5333 private links
Extensive Crime Study Reveals FBI's Massive Under-Reporting of Defensive Gun Use by Legal Gun Owners
The Crime Prevention Resource Center (CPRC) has released the results of an extensive study of the FBI's statistics on how often crimes are prevented by legally armed citizens. In a finding that should come as a surprise to no one, the CPRC has determined that the FBI has massively under-reported instances of defensive gun use by legal gun owners. My colleague Jeff Charles wrote about this a few weeks back, but let's take a little deeper dive into the numbers.
What is particularly troubling is the unwillingness of the FBI and the media to correct these omissions when informed about them. When Dr. John Lott worked at the US Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy and the Office of Justice Programs in 2020, the FBI was notified of their omissions involving potential mass public shootings, but they refused to correct those errors. Lott had previously alerted the FBI to similar problems back in 2015 and he published the list in the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Today in March 2015, but corrections were never made even after the FBI admitted they were missing cases.
New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) on Friday suspended the right to bear arms to send “a resounding message.” The order apparently comes in response to the Wednesday shooting death of the third New Mexico child since July 28 — each an unspeakable tragedy, to be sure. But the “message” it sends is way off target.
Lujan Grisham declared gun violence “a statewide public health emergency of unknown duration” in a Thursday order. On Friday, state Health Secretary Patrick Allen released a public health order at the governor’s direction which forbade any person “other than a law enforcement officer or licensed security officer” to “possess a firearm … either openly or concealed.” Allen’s order also addressed drug abuse, for which Lujan Grisham declared a separate state of public health emergency.
In a significant victory for Second Amendment advocates, the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Bryan Range, a Pennsylvania man barred from possessing firearms due to a non-violent conviction. This ruling, a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, reinforces the principles of individual liberty and emphasizes the importance of adhering to constitutional rights. Even better, it could signify some positive developments in the future when it comes to protecting the right to keep and bear arms for those convicted of non-violent offenses.
The 11-4 ruling was handed down on Tuesday: //
“At root, the Government’s claim that only ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens’ are protected by the Second Amendment devolves authority to legislators to decide whom to exclude from ‘the people,’” wrote Judge Hardiman in the majority opinion. “We reject that approach because such ‘extreme deference gives legislatures unreviewable power to manipulate the Second Amendment by choosing a label.’”
Per federal law 18 USC § 926A, every U.S. citizen may legally transport firearms across state lines as long as he or she is legally allowed to possess the weapons in both the state of origin as well as the destination.
You can legally transport firearms across state lines as long as:
- You can lawfully possess firearms in your state of origin.
- You can lawfully possess firearms at your destination.
- The firearm and ammunition must be stored out of reach (not in the glove compartment or center console).*
- Although it may not be required, it is a good idea to lock your ammunition and guns in separate lock boxes in the trunk or anywhere out of immediate reach.
I recently wrote about an extraordinarily misleading Kaiser Family study that claimed “1 in 5” Americans have a family member who has been killed by a gun. Kaiser’s inflated findings were based on a small sample size of self-reported answers to questions that offered no useful limiting parameters.
In many ways, another endlessly repeated contention of gun controllers suffers from the same problem: Gun violence is the number one cause of death of children in America. Virtually every media outlet and Democrat repeats this contention — including, recently, the vice president. The claim is meant to conjure up distressing images of frolicking kids in parks and schools being gunned down by assault weapons. //
According to the CDC, the number one killer of children between 1-14 are accidents — vehicular, suffocation, and drowning. Twice as many kids under 12 died in cars than from guns. Also, if these studies began at birth rather than starting at one, the leading killer of all children would be diseases and genetic abnormalities. Surely a one-year-old is as much a “kid” as a 19-year-old. (And if you begin at fetal viability, by far the leading killer of young people would be late-term abortions — more than 8,000 viable unborn, and probably more than 50,000 performed after 15 weeks.)
