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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

How Hochul’s gun laws will make churches less safe

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

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

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

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

For your consideration:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They don’t, though.

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

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

Inclusive advertising for AR-15s

Lawyers are seeking to circumvent the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act with what I view as junk lawsuits against gun manufacturers whose products are sold lawfully but later misused by violent criminals.

Attorneys were however successful in circumventing the PLCAA with a lawsuit against Remington for Adam Lanza’s use of a stolen AR-15 to commit a mass shooting at Sandy Hook.

The lawsuit relied on advertisements for the AR-15 that said, “Consider your man card reissued.” While I do not care for the gender-specific nature of this ad, I also doubt that any reasonable juror who was not in the pocket of the anti-Second Amendment camp would be receptive to the idea that a “man card” is a license to use a weapon for purposes other than lawful self-defense or on inanimate objects in a safe environment.

If we go back a couple of generations to the time when men but not women were expected to put themselves at risk to stop unlawful violence, your “man card” is your right and even possibly your moral duty to use your firearm to stop individuals like Adam Lanza, Luke Woodham, Dylann Roof, Nikolas Cruz, Matthew Murray, Jacob Roberts, Keith Thomas Kinnunen, and Salvador Ramos before they can complete their crimes. The hyperlinked individuals were in fact stopped in this manner and there was nothing wrong with Lanza, Roof, Cruz, Ramos and (allegedly unless and until proven guilty) Tree of Life synagogue shooter Robert Bowers that would not have been fixed by well-aimed bullets.

Jurors Must Reject Junk Lawsuits

If you are called for jury duty in a junk liability case against a gun manufacturer, remember that there are lawyers who have tried to use repressed memories as evidence in other forms of litigation and even criminal cases.

From where I sit, “repressed memory” is simply a designer label for “perjury” or “subornation of perjury,” whether initiated by the witness or somebody coaching or even brainwashing the witness respectively, because one is then free to “suddenly remember” anything he, she, or an ambitious prosecutor or personal injury lawyer finds convenient. These kinds of attorneys would, if given the chance, initiate litigation for harm incurred during past lives if they could get away with it. “Bad karma? Have you been harmed in a past life? The law firm of Dewey Cheatham & Howe will assign a team of memory regression experts to find the current incarnation of the person who wronged you long ago, and ensure that he or she has very deep pockets from which you can rake in cash and give us our cut.

We are sure we can find six people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty to buy this argument.” While this proposition does not appear on the web site of this fictitious law firm, equally humorous material does but you may have to add .html to some of the links to get them to load.

Let’s Make Gun Ads Inclusive of Women

Let’s return however to the gender-specific “Consider your man card reissued.” It’s the twenty-first century, folks, and not the nineteenth. Women as well as men now protect our society as police officers and members of our Armed Forces. Women often use lawfully-owned firearms to protect their families as well. Here’s audio of a 911 call in which a woman in Georgia shot a home invader who followed her and her children into a hiding place. A Chinese immigrant shot at three home invaders, and was lauded by the communist Chinese media which is ironic, because communist China does not allow its subjects to own firearms.

The AR-15 is in fact an ideal self-defense firearm for women due to its relatively light weight, ease of handling, and low recoil.

I have accordingly composed an ad that combines material from Quentin Tarantino’s Jackie Brown (warning, profanity), Edge of Tomorrow, and Colonel Jeff Cooper’s depiction of violent criminals as goblins. (Cooper referred to soldiers of repressive regimes as “orcs,” which people now apply to Vladimir Putin’s minions, and East Germany as “Mordor.”) Here we go: “AR-15, the very best there is. When you absolutely, positively, have to go full metal bitch on every goblin who has invaded your home and put your family at risk, accept no substitute.” Note that, while the B word is normally a socially unacceptable pejorative for a woman, it was the nom de guerre of Rita Vrataski, also known as the Angel of Verdun, in Edge of Tomorrow where she was defending the human species from alien invaders, and this is the intended context here.

If we return to reality, the likelihood is well upward of 99.99% that you will never, regardless of your gender, have to menace anything other than a paper target with your AR-15. It’s better to have it and not need it, though, rather than to need it and not have it.

Tactical gear for women to carry arms

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

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

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

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

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

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

CIMARRON CARTRIDGE CONVERSIONS
REPLICAS OF OUR FIRST CARTRIDGE GUNS
ARE BETTER THAN THE ORIGINALS.
WRITTEN BY JOHN TAFFIN

Cimarron’s .45 Colt Remington Cartridge Conversion (bottom) is similar to one of the first ever big-bore cartridge conversions. A replica 1858 percussion .44 revolver is above it.

