9/11 and Biden’s Destruction of America’s Soul

When I think back to 9/11, the memories are very clear. It was the beginning of my senior year of college. It’s difficult to picture the United States responding differently than we did. A nation that was bitterly divided over a prolonged presidential election less than a year earlier united against a common enemy.

“A terrorist attack designed to tear us apart has instead bound us together as a nation,” President George W. Bush observed in his radio address days after the attack.

For a little while, anyway.

Disagreements over the Iraq War and the 2004 election quickly tore the country apart again, and they continued to worsen. Barack Obama’s presidency saw unprecedented partisan bitterness. Despite campaigning as a uniter, Obama shunned Republicans during the global recession, passing an expensive and ineffective stimulus plan and a national healthcare plan without Republican support. After losing one-party control, Obama unconstitutionally legislated via executive order instead of making any attempt to work with Republicans on any compromise legislation. He would then go on to use a weaponized government to target conservative individuals and groups and eventually spy on Donald Trump’s campaign and frame him over bogus allegations of Russian collusion. Adding insult to injury, Democrats would go on to shamelessly blame Trump for the COVID-19 pandemic.

Is national unity possible ever again? For over twenty years, I’ve held onto the hope that it could be, and that it wouldn’t take another deadly terrorist attack to do it.

But that dream is over.

In the past month, we’ve seen an unprecedented raid on Donald Trump’s home over a presidential records dispute and Joe Biden’s recent primetime speech, in which he declared half the country enemies of the Republic. Despite all the bitter division that plagued us before, that speech felt like the point of no return. Joe Biden destroyed the soul of America, and it’s impossible to see how we can ever recover from that. Where Al Qaeda failed to tear this nation apart, Joe Biden succeeded.

Related: White House: Trump Supporters Are an ‘Extreme Threat to Our Democracy’

America no longer stands united. We are two different countries repeatedly proving we can’t coexist peacefully.

On this 21st anniversary of 9/11, we remember the bravery of the first responders at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and of those who took down Flight 93 before it reached its intended target. Many will reflect on the attack on our nation and remember those we lost, and some will offer platitudes about American resolve.

When I look back on 9/11, what I remember most is the way Americans were able to put aside their differences and treat each other as neighbors and fellow citizens. And now I mourn that such national solidarity will never happen again.

Stopping An Attack: Stopping an attacker as soon as possible is critical to surviving a criminal encounter.

Regardless of your state of residence, the justification for using deadly force is to stop someone who is placing people’s lives in immediate, serious danger. Of course, it is up to you to know the exact wording and particulars of your state law and abide by them. But, essentially, if we hadn’t taken immediate action, an innocent person would have been killed or sustained serious bodily injury.

It is important to understand that killing the bad guy is not, nor should be, our goal. We are acting because we want to stop the attacker right now, before any further damage is done. By the same token, if the bad guy dies because of our defensive response, that is unfortunate, but it is something he should have considered before placing others in danger.

And, in order to get him to stop as quickly as possible, we place our shots in what we call the vital zone. Rounds fired to the upper chest area are the easiest to make because the target is large. And these shots rely on the loss of blood and drop in blood pressure to incapacitate the criminal. As most deer hunters know, even a heart shot is not an instant stopper. Activity stops when fresh blood is no longer getting to the brain.

The more immediate stop comes from a head shot that impacts the brain or brain stem. The problem here is that the head is a much smaller target and is generally a moving target, as any turkey hunter can testify.

The current trends in thinking are that caliber doesn’t matter nearly as much as penetration. The bullet has to drive deep enough to impact the vitals in such a way as to cause the criminal to stop the attack. Okay, I’ll buy that, up to a point. A large hole in the heart or a major blood vessel is going to leak more blood than will a small hole in the same location.

For this reason, I still recommend the minimum defensive round to be 9 mm/.38 Spl. in size. And the defensive handgun should be loaded with premium bullets from a major manufacturer to insure that it will expand and penetrate in an appropriate manner. There is really no justification for going to a smaller caliber unless the person has some sort of physical problem that prevents it.

Essentially, the smaller the caliber and the lighter the load means that it is going to be even more difficult to get the crook to stop right now. And, remember, that is our goal. If your attacker dies from all those .22 bullets next week, or even in a couple of hours, there’s still plenty of time to continue this grievous attack. It is that attack that we want to stop … and we want to stop it right now!