What is really at work here is the old boiling-the-frog tactic. They are attacking weapons accessories rather than weapons to avoid legal challenges and to get gun owners used to the ATF regulating those items. I think there is a more nefarious strategy at work here beyond desensitizing gun owners to ATF bullying. The ATF has suddenly become aggressive about redefining weapons. In the bump stock case, they claimed that it made a semi-automatic rifle into an automatic one. With the pistol brace rule, they are blithely declaring that a pistol may if you turn down the lights and look at it just right, be a rifle. What both rules are calculated to do, in my opinion, is to encourage people to ignore them and then hammer gun owners with federal felony convictions. //
Paxton is headed to court in a friendly federal district and will probably prevail. If the ATF defends this rule, it is headed to the Supreme Court, along with the bump stock case, where the Second Amendment is in favor and “Chevron deference,” the legal doctrine that says courts should defer to executive agency interpretations of the law, is not. //
libertylioness
2 hours ago edited
All my handguns now identify as cordless hole punchers. //
jumper
3 hours ago
"What is really at work here is the old boiling-the-frog tactic."
100% correct here. The ATF keeps chipping away, going after things they know the FUDDs don't care about. Bump stocks and pistol braces aren't mainstream accessories so they know this will largely be ignored and, unfortunately, agreed with in the usual "I'm pro-2A but..." crowd.
TheAmerican1
4 hours ago
Smokey the Bear? Pants, no shirt.
Winnie the Pooh? Shirt, no pants.
Yogi Bear: Hat and vest, no pants.
Boo-Boo: bowtie only.
pat TheAmerican1
an hour ago
All second amendment supporters, they maintain the right to bear arms, they choose to conceal and cover.
St. Joseph, Terror of Demons pat
9 minutes ago
We need the right to arm bears, too!
Someone may start off as not an imminent unlawful threat, then become an imminent unlawful threat, then cease being an imminent unlawful threat. It’s analogous to a window that’s shut, then open, then shut again.
The privilege to use defensive force exists only when that “window” is open. Prior to the window opening, no defensive force is justified. Similarly, after the window is closed, no defensive force is justified. The privilege to use defensive force ends when the threat is no longer imminent. //
It’s important to remember that what controls your legal destiny under this justification is not your sense of what was reasonable. Rather it is the sense of reasonableness of other people that control your fate—that of the police, the prosecutor, the judge, the jury. If you believe you acted reasonably, but they believe you acted unreasonably, it’s their determination that sends you to prison regardless of what you believed. //
REMEMBER
You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill.
Know the law so you’re hard to convict.
Stay safe!
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
A quote from Robert A. Heinlein’s book, Beyond This Horizon, is often snipped and used out of context to support gun rights. One of the reasons Heinlein’s character intimates that “an armed society is a polite society…” is because when criminals have to pay the price of being at the wrong end of the gun, it is a deterrent to crime, and also a way of culling the herd. Part of the quote also says, “We do not have enough things that kill off the weak and the stupid these days.” //
Well, in the first place an armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. For me, politeness is a sine qua non of civilization. That’s a personal evaluation only. But gun-fighting has a strong biological use. We do not have enough things that kill off the weak and the stupid these days. But to stay alive as an armed citizen a man has to be either quick with his wits or with his hands, preferably both. It’s a good thing.
“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need,” Thomas wrote. “That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.” //
In his concurring opinion, Alito slammed dissenting Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor for bringing up irrelevant statistics to try and justify restricting Americans’ consitutional rights.
“Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have
occurred in recent years?” Alito asked. “Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home?”
Alito also questioned how the dissenting justices “account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo?”
“The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator,” he noted. //
Alito also noted in his concurring opinion that “The police cannot disarm every person who acquires a gun for use in criminal activity; nor can they provide bodyguard protection for the State’s nearly 20 million residents or the 8.8 million people who live in New York City.”
And since “ordinary citizens frequently use firearms to protect themselves from criminal attack,” they shouldn’t be stopped from carrying a gun for self defense in crime-ridden cities in states such as New York.
“Some of these people reasonably believe that unless they can brandish or, if necessary, use a handgun in the case of attack, they may be murdered, raped, or suffer some other serious injury,” Alito noted. “Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so.”
BNN Newsroom
@BNNBreaking
BREAKING: Surveillance video from inside Robb Elementary School shows that police never attempted to open either of the two classroom doors that housed the shooter-mass murderer and his victims-children/teachers.
This contradicts previous statements that police attempted to gain entry by using a ring of keys from a janitor.
12:05 AM · Jun 19, 2022 //
To make the timeline clear here, the shooter was shooting for 12 minutes outside without any police response. He then entered an unlocked backdoor, followed in by police minutes later. The police then barricaded the shooter inside the room per their own admission. Instead of attempting entry to stop the carnage, they sat around for over an hour until a Border Patrol team went in of their own volition.