An original Richards Conversion in .44 Colt (top) compared to the .45 Colt Cimarron Richards II.
The Cimarron version has a lightly larger cylinder to accommodate the .45 Colt cartridge.

One of the great passions of my life, handguns, go back more than 500 years. Even though the idea of the cartridge is nearly 200-years old, powder, ball and cap were state-of-the-art for most of the 19th century. A Frenchman patented the idea in 1812. Another Frenchman came up with the pinfire cartridge in 1846 and Flobert exhibited a rimfire cartridge at the London Exhibition in 1851. Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic, Smith & Wesson received a patent for a centerfire metallic cartridge in 1854 and then around 1856 developed the first true rimfire cartridge as it is known today.

Continue reading “”

Gun for me, but not for thee. Another elitist get hung out to dry on their own hypocrisy.

Gun Theft Highlights Cognitive Dissonance of Democrat L.A. Mayoral Candidate

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Two firearms stolen in a burglary at the home of L.A. mayoral candidate Karen Bass,” The Los Angeles Times reports:

“Bass communications director Sarah Leonard Sheahan confirmed to The Times that the guns belonged to the congresswoman and said they were secured in a Brinks lock box. Leonard Sheahan said the weapons were legally registered …”

That “cash, electronics and other valuables” were “left behind” suggests that the object of the break-in was to get the guns, making fair the question of who knew Bass had them and how it is that they knew. That Bass and her press handlers consider guns in an easily carried lock box to be “safely and securely stored,” though, does comport with what her boosters at Mike Bloomberg’s Everytown consider to be “common sense gun safety,” that is, rendering a gun useless in a home intrusion.

That’s not quite true. It’s quite useful as stolen property, particularly in the commission of later violent crimes, feeding Everytown’s demands for more “common sense.” And that’s what Bass, currently a Democrat congressional representative for California’s 37th District, purports to represent.

“Karen Bass has committed to governing with gun sense as a priority,” Gun Sense Voter, “a project of Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund and Everytown for Gun Safety Victory Fund, with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America,” declares.

“I’m proud to be a 2022 Moms Demand Action Gun Sense Candidate and I’m also proud to have earned an F grade from the NRA,” Bass echoes on Facebook. “Los Angeles deserves a mayor we can trust to stand up to the gun lobby, not cower before them.”

Invent much? When was the last time an L.A. mayor did that? But yes, of course, she’s a doctrinaire gun grabber.

“Bass Votes for Assault Weapons Ban,” a July presser announces. Others show her on board for anything and everything the antis demand imposing:

We could do this all day, but the point is made. As is her continued cognitive dissonance.

“Rep. Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles, points to how gun violence is also a racial issue,” Spectrum News 1 reported. “Black Americans are twice as likely as white Americans to die from gun violence.” Assuming that in her leadership position with the Congressional Black Caucus, and noting that “Latino and Black victims account for nearly all of L.A.’s surge in homicides,” it’s also fair to ask — if she ever did have to use a gun for self-defense — does Bass think it’s likely she would add to that “disproportionate” racial impact?

That’s assuming she could get one out of the lock box and deployable in time and forgetting she co-sponsored a resolution to repeal “stand your ground” laws.

The Most Important Shot
While some matters of self-defense have changed throughout history, getting that first round on-target remains important.

On July 21, 1865, in Springfield, MO, James B. Hickok and Davis Tutt were about to have what, at the time, was generally called a difficulty. Some claim it was over a woman; others claim it concerned a gambling debt, whatever. As was the custom of the day, the two men met to settle their differences.

Tutt, possibly acting a bit hastily, got off the first shot while Hickok was still 75 yards away. Tutt missed. Hickok, who might have been expecting such a move, braced his Colt Navy across his left forearm and fired before Tutt could trigger a second shot. Hickok’s bullet took Tutt in the left side and penetrated his heart. Davis Tutt expired shortly thereafter. As an interesting aside, I would note that Hickok made this 75-yard, one-shot stop with a revolver in the same power and terminal-performance level as a modern .380 ACP.

Fast forward to Dec. 29, 2019, and some folks were worshiping in a church in White Settlement, TX. The service was interrupted when a deranged gunman came in and started shooting people with a shotgun. In a matter of seconds, he killed two men and was about to shoot more when Jack Wilson (no relation to me) responded accordingly. Wilson, part of the church security team, fired one shot from his SIG Sauer P229 from about 15 yards and stopped the lunatic immediately with a head shot.