On September 11th 2001, a committed gang of moslem Al Qaeda fanatics hijacked 4 U.S. commercial airliners and crashed 3 of them into the Pentagon and Towers 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center. Through the valiant efforts of the passengers and crew, the 4th plane was diverted from its target in Washington D.C.,  and crashed in Pennsylvania.

Time heals all wounds, but as time marches on, we should never forget that the enemies of peaceful civilization, both foreign and domestic, religious and secular, are still working.

San Diego teacher defines ‘fascist’ to class as ‘whites,’ ‘heterosexuals,’ and ‘Christians.’

EXCLUSIVE — A teacher from Madison High School in San Diego claimed fascists are synonymous with the “modern-day Republican Party” and “white, Christian, heterosexuals,” according to a student at the school. Speaking on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation, the high school student detailed the teacher’s unhinged definition of a “fascist.”

The school began the 2022-23 year on Aug. 29. The alleged incident occurred at the high school last Thursday.

“Immediately, I walk in and notice on the board, it says, ‘The Republican Party is the fascist party, and it does not fit the mold of a Democratic Party,'” the student told me. “It’s the first thing I saw when I came in.”

The student took a picture of this and shared it with me. It read, “As it is currently constituted, the Republican Party is now a fascist organization that no longer fits the category of a conventional Democratic Party.”

School board at San Diego high school
Dry-erase board in San Diego high school where a teacher categorized today’s Republican Party as a fascist organization
Taken by an anonymous student

But the teacher didn’t stop there. He continued with his radical left-wing indoctrination by listing whites, Christians, and heterosexuals as groups that are “fascist.” The student took a picture during the class that shows how the teacher defined “fascist.” On the classroom’s white dry-erase board, the teacher wrote the word “fascist,” underlined it, and listed the words: Trump, heterosexual, white, Christian, and hatred of foreigners, immigrants, and minorities, among others.

“Then, he goes to this board and writes ‘fascist’ on it, and this really struck me. He immediately made the comparison of the Republican Party to the Nazi Party. And that was really offensive to me,” the student said. “He listed the Republican Party and the Nazi Party as similar. And that’s just ridiculous, and I took offense to that. So I took a picture of it.”

Then, the teacher continued to insult and denigrate different groups of people, according to the student.

IMG_2315.png

“He goes on to insult white people and Christian people, automatically putting them under … that they’re automatically fascist,” the student said.

When I asked the student if the teacher said anything specifically about insulting whites and Christians, the student expanded on what the teacher said.

School board at San Diego high school
Picture of how a teacher defined “fascist” on a dry-erase board at a San Diego high school
Picture taken by an anonymous student

“He just kind of put up that they’re fascists, and they support a fascist government,” the student said. “Immediately — he didn’t even ask the class about it. He just made the assumption right away that whites and Christians automatically support a fascist government.”

This happened in an English class at the high school. I asked the student to elaborate on what learning about fascism has to do with the class’s syllabus.

“We were supposed to be learning how to make an argument for an argumentative essay,” the student said. “And the first thing he turns to is that. Then, he just got to the definition of fascism and what he thinks. He put down the Nazi Party and the modern-day Republican Party, which is just ridiculous.”

This is the dangerous kind of indoctrination that occurs in schools today. Parents who lack alternatives to public schools must be vigilant. What happened in this classroom wasn’t education. It wasn’t teaching about the sins of our country’s past — a justification left-wingers often use to brainwash students subtly to parrot their own political beliefs. No, this was overt indoctrination through bullying high school students at a public school in California. Taxpayer money was used to teach students that fascists are akin to whites, Christians, heterosexuals, or Trump supporters.

“This completely caught me off guard,” the student said. “This is an English class. This isn’t a political class or anything. I signed up for the class to learn how to write papers and stuff,” the student said. “I didn’t sign up for the class for a teacher to be trying to shove his ideology down my throat.”

Unfortunately, this is what many teachers do today. Their priority is spreading such radical, left-wing political ideologies. They want to indoctrinate, not educate. And they feel so comfortable about it that they do it openly.

17-year-old shoots, kills 2 armed men during attempted home invasion in Channelview

CHANNELVIEW, Texas (KTRK) — Two armed men were shot and killed by a 17-year-old while they attempted a home invasion, according to Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez.

On Friday at about 10:40 p.m., deputies with the Harris County Sheriff’s Office responded to an in-progress shooting call in the 16000 block of 1st Street.

Upon arrival, deputies said they located two men with apparent gunshot wounds on the lawn along the side of a residence.

Both men were pronounced dead at the scene by paramedics, according to Gonzalez.