Prior to this surveillance video, the police claimed they attempted to enter the room but were forced back by gunfire. Now, we know that they never even tried to get inside, choosing to retreat like cowards, completely absconding from their duty to protect and serve.
Further, a mother who entered the school to rescue her children recently revealed that the shooting inside the classroom continued well after the police arrived (again, contradicting initial claims by police that the shooter had killed everyone within a few minutes). That means that the shooter was systematically executing children while the police just sat there. That’s so unconscionable that it makes me feel sick to my stomach just to write.
It doesn’t get any worse than this, and it’s infuriating that so many, including some GOP senators, are choosing to obsess over meaningless, ineffective gun control policies instead of talking about the biggest, most direct failure in Uvalde. Lastly, the idea that any law-abiding citizen of the United States should be disarmed in the face of this shooting is asinine.
It’s important to remember that a red flag law is effectively a societal nod to strip someone of their 2nd Amendment right, not because they committed a crime, but because you think they might. More accurately, someone can be stripped of their right to bear arms off of the mere accusation that they intend to cause harm. //
Red flag laws are ripe for abuse and we already have leftists with blue check marks on Twitter openly admitting that they’re ready to take advantage of them just by claiming an innocent man is insane for wanting to defend his children from people who want to take them in order to indoctrinate them with radicalized thought. //
Without the right to gun ownership, the rest of the Bill of Rights is a wishlist. Do we really want to live in a world where someone like Eric Swalwell can wave his hand and strip you of rights given to you by God?
How many more red flags would the authorities like before they act? Remember, in this case, he would have been a minor. Why was he not ever removed from the home? In fact, I can’t find any evidence CPS ever even attempted to intervene. Instead, it appears the shooter went to live with his grandmother after a final blow-up with his mother.
It’s insane that the conversation is now about banning 9mm ammunition rather than about issues that could have actually stopped this shooting. Heck, it’s not just insane, it’s infuriating. People are rushing to garner their long-held political goals that would do nothing to prevent mass shootings instead of worrying about the problems staring the nation in the face. Schools obviously need better security, and if we can give them hundreds of billions of mostly unspent cash for COVID, I’m pretty sure we can afford to install some magnetic doors.
But past that, there needs to be a serious conversation about the lack of action in regards to clearly mentally ill people. Ramos should have been arrested many times over.
Moving past the areas of possible effective compromise, though, there is no chance Democrats walk away without getting their way on something that directly violates the rights of Americans. In this case, Murphy mentions universal background checks, which again, would not have stopped this shooter like almost every shooter before him. Now, you might be saying to yourself, “we already have background checks,” and you’d be correct. In fact, I can’t think of a single mass shooting (i.e. high-profile, school shootings, etc.) where the gun was purchased privately, ducking an FFL-background check. In almost all cases, shooters either pass a background check or steal their guns from family members.
But the point of universal background checks is really to create a federal gun registry. That way the government knows who has the guns and where. When you recognize that, it’s easy to understand why Democrats love the idea so much despite its obvious ineffectiveness. //
New York has an extremely broad red flag law. It didn’t stop the Buffalo grocery store shooter just a few weeks ago. From my view, it seems like trying to stop an army of ants with a magnifying glass. And while I’ll concede red flag laws might be effective in regards to suicide prevention, that’s not the discussion here, right?
Here’s the thing, though. When whatever red flag laws that get passed fail to stop the next mass shooter, the call to “do something” will only grow louder. And the next “something” will be an even further encroachment. I understand the desire to act in good faith and attempt to take some of the heat off, but Republicans have to understand that the Democrat push for gun confiscation and an “assault weapons” ban will not stop with whatever compromise legislation arises here.
That leaves the obvious question for Republicans: Is it smart to give ground when the end goal of the Democrats is being telegraphed to you? I know my answer.
(((DeanObeidallah))) @DeanObeidallah
There is NO constitutional right to own a gun. That was literally made up by 5 GOP Justices in 2008 decision of DC v Heller. We need to make overturning Heller a cause like the right made overturning Roe v Wade. My @MSNBC
msnbc.com
Opinion | We need more than new gun laws. We need a new Supreme Court.