The significance of these two shootings, 154 years apart, is that some things change in this whole business of personal defense, and some things never change. Let’s take a look at some of each.

During Hickok’s day and for many years to come, it was considered acceptable for a man to arm himself and go confront another who was making threats against him. In addition, there are numerous “Not Guilty” verdicts on file when the deceased was not armed at all … “Well, he usually carried a gun and I saw him reaching for his hip pocket, where he usually carried his gun …”  Of course, there was the argument that was often made: “He needed killing.”

One should also realize that the local saloon was the men’s social club of the day. The fact that gambling, guns and booze were all together in one building didn’t seem to bother anyone too much. Apparently, the important thing was to protect one’s honor in spite of how much one had to drink or how many aces one might be holding.

Nowadays, none of that is OK with most of us who teach defensive techniques. We encourage the armed citizen to be a reluctant participant. If threats are being made, the thing to do is to file a police report and let the authorities handle it. And the best idea is to respond when you see your attacker is armed, not when you think he is armed. Today, the responsible armed citizen doesn’t shoot because they can; they shoot only because they have to.

Some things change and some things never change. For all that, you will note that Hickok and Wilson both solved the problem with a single shot from a .36-caliber pistol.

However, I sometimes wonder if we may sometimes be doing a disservice to today’s armed citizens. Personal-defense training has become a business for some folks, and they vie with each other for the customer’s attention. And maybe some things get complicated when there is really no need for it to be.

A good example would be the late Jeff Cooper’s Color Code. He came up with it to help his students understand and define levels of their own preparedness in the face of potential danger. It wasn’t long at all before others started adding colors to the scheme and using them to define what the attacker was doing instead of the mindset of the armed citizen. This led to confusing the whole thing, because they probably didn’t understand it in the first place.

And, as I have said previously, I think we put too much emphasis on gear. The suggestion, maybe only implied, is often that you won’t survive without this gun, that ammo or a particular holster. Students want to know what we carry and why. I wonder if they always get an honest answer. Too often, we may just be gun enthusiasts interacting with other gun enthusiasts, as opposed to being focused on helping those who are new to personal defense.

In addition to going into all the various defensive stances, techniques and philosophies, we might better spend our time teaching students how to avoid violence whenever possible. Perhaps we would be better off telling our students the importance of learning to handle their chosen gun quickly, efficiently and accurately.

In those two shootings, Hickok and Wilson each took care of business by delivering one well-placed shot to the threat. And that, I think, is the lesson for all of us. For all we can acquire, for all we can learn, for all we can cuss and discuss, the real challenge is to stand as calmly as possible, make a smooth, quick draw and deliver that first, fight-stopping shot.

Full-auto switches popping up in gun-controlled Connecticut

Full-auto switches take a regular Glock semi-automatic pistol and converts them into a machine gun. I don’t mean that in the sense that bump stocks supposedly do, where they really just allow you to pull the trigger stupidly fast. No, they actually turn the pistols into full-auto weapons.

As a result, they’re illegal in the US. There’s no state in which they’re OK because they fall under federal law. They shouldn’t, but they do.

Anyway, they’ve been turning up more and more in different places. It seems gun-controlled Connecticut is having an issue with them.

A tiny device capable of transforming a handgun into a mini machine gun is showing up in Connecticut, according to police reports.

The device, known colloquially as Glock “switches” or “chips,” can be quickly attached to a handgun, converting the weapon from shooting just one bullet each time the trigger is squeezed to having the capability of firing until the trigger is lifted.

A handful of the devices have been recovered by police in Connecticut in recent years, according to police reports, though it’s unclear how many of the devices are present in the state. Advocates say they pose a danger to the public because they increase the risk of bystanders being shot, and because of the apparent ease criminals are able to obtain them.

Ease criminals are able to obtain these things? Seriously?

Nah, can’t be. Gun control works, we’re told, and these things are seriously illegal. Due to the date of manufacture on these, no one can legally have one except for a handful of exceptions. How can gun-controlled Connecticut have an issue with easy access to one of the most controlled devices out there?

The report goes on to discuss the ease with which these can be obtained, such as from China or via a 3D printer.

Now, there are only a few that have been recovered, but that’s all it takes to create a panic. However, in this case, there are lessons that can be learned despite the limited numbers recovered.

You see, you can’t keep bad guys from doing bad things. If they want full-auto switches, they’ll get them, especially in this day and age.

Thankfully, there’s no mention of Connecticut lawmakers trying to pass laws banning things that are already illegal. Yeah, I know, will wonders never cease and all that, but it’s still worth mentioning.