Investigators said the two men and a third unidentified suspect were armed and wearing masks during an “attempt to force entry” into the home.

A woman, a 12-year-old boy, and two 17-year-old men were inside the home during the attempted home invasion but were not injured, according to Gonzalez.

Deputies said one of the 17-year-olds retrieved a shotgun and discharged it several times, striking the two intruders.

The third suspect fled the scene in an unidentified dark-colored, 4-door sedan.

There were no other reported injuries.

This is an ongoing investigation.

 

Adults Aged 35-44 Died at Twice the Expected Rate Last Summer, Life Insurance Data Suggests

Authored by Margaret Menge via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours)

Death claims for working-age adults under group life insurance policies spiked well beyond expected levels last summer and fall, according to data from 20 of the top 21 life insurance companies in the United States.

Death claims for adults aged 35 to 44 were 100 percent higher than expected in July, August, and September 2021, according to a report by the Society of Actuaries, which analyzed 2.3 million death claims submitted to life insurance firms.

The report looked at death claims filed under group life insurance policies during the 24 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, from April 2020 to March 2022. The researchers used data from the three years before the pandemic to set a baseline for the expected deaths.

While COVID-19 played some role in the majority of the excess deaths for adults over the age of 34 during the two pandemic years, the opposite was true for younger people. For people 34 and younger, the number of excess non-COVID deaths was higher than those related to COVID, the data show.

Continue reading “”

Democrats Are Hoping We Forget They Brought Us Record Levels of Murders, Overdose Deaths, and Teen Suicides.

Democrats have this foolish belief that arresting Steve Bannon, tossing Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, and ostracizing people in MAGA hats will make voters forget about the carnage the commies have wrought upon our country when We the People step into a voting booth in 60 days, 10 hours, 14 minutes and 12 seconds. I’m here to make sure that doesn’t happen.

People are killing other people or themselves in record numbers. Thousands more are dying from overdoses on drugs, many of which are trotted over our southern border. All of these tragedies are happening because of Democrats and their clownish policies.

MURDERS

By now, you’ve heard about this week’s murder-fest in Memphis, committed by people who should have been in jail. Our own master-blaster Paula Bolyard wrote about it earlier.

Thanks to inane no-bail laws, a 20-year-old woman, arrested seven times for crimes involving a machete or another weapon, recently slashed an 82-year-old man’s face in New York City.

I have examples for days of legacy criminals attacking and killing innocent people. Criminals who should have been in the hoosegow but, thanks to the apparatchik-Americans in the Democrat party, are redrumming America with seeming impunity.

FACT-O-RAMA!  Your liberal sister-in-law and her non-binary, pansexual, femme-demi boi?friend believe that allowing black criminals (who further victimize innocent people, most of whom are black) out of jail  is somehow a sign of “open-mindedness” and not what it really is: a callous indifference to the suffering of others so that they can virtue-signal their “wokeness” to their friends as well as feel a sense of superiorty.

The nation is seeing record murder rates, thanks to bolshie policies that victimize criminals. This is the work of “woke” Democrats, and it’s happening in our large blue cities. It’s one thing to simply say “crime is on the rise,” but it’s actually worse than most people realize. You don’t always hear about violent crimes because they occur so often that reporting on all of them would become dull.

LEFTY LABOR DAY WEEKEND THUGGERY YOU PROBABLY DIDN’T HEAR ABOUT!  

  • There were 17 mass shootings in the U.S., leaving 20 dead and 64 wounded, and most of them took place in Democrat-run cities.
  • Philly had over 20 shoot-em-ups, leaving 10 people dead and 23 wounded.
  • Chicago’s annual Labor Day Weekend Festival of Lead saw 55 people shot, 11 fatally, for a total of 2,516 people shot thus far in 2022.

But Joe “allegedly showered with his daughter” Biden thinks you are the problem, rather than the insane, thug-hugging Democrats who allow created this crime blitz.

SUICIDES

When “15 days to slow the curve” turned into a draconian lockdown, I mused that this was a dress rehearsal for communism. Democrat leaders couldn’t wait to see just how much tyranny Americans would take. Embarrassingly, we accepted a lot, and now our kids are paying the price.

FACT-O-RAMA! Historically, people have accepted tyranny when it is served in small, ever-increasing doses.

Boys aged 12-17 tried to kill themselves during the pandemic at a rate that was 3.7 times higher than in 2019, which was a record-level year for kids attempting suicide. The attempted suicide rate of girls in the same age range skyrocketed by a terrifying 50.6%, in large part because Democrats couldn’t wait to take away our freedoms for as long as possible.

