First Blood Movies:

Continue reading “”

Climate Change Motivates a Reevaluation of Nuclear Energy.

Ironically, the people who profess to care most about climate change have been those who most vociferously reject the technology that can solve it. But this is changing

As world leaders and activists gather in Egypt this week to ruminate about global warming, there are signs that many are willing to look beyond doctrinaire—and heretofore less than fruitful—policies founded on renewable generation sources, such as wind and solar. Whatever the merits of climate change arguments, it is clear that the issue is causing many inveterate opponents of nuclear energy to embrace the technology as the one available that can do something about it.

The influential American Climate Perspectives survey, published in 2021 with addenda out this year by environmental nonprofit ecoAmerica, pointed out that American attitudes about nuclear power are shifting decidedly into the positive column, with the movement most profound on the left. A summary released by the organization along with the report noted that support for nuclear power among Americans grew by 10 points between 2018 and 2021, from 49% to 59%. And while support among Republicans held steady during that time (hovering around 65%), support among Democrats increased sizably over the same period—from 37% in 2018 to 60% in 2021. And this shift seems to be indicative of a worldwide movement of opinion.

Renewables Flicker

Renewable energy sources are perfectly fine technologies for generating electricity at certain scales under particular weather conditions and in localities close to the point of consumption, and they are widely regarded as an essential part of achieving a carbon-free future. But experience shows that there is no way solar and wind power and the attendant battery storage technologies will be able to sustain a modern economy on their own.

According to Frank Hiroshi Ling, chief scientist at the Anthropocene Institute, a clean power and climate technology incubator that cooperated with ecoAmerica on its report, a growing realization that renewables are not up to the task may be spurring a corresponding interest in nuclear energy. “The Democrats traditionally have been the early advocates for renewables,” Ling said. “Yet renewables have not scaled up as quickly as many had hoped. People are learning that there are a lot of limitations to increasing capacity through renewables.”

The challenges of implementing a purely renewable electric grid have been well documented. From a technology standpoint, the key limitation is the intermittency of solar and wind power generation when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing, respectively. On the manufacturing and supply chain side, renewable generation technologies and batteries to support them require a lot of resources, such as rare earth metals, that are not processed in the U.S. and have a train of environmental baggage all their own.

“I would not necessarily call myself pro-nuclear,” Ling said. “But I am looking at all the technologies that we need to achieve stabilization of the planet’s climate. That means we should look at energy systems from the perspective of resiliency, and that means looking at a diversity of mixes. I am also in favor of renewables. But every energy source out there has its drawbacks. Nuclear would address many concerns, but we still have that problem with the public perception.”

Continue reading “”

Four Developments That Waited Until After the Midterms.

Did you notice that there have been many stories breaking recently that are inconvenient to the left-wing narrative? I did. And I noticed that they came out after the midterm elections were over — when they’d have no impact on the vote. Wasn’t that nice and convenient? Here are four of those stories.

Newsom’s budget deficit

After back-to-back years of running surpluses, this week we learned that California is back in the red. Back in May, the Golden State had a nearly $98 billion surplus, but new projections show that California will have a $25 billion deficit in the 2023-2024 fiscal year. Luckily for Gov. Gavin Newsom, voters reelected him last week before the news broke. The story may not have doomed Newsom’s reelection bid, but it could have helped some GOP candidates running for Congress.

Rudy Giuliani cleared

The Biden administration and the Democrats have gone after anyone remotely tied to Donald Trump. One man they targeted for destruction was Rudy Giuliani. A two-year investigation into possible violations of foreign lobbying ended this week without charges — effectively clearing him of wrongdoing. Boy, what stellar timing.

New York City crime

The crime issue was so influential this year that it threatened to oust Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.) from office. So the liberal media did everything possible to pretend that crime wasn’t an issue. But now that the midterms are over and the red wave didn’t materialize, the New York Times decided it was finally safe to report on crime again.

Biden’s student loan forgiveness killed

In a blatantly transparent move to bribe young voters to get to the polls, Joe Biden announced a student loan relief plan over the summer. So it should come as no surprise that young voters came out in droves in the midterm elections, effectively saving the Democrats from a red wave. And conveniently, a few days after the election, a federal judge struck down Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan. Whew, that was close!

Gun ownership not to blame for rural suicides

It’s long been known that the majority of so-called “gun deaths” were suicides, not homicides. They tend to get lumped in there just to make the number look a whole lot scarier.

Lately, though, anti-gun crusaders aren’t doing that. They’re treating suicide as a separate thing, which is good. Unfortunately, they still seem to think that gun control is the answer.

Then again, when you have people who claim high levels of gun ownership are driving suicides…

In 2020, the rural gun death rate was 28% higher than the urban rate. Nonmetropolitan counties reported 17.01 deaths per 100,000 residents, compared to a rate of 13.19 in urban America, according to CDC reports.

Although urban areas have higher rates of gun homicide, rural places have higher firearm deaths overall because suicides make up about two thirds of gun deaths nationwide, said researcher Michael Siegel of Tufts University School of Medicine. Siegel says it is important to categorize gun deaths into three groups.

“There’s firearm homicide, there’s firearm suicide, and then there’s unintentional injuries,” Siegel said.

Siegel said that the high rates of suicide in rural America can be explained in part by the prevalence of gun ownership. While 46% of rural residents say they own guns, only 19% of urban residents say they own guns, according to PEW Center studies.

“Because we know that guns are the most lethal means for suicide, if a gun is available, a suicide attempt is likely to result in a death,” Siegel said. “Whereas, if there aren’t guns around, other methods that people might use to attempt suicide are not as lethal.”

The piece then goes on to advocate for mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases and red flag laws.

However, both of those measures focus on the tools used, not the causes of suicide. A suicidal person may well shift to another method, and while they might not as lethal, there are methods damn near as deadly.

First, let’s acknowledge that Tufts University is also the facility that’s mentioned alongside 97Percent in a recent story we covered. It seems there’s an anti-gun bias at the university.

Moving on, though, it needs to be understood that suicide is the problem, not guns. Firearms have been with us for centuries and have been a viable method for taking one’s life for just as long. Yet suicides have been with us for ages. The first recorded suicide was over 4,000 years ago in Persia.

Yet as that link notes, we may not have a good grasp on what drives suicide.

So when you look at the divide between rural and urban areas with regard to this issue, why are you focusing on guns and not on potential contributing factors?

For example, the median rural income is 25 percent lower than the median in urban areas. While some of that difference is eaten up by the higher cost of living in urban areas, not all of it is. We’ve long known that economic factors may trigger suicidal ideations in an individual, so why isn’t that part of the discussion?

Most likely because that doesn’t fit the narrative. Working to increase jobs in rural areas, which would drive up wages, wouldn’t advance the gun control agenda, whereas out-of-context statistics and so-called experts talking out of their posteriors does.

That’s all there is to it.