However, there was this bit I wanted to talk about:

“I’ve heard law enforcement officers in other parts of the country refer to this as … ‘the scariest thing that has hit the streets in a long time,’” said Jeremy Stein, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence, a group that supports stronger gun laws.

Stein said the device works by essentially “bypassing” the firearms trigger mechanism, similar to a bump-stock, a device designed to make a semi-automatic weapon mimic a fully automatic rate of fire.

“There’s no legitimate civilian purpose — there is no good reason to have one of these things,” he added.

Well, yeah, there is.

You see, when the bad guys can throw down a whole lot of fire, it might be warranted for law-abiding citizens to have the means to lay down a similar amount of fire.

As it stands, we’re on an unequal footing with our adversaries should we find ourselves up against a criminal armed with a gun possessing a full-auto switch. We simply don’t have the firepower to meet that kind of force.

So having a similar full-auto switch would be a “legitimate civilian purpose.”

Now, with that said, no law-abiding citizen is likely to have one of these. I mean, by definition, if you have one you’re not likely to be law-abiding, now are you?

However, this also shows that what we need isn’t more gun control laws. This is as tightly controlled as they come under the law, and yet for less than the price of a tank of gas–OK, bad example in this day and age, but bear with me–you can get something that will turn your standard Glock into a machine pistol.

Or, you can find the files and make them yourself with a 3D printer.

Look, while I know that Connecticut hasn’t gotten the memo, gun control is dead. It doesn’t work, is unconstitutional, and is just a general waste of time.

If you can’t keep a full-auto switch out of criminal hands, how are you going to keep guns out of them?

Lies, Damn Lies and President Joe Biden

If the old chestnut concerning “lies, damn lies and statistics” was referring to a U.S. president, it would almost certainly be current President Joe Biden (D).

That fact was proven, once again, during the president’s late-August campaign-style appearance in Pennsylvania. Speaking to an audience at Wilkes University, Biden made another one of his preposterous statements about the AR-15—a type of semi-automatic rifle that he loves to hate and wants to ban.

“Do you realize the bullet out of an AR-15 travels five times as rapidly as a bullet shot out of any other gun?” the president asked those in attendance. Apparently, he received no answer to that somewhat rhetorical question, and the White House press corps hasn’t followed up on the outright lie.

In truth, there are many rifle calibers that fire projectiles at a higher velocity than the roughly 3,000 feet per second (fps) of the .223 or 5.56 mm rounds that an AR-15 is typically chambered in, including the .220 Swift, .257 Weatherby Magnum and the .30/378 Weatherby. In fact, the average bullet out of an AR-15 moves less than three-times faster than a typical 115-grain 9 mm pistol bullet commonly used for home and self-defense. Recall, however, that the president once lied about that round, too, saying, “A 9 mm bullet blows the lung out of the body.”

Apparently not believing the president would simply lie about the easily researched speed of a rifle bullet, the dubious “fact-checking” website, Snopes, looked into the matter. In the end, however, the “fact checkers” treated the asinine statement by the president with kid gloves: “The president’s claim is incorrect, and generalizes the varying speeds of bullets fired from different kinds of guns,” Snopes reported. Rather than sticking to “fact-checking,” Snopes went on to editorialize, “However, the AR-15 is still an especially lethal weapon and has been used to murder hundreds of people in mass shootings in the United States.”

Biden also used the occasion to take yet another shot at those Americans who rightly believe that the Second Amendment was written to ensure citizens could defend themselves against a tyrannical government.

“If you want to fight against a country, you need an F-15,” Biden said sarcastically. “You need something a little more than a gun. No, I’m not joking.”

Having a leader threaten law-abiding gun owners with hi-tech jet fighters seems like something you’d be more likely to hear in an authoritarian state. Hearing Biden make the statement didn’t sit well with freedom-loving citizens.

“While we’re here, let’s also acknowledge that ‘your AR-15 is useless because the government could just carpet bomb you into submission’ isn’t an argument in favor of gun control,” said Amy Swearer, a legal fellow with the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. “It’s actually an argument for a better armed citizenry and against trusting whoever said that.”

Additionally, in the same speech the president once again made his tired, oft-repeated statement about deer and bulletproof vests—a statement so ignorant that it’s hard to believe the so-called “most powerful man in the world” would continue to repeat it.

“And by the way, how many—my dad used to love to hunt in the Poconos when we lived in Scranton,” Biden said. “How many deer or bear are wearing Kevlar vests, huh? Not a joke.”