Related: Reasons Never to Vote Democrat Again, Vol. II: The Big, Blue Crime Wave

Children are also suffering from a “devastating” learning loss. Check out this misleading headline, which is repeated again in the opening sentence, “Significant learning loss due to COVID-19 is impacting children across America.”

No, learning losses and exploding child suicide attempt rates are not rising due to the Hong Kong Fluey; they are the result of the Democrats’ responses to it. Nice try, pinkos!

FACT-O-RAMA! Closing schools over a virus that rarely affects kids was about as stupid as closing gyms and basketball courts for the same virus that feasts on obese people. Democrats did these things.

OVERDOSES

The Democrats pretend the southern border is secure even as their own lickspittles in the Pravda media are reporting that the highest number of illegal immigrants in history are sauntering into our country, many of whom are drug mules for Mexican drug cartels and their business partners in China.

Drug overdose deaths are topping out at over 100,000 per year. More people aged 18-45 died of fentanyl ODs in 2021 than any other cause, yet Vice President Kamala Harris, placed in charge of the border, has done nothing. Black people are more likely to die from a fentanyl overdose than any other race, while black teen fentanyl deaths have surged fivefold.

HYPOTHESIS-O-RAMA! Hunter Biden’s laptop showed us that the Biden family has corrupt dealings in China. China is making billions of dollars from fentanyl sales in the U.S. Most of the fentanyl comes over the southern border, which Joe Biden refuses to secure. I’m not suggesting that Biden is keeping the border open so that his puppet masters in China can make mad stacks from drug sales but I’m not not suggesting it either.

WOKENESS

“Wokeness” is the excuse the liberal toilet people are using to bring communism to the U.S. The Democrats pretend that letting criminals out of jail and keeping them out with no-bail laws is a sign of virtue. They mislead their voters into believing that allowing illegal immigrants with pockets full of deadly fentanyl to cross the border is somehow a sign of morality. Both of these policies have brought horrendous results. And here is the real punchline: the Democrats are torching the country on purpose.

The Democrats especially like to pretend that they care about black people, but the number of murders and drug deaths directly related to liberal policies paints a different picture.

Remember to bring up these hard, ugly facts when your liberal sister-in-law shows up to borrow money while wearing her “Vote Blue in 2022” t-shirt.

In response to:
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Representative Madeleine Dean (D-PA), and workers union-owned Amalgamated Bank are pushing payment processors to make a new Merchant Category Code for gun and ammunition sales, allowing for easier tracking of these purchases. MasterCard, Visa, and American Express have so far not given an opinion on the matter. 

Brandon Soderman comment on Facebook

They’re going this route because they’re losing in court. This is an act of desperation.
I’ve read a lot of good analysis on it and you will increasingly see the gun prohibitionists now attempt to utilize the private sector to chill the Second Amendment since they can’t use governmental power to do so.
Over the next year when magazine bans and AWBs are struck down in the courts under the THT test you will witness a push to shame gun manufactures (we’ve seen a taste of that in congress), push shippers to refuse to ship firearms and accessories that democrats want to ban but can’t, and push the banking system to make gun purchases are difficult as possible.

The battle will now be shifting from the court system to the court of public opinion, it’s all they have left. We’re on the offensive now and they know it. Don’t take this as a sign of weakness on our side, but as a sign of their desperation as they get pushed back into the hole they crawled out of for another generation.
They don’t have the broad buy in from the public to reinterpret the Second Amendment, and the AWB would be overturned by the next Republican administration and congress just as it was in 2004 (assuming the court didn’t stop them). Eliminating the filibuster to narrow the votes to pass it would only make it easier to undo it later. Similarly, conservative justices would no doubt restore any attempt to overturn Heller the moment its viable.

They’re desperate, take this sign for what it is and hold on tight. You’re about to witness a lash out like you’ve never seen. I think the next national push should not be neutrality (like how republicans allowed blue states to pass their own local bans), but instead push to make it illegal federally to ban commonly-owned weapons, regardless of what the court does (forcing the supremacy clause against blue states). It needs to be total war if they push the filibuster issue to pass a partisan ban, which is the only way they could ever achieve it.

Get the Word Out About Kyle’s Law

A prosecutor who uses his or her authority to virtue signal to the public to advance his or her political career is more dangerous to society than all but the most violent criminals.

Insurance will cover many forms of property crimes, and you can legally use deadly force against somebody who menaces you with death or serious bodily injury.

A prosecutor, though, can bankrupt most people by filing unfounded criminal charges against them, ruin their lives with prison time and criminal records. Unless the case is particularly egregious like that of Mike Nifong (D-NC), or with crooked judges like Mark Ciavarella (D-PA, a.k.a., federal inmate #15008-067) or Mike Conahan (D-PA, home arrest), there is little or no recourse against these “jurists.”

To put this in perspective, Pennsylvania attorney Frank Fina was suspended from the practice of law for his role in convicting Penn State President Graham Spanier of putting children at risk. Pennsylvania’s current Attorney General, and gubernatorial candidate Josh Shapiro (D-PA), worked hard to reinstate Spanier’s conviction while tweeting that Spanier had been told that Jerry Sandusky was sexually assaulting children on the Penn State campus. The witness, Mike McQueary, testified, however, under oath, that he did not see Sandusky do anything he deemed reportable to police while his father and a family friend, both of whom are mandated by law to report abuse, did not encourage him to report to child protective authorities whatever he thought he might have possibly heard.

I believe that Shapiro, like Scott Harshbarger (D-MA) and Martha Coakley (D-MA) who ruined the lives of the Amiraults, used his position to “virtue signal” his concern for the children prior to the election. The latter is my perception of Shapiro, Harshbarger, and Coakley rather than a statement of fact because I cannot read their minds.

Kyle’s Law

Attorney Andrew Branca, whose opinions often appear on William Jacobson’s blog Legal Insurrection, has proposed what he calls Kyle’s Law due to what he and I both regard as a politically motivated prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse for what was obviously self-defense.

“Too often, rogue prosecutors bring felony criminal charges against people who were clearly doing nothing more than defending themselves, their families, or others from violent criminal attack. …The only motivation of the prosecutor is personal aggrandizement and political capital.” Kyle’s Law would sanction not only the jurisdiction but also the prosecutor who brings a junk case, to be defined as one in which the prosecutor lacks even preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did anything wrong.

The American Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct state meanwhile, “A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous…” and also “The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause…” and probable cause requires a “reasonable belief” that the defendant has committed a crime.

If, for example, a video of a self-defense shooting shows clearly that the person who was shot initiated a deadly confrontation, perpetuated it by not allowing the subject of their attack to retreat in complete safety, and menaced the shooter with immediate deadly force, as did all three of Rittenhouse’s assailants, that’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt in favor of the shooter that the shooting was justified. If we look within the four corners of the charges against Rittenhouse, the prosecutors did not contest this version of the events.  Joseph Rosenbaum initiated a confrontation in which he attempted to strong-arm rob Rittenhouse (a violent felony by itself) of a firearm he could have turned against Rittenhouse on the spot and also one which, as a convicted felon, it was unlawful for Rosenbaum to handle. Anthony Huber the domestic abuser was a member of a mob (which constitutes disparity of force and therefore deadly force) that pursued Rittenhouse while yelling violent threats, thus putting Rittenhouse in reasonable fear for his life and denying him the opportunity to retreat in complete safety. He then menaced and struck Rittenhouse with a deadly contact weapon when Rittenhouse was on the ground. The third man, Gaige Grosskreutz, pursued Rittenhouse with a drawn handgun, which again constituted an implied threat, along with the immediate means of carrying it out.

Another example would be, for example, if a politically ambitious prosecutor had tried to show his “woke” credentials by charging the officer who shot Hakim Littleton even though the latter was on bodycam video firing a handgun at the head of another officer at roughly three paces. It was fortunate that Littleton was a bad shot or it would have been “end of watch” for that officer or, as Black Lives Matter and Antifa would put it, he would have “oinked his last.” This did not, however, happen because the local prosecutors saw the open and shut case of self-defense.