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting. Somebody should tell Biden that—or at least tell whoever keeps adding that dopey line to his speeches.

Lastly, Biden encouraged attendees to vote based on a candidate’s willingness to curtail Second Amendment rights for all Americans.

“It’s time to hold every elected official’s feet to the fire and ask them: ‘Are you for banning assault weapons? Yes or no?’ Ask them. If the answer is no, vote against them.”

Biden is correct about one thing: It is time to hold every elected official’s feet to the fire and ask them if they are for banning common AR-15-style rifles. If the answer is yes, it’s time to vote them out and replace them with someone who respects the Second Amendment.

Bombshell DHS Oversight Report: Biden Resettled ‘Not Fully Vetted’ Afghans in U.S. Who May ‘Pose Risk’ to Americans

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General (IG) has issued a bombshell report that accuses President Joe Biden’s administration of resettling Afghan nationals “who were not fully vetted” across the United States.

Following the U.S. Armed Forces’ withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, Biden opened a “humanitarian parole” pipeline that has resettled more than 86,000 Afghans in American communities, many of whom were not screened or interviewed in person.

Now, a bombshell DHS IG report reveals that the Biden administration “admitted or paroled” thousands of Afghans “who were not fully vetted” before their arrival in the United States and may “pose a risk to national security” as a result.

The report states:

We determined some information used to vet evacuees through U.S. Government databases, such as name, date of birth, identification number, and travel document data, was inaccurate, incomplete, or missing. We also determined CBP admitted or paroled evacuees who were not fully vetted into the United States. [Emphasis added]

We attribute DHS’ challenges to not having: (1) a list of Afghan evacuees who were unable to provide sufficient identification documents; (2) a contingency plan to support similar emergency situations; and (3) standardized policies. As a result, DHS may have admitted or paroled individuals into the United States who pose a risk to national security and the safety of local communities. [Emphasis added]…

In January 2022, we issued DHS a Notice of Findings and Recommendations document notifying the Department of the urgent need to take action to address security risks of evacuees from Afghanistan who were admitted or paroled into the United States without sufficient identification documents to ensure proper screening and vetting. [Emphasis added]

According to DHS IG investigators, Biden’s DHS “did not always have critical data to properly screen, vet, or inspect Afghan evacuees arriving as part” of the massive Afghan resettlement operation.

Specifically, the report details that information in federal databases used to vet Afghans “such as name, DOB, identification number, and travel document data, was inaccurate, incomplete, or missing.”

Two Afghans, in particular, were resettled in American communities by the Biden administration who were later found to be national security threats with ties to terrorism. One of those Afghans has already been deported, while DHS officials said the other is in deportation proceedings.

Across Biden’s DHS, officials were allowed to bring Afghans to the U.S. without providing proper IDs if they were found to have “no derogatory information” connected to their purported identities, the report states. The agency also did not keep a record of Afghans who failed to provide proper IDs but were admitted to the United States anyway.

“According to internal DHS reports, CBP admitted or paroled dozens of evacuees with derogatory information into the country,” the report states.

Although DHS IG Joseph V. Cuffari suggested two remedies to clean up the agency’s vetting procedures, the report states that Biden’s DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas “did not concur” with either suggestion and has defended his department’s improper vetting of Afghans.

The bombshell report comes after a number of alarms have been raised about the Biden administration’s failure to properly vet tens of thousands of Afghans now living in the United States.

In February, a Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General report revealed that Biden’s agencies failed to properly vet Afghans arriving in the United States, and that about 50 Afghans were flagged for “significant security concerns” after their resettlement.

Most of the unvetted Afghans flagged for possible terrorism ties, the report states, have since disappeared into American communities. The report noted that as of September 17, 2021, only three of 31 Afghans flagged with specific “derogatory information” could be located.

Likewise, a recent Project Veritas report alleges that the Biden administration resettled Afghans listed on the federal government’s “Terrorism Watch List” in communities across America.

In August, a federal whistleblower came forward to allege that the Biden administration resettled nearly 400 Afghans in American communities who are listed in federal databases as “potential threats to national security.”

In terms of vetting, the Biden administration has loosened requirements for entry to the United States. In June, DHS announced that Afghans who “provided … limited material support” to terrorist organizations would still qualify for resettlement in American communities.

Refugee resettlement costs American taxpayers nearly $9 billion every five years, according to research, and each refugee costs taxpayers about $133,000 over the course of their lifetime. Within five years, an estimated 16 percent of all refugees admitted will need housing assistance paid for by taxpayers.