Poster Children for Kyle’s Law

  • The Amiraults were convicted on the basis of “evidence” that included, among other things, accusations that one of them sexually assaulted a boy with a butcher knife that somehow left no injuries, along with a “secret room” and a “magic room” that were never found.
  • Police officer Grant Snowden was railroaded to prison on the watch of Janet Reno (D-FL).
  • Police officer Garrett Rolfe was charged with murder for shooting Rayshard Brooks after Brooks took an officer’s Taser, which the prosecutor stipulated is a deadly weapon under Georgia law, and discharged it at the officers. The charges were finally dropped but should have never been filed.
  • Nikolas Fernandez was charged with felony assault for shooting Daniel Gregory, who reached through the window of Fernandez’s car to punch him. Gregory even admitted openly, “I catch him, I punch him in the face.” He claims that he was trying to stop Fernandez from running over “demonstrators” but the video shows clearly that Fernandez had come to almost a complete stop by the time Gregory reached into his car. Note also the barrier that another “demonstrator” shoves in front of the car which a reasonable person would construe as a prelude to a carjacking or Reginald Denny-style beating.
  • Here is a long list of wrongful convictions in the United States, some of which involved willful prosecutorial misconduct and/or misconduct by rogue police officers eager to get convictions no matter what.
  • Prosecutors should not be afraid to do their jobs just as police officers should not be afraid to do their jobs. Kneeling on a helpless suspect’s neck as Derek Chauvin was convicted of doing is not, however, a police officer’s job, and Chauvin is now in prison as a result. Junk prosecutions whose sole identifiable purpose, at least from the perspective of a reasonable person, noting that nobody can read the prosecutor’s mind, is to advance a prosecutor’s legal and/or political career, should similarly bring the consequences recommended in Kyle’s Law and maybe professional disciplinary action as well.

Largest-Ever Survey of Gun Owners Finds Diversity Increasing, Carrying Common, and More Than 1.6 Million Defensive Uses Per Year

A survey of 16,708 gun owners provides updated answers to some of the most pressing questions surrounding guns in America.

The National Firearms Survey, conducted in 2021 and updated earlier this year, examines the breadth of gun ownership and the use of guns throughout the country. It found more minorities and women own guns than previous surveys indicated, half of gun owners report carrying a handgun for self-defense, and nearly a third report having used a firearm to defend themselves–a number that translates to over 1.6 million defensive uses per year. William English, the Georgetown University professor who created the survey, told The Reload it is the most comprehensive look at American gun ownership yet produced.

“The biggest difference between the results of this survey and many earlier ones is that this survey goes into greater depth regarding types of firearms owned, the details of defensive gun uses, and frequency of defensive carry of handguns,” Professor English said. “This survey is also the largest survey of gun owners ever conducted, providing more statistical power than earlier surveys and much more information about the demographics of gun ownership and use. Its results are largely consistent with other recent survey work when it comes to general ownership estimates, which increases the confidence in its accuracy, but it goes into greater depth with regard to many details of interest.”

The sweeping survey will likely influence both the political and legal landscape surrounding firearms. The debate over guns has primarily centered on how common the ownership of guns is and how often they are really used to protect people rather than endanger them. Much of the evidence cited in that debate is decades old. So, the introduction of not just more thorough but more recent evidence may disrupt the decades-old conversation on guns. Its effect may be particularly stark in federal courts where the Supreme Court has placed significant weight on protecting guns in “common use for lawful purposes.”

The survey could also shake up how academics study guns in America. Up to this point, most gun ownership surveys have not been much larger than traditional public opinion polls. That means their samples can not be generalized down from their nationwide scope to more specific areas, such as the state level, without introducing further uncertainty. Most studies have attempted to control for that uncertainty by relying on indicators of gun ownership, including local suicide rates, rather than direct measurements.

However, Professor English’s survey established a representative sample of gun owners in all 50 states. He said the estimates in his survey are similar to the Rand Corporation’s widely-cited estimates on some of the more populous states but vary significantly in smaller states. The new data has the potential to upend the results of many studies that have relied on less straightforward ways of estimating gun ownership in the area they’re studying.

The survey also advances the understanding of defensive gun use. It shows many American gun owners report actually using their firearms to defend themselves.

“Given that 31.1% of firearms owners have used a firearm in self-defense, this implies that approximately 25.3 million adult Americans have defended themselves with a firearm,” English wrote in a preprint report on the study published on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN). “Answers to the frequency question suggest that these gun owners have been involved in a total of approximately 50 million defensive incidents. Assuming that defensive uses of firearms are distributed roughly equally across years, this suggests at least 1.67 million defensive uses of firearms per year in which firearms owners have defended themselves or their property through the discharge, display, or mention of a firearm (excluding military service, police work, or work as a security guard).”

However, English noted it also paints a more realistic picture of defensive gun use than what’s often shown in movies or TV. Instead of an altercation with many shots fired and the assailant ending up shot, the vast majority of defensive gun uses did not involve the defender firing any shot at all. Brandishing a gun was enough to end the threat to the gun owner in 81.9 percent of cases.

In cases where defenders did fire, a single shot was enough to end the confrontation in nearly half of the cases. Taking two shots was the next most common outcome, with each additional shot becoming less common.

Gun-control advocates and researchers have critiqued survey-based defensive gun use estimates, including the oft-cited work of criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, as overestimates and elevated estimates in the tens-of-thousands range, calling into question the primary practical benefit of gun ownership. English said the paradoxically non-violent nature of most self-defensive use of firearms is why survey-based estimates like his differ significantly from those that use more restrictive metrics, such as the number of justifiable homicides or emergency room visits for gunshot wounds. He said his survey’s estimate aligns well with estimates for the number of emergency room visits once you factor in how few shots defenders say they fire and factor in the likely hit rate of those shots.

“The key to the puzzle is the fact that shots fired in self-defense rarely hit their target,” English told The Reload, citing studies from 2008 and 2018. “Studies of police have found that something like 65-85% of shots fired by officers miss. Note that these are trained professionals, and if they are engaged in a shooting incident, this will typically be pursued at close range until the perpetrator has been apprehended or incapacitated, meaning it’s not sufficient to simply fire a shot to scare an aggressor away. I wouldn’t be surprised if more than 90% of shots fired in self-defense by ordinary people didn’t hit anyone. Ordinary people should be less accurate, on average, than professional police officers. And, in most cases, the spectacle of gunfire is likely enough to get an aggressor to flee, which is sufficient for protecting a victim.”

English said his survey addressed another common critique of previous work in the field. He said previous studies that tried to estimate yearly defensive gun uses relied on respondents not only remembering that they used a gun in self-defense but also that it happened within the previous year. English designed his questions to avoid that pitfall, betting people are more likely to remember if they experienced a traumatic defensive encounter rather than the exact timeframe it happened in.

“My survey took a different approach, asking about defensive use at any time, not simply the last year,” he told The Reload. “The results show that this is not a rare event at all, with something like a third of gun owners reporting having used a gun in self-defense. Because of how the question was asked, I don’t have to engage in the exercise of extrapolating out estimates from measures of rare events in a restricted window of time.”

There are other potential weaknesses of English’s approach, though. He noted the survey only asked questions about defensive gun use to those over 18 years old and those who self-identified as gun owners. He said that might explain why his yearly estimate is on the lower end of Kleck’s previous estimates, which topped out at 2.5 million per year.

“There are also reasons to think that the [defensive gun use] estimates of this survey are conservative,” English said. “Kleck had found that a large proportion of those who had used guns in self-defense did not personally own a gun.”

English also looked at areas beyond what other researchers had attempted to survey at scale before. The survey found that AR-15s and similar rifles are in the hands of a wide swath of American gun owners, as are magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. What’s more, it found carrying pistols for protection is commonplace as well.

“In sum, about 31.9% of U.S. adults, or 81.4 million Americans, own over 415 million firearms, consisting of approximately 171 million handguns, 146 million rifles, and 98 million shotguns,” English said in his report. “About 24.6 million individuals have owned a up to 44 million AR-15 and similarly styled rifles, and 39 million individuals have owned up to 542 million magazines that hold over ten rounds. Approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. A majority of gun owners (56.2%) indicate that they carry a handgun for self-defense in at least some circumstances, and about 35% of gun owners report carrying a handgun with some frequency.”

The survey of over 44,000 Americans, from which 16,708 gun owners were identified for further questioning, was conducted through the internet between February 17th and March 23rd 2021 by the polling firm Centiment. It is part of a larger research project by English on guns in America. He said he plans to publish several more academic papers on it in the coming months, ultimately culminating in a book on the topic.

Perhaps. Maybe they’re also getting ready for Biden’s puppetmasters to try something.
Either way, this is blatantly political, which in itself is a problem.

‘They Are Getting Ready for Trump’s Second Term’: Former Pentagon Brass Encourage Military to Disobey Orders

In an ominous open letter published on wonky national security site War on the Rocks Tuesday, eight former secretaries of defense and five former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned of what they call an “exceptionally challenging civil-military environment” developing in the United States that apparently concerned them enough to publish their thoughts ahead of November’s consequential midterm elections. Never mind, apparently, that the signatories were at the helm of the U.S. military for the better part of the last two decades during which that “environment” was degraded.

Citing “extreme strain” to “[m]any of the factors that shape civil-military relations” in “recent years,” the letter points to “the winding down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the ramping up of great power conflict” while alluding to the fact that last August’s withdrawal from Afghanistan — and fresh chaos in Iraq — mean that “the U.S. military must simultaneously come to terms with wars that ended without all the goals satisfactorily accomplished while preparing for more daunting competition with near-peer rivals.”

The letter also not-so-subtly refers to “the divisiveness of affective polarization that culminated in the first election in over a century when the peaceful transfer of political power was disrupted and in doubt” as a reason “military professionals confront an extremely adverse environment.”

“Looking ahead, all of these factors could well get worse before they get better,” the former Pentagon officials warn. “In such an environment, it is helpful to review the core principles and best practices by which civilian and military professionals have conducted healthy American civil-military relations in the past — and can continue to do so, if vigilant and mindful.”

What follows are 16 enumerated “best practices” that deal with the chain of command, political pressure, and civilian control of the U.S. military, all signed by former Pentagon brass including Ash Carter, Mark Esper, Bob Gates, Chuck Hagel, Jim Mattis, Leon Panetta, Martin Dempsey, Joseph Dunford, and Peter Pace.

“Military officers swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not an oath of fealty to an individual or to an office,” the letter explains. “All civilians, whether they swear an oath or not, are likewise obligated to support and defend the Constitution as their highest duty.”

Another point discusses the “responsibility of senior military and civilian leaders to ensure that any order they receive from the president is legal” and “to provide the president with their views and advice that includes the implications of an order.”

“The military — active-duty, reserve, and National Guard — have carefully delimited roles in law enforcement,” another “best practice” explains. “Those roles must be taken only insofar as they are consistent with the Constitution and relevant statutes. The military has an obligation to advise on the wisdom of proposed action and civilians should create the opportunity for such deliberation,” the letter explains. “The military is required ultimately to carry out legal directives that result. In most cases, the military should play a supporting rather than a leading role to law enforcement.”

The letter also explains that “[t]here are significant limits on the public role of military personnel in partisan politics, as outlined in longstanding Defense Department policy and regulations. Members of the military accept limits on the public expression of their private views — limits that would be unconstitutional if imposed on other citizens,” the letter notes. “Military and civilian leaders must be diligent about keeping the military separate from partisan political activity.”

Whether the former officials are looking backward at the 2020 election or ahead at the 2024 election, their letter dives into the military’s responsibilities during a presidential election year:

During presidential elections, the military has a dual obligation. First, because the Constitution provides for only one commander-in chief at a time, the military must assist the current commander-in-chief in the exercise of his or her constitutional duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Second, because the voters (not the military) decide who will be commander-in-chief, they must prepare for whomever the voters pick — whether a reelected incumbent or someone new. This dual obligation reinforces the importance of the principles and best practices described above.

The only thing that’s missing from the bulleted manifesto-y letter about the military’s “best practices” is an explanation for why it was written. Is it more (very delayed) fallout from January 6? A response to President Joe Biden’s use of Marine guards as staging for his angry and divisive speech in Philadelphia in which he declared war on Republicans? A warning of things yet to come? 

Speaking with Townhall, Former Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense Amber Smith reiterated that “healthy civil-military relations are incredibly important” for the United States. However, as Smith pointed out, “it’s completely hypocritical for these former Defense Secretaries and [Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] to preach about how important civ-mil relations are while setting the stage for using military leaders and officials to undermine the president,” she said. “They are getting ready for Trump’s second term.”

“Additionally, those who penned this letter are complicit with the deterioration of trust and the breakdown in the relationship between the military and civilians they speak of,” Smith also noted. “They are essentially raising the alarm for an environment they helped create.”

Smith is right. The letter is conveniently revisionist in its glossing over of recent military history while attempting to frame the former officials’ legacies in a positive light. Claiming the disaster that was the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan merely “ended without all the goals satisfactorily accomplished” is a rather appalling way to characterize what was a complete failure on multiple levels — one that further undermined Americans’ trust in military leaders.

What’s more, the signatories were at the helm of the U.S. military for the better part of the last two decades — if there are issues with the civil-military relationship, they had a hand in that. They were also on watch as the armed forces barreled toward recruitment, retention, and fitness level failures through multiple administrations.

Then there’s the matter of the signers’ decision to chime in on politics, invoke the events of January 6, and talk about presidential elections. Among the letter’s signers is General Dempsey who, in 2016, said that “the American people should not wonder where their military leaders draw the line between military advice and political preference” in a statement to The Washington Post that was described by NPR as an instruction for former Pentagon officials to “stay off the political battlefield” even after leaving their posts.

Evidently Dempsey’s earlier admonishment did not apply to his and the other former brass who decided, seemingly without a clear impetus, to publish their open letter this week.