12:55 PM · May 28, 2022
Barrington Martin II @_BarringtonII
·
May 28, 2022
Replying to @DeanObeidallah and @MSNBC
“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” - Second Amendment, US Constitution.
(((DeanObeidallah))) @DeanObeidallah
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
9:33 PM · May 28, 2022
((DeanObeidallah))) @DeanObeidallah
Reminder: Between 1789 and 2008 NO federal court found 2nd Amendment created a PERSONAL constitutional right apart from being in a militia to own a gun. In 2008, five supreme court justices INVENTED that in DC v. Heller. We must OVERTURN Heller so we can pass gun safety laws! //
The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, which specifically denotes the enumerated rights of the individual, protected from the overreach of government. That alone is enough to defeat Obeidallah’s argument. The idea that the Second is somehow the only right in the Bill of Rights that grants power to the government makes no sense at all, nor is such a position backed up by any historical writings.
Further, even if you dismiss that fact, also note that there is actually a militia clause in the Constitution. If the Second was meant to only apply to the formation of government-led militias, that’s where it would have been placed. Instead, it was put in the section denoting individual rights because the Second exists to protect the individual right to form a well-regulated (a word in this context that means organized and trained) militia.
The mention of the “right to keep and bear arms” is there because a militia can’t be formed without individual firearm ownership. That’s backed by how militias operated at the time of the drafting of the Second. Individuals showed up with their own firearms, which at the time were “weapons of war,” and organized and trained. There is not a single historically-backed interpretation of the Second that somehow comes to the conclusion that it’s a right meant to apply to the government and not the individual ownership of firearms.
Lastly, when dealing with the ridiculous assertion that Heller “made up” an individual right to keep and bear arms, it’s important to remember that courts interpret the law, but they do not make it. The reason it wasn’t until 2008 that such a right was affirmed is that up until that point, it was an absolute given throughout all of American history that individual firearm ownership was a right.
Heller was necessary because of clearly unconstitutional gun laws forcing a ruling on the Second. No time before it was the individual right to own a gun in question, and anyone asserting such is being incredibly dishonest. You used to be able to own fully-automatic weapons in this country. Guns in schools used to be common. That’s not because the right to keep and bear arms didn’t arrive until 2008.
This pattern isn’t limited to mass shootings. While those between the ages of 14 and 24 constituted a little more than 16% of the population between 1980 and 2008, they were responsible for over 48% of the murders. Overall, those 18 to 24 consistently had the highest offending rate over the 28-year period. And the overwhelming majority of those responsible for homicides were male. //
The rate of suicide attempts is also highest between ages 14 and 21.
There are good reasons for these statistics: The frontal lobe and other parts of the brain responsible for impulse and emotional control and judgment do not fully mature until roughly age 25 or 26. Additionally, 75% of people who develop psychiatric disorders will do so by 24, while the peak onset of psychotic disorders in men is just under 25. //
Auto-insurance rates are higher for drivers under 25, because, statistically, they are responsible for more accidents than any other group. Similarly, most car-rental agencies either don’t rent to people under 25 or charge them a premium. Even Airbnb enacted restrictions on rentals for those under 25 to make it harder to throw potentially dangerous and destructive house parties.
Republicans should stop playing defense when they haven’t done anything wrong lest they be consumed. Preempt the ineffective policy prescriptions of the left, which only serve to garner unrelated political goals, by introducing actual “common-sense” reforms. Have those reforms not target the Second Amendment, but rather focus on the direct protection of schools, enforcing existing laws, and getting the mentally ill the help they need. If Democrats want to say no to all that, let them go on the record.
Democrats like Biden don’t want to look at solutions that might actually do something about addressing such situations such as making the schools more secure with things like single-point entry at schools as Andrew Pollack, whose daughter Meadow was killed in the Parkland shooting, advocates.
Then you might also want to try to enforce the laws that already exist and follow up on the warning signs that always seem to be there in such cases. It’s easy to shout “do something.” It’s harder to try to deal with difficult issues in a way that will truly have a result.
But Democrats have instead concentrated on things like “defund the police” which has made things harder. We’ve also seen progressive prosecutors not holding criminals to account. We see a lack of consequence for a lot of criminal actions now. Even in the case of Hunter Biden, gun laws weren’t enforced when it came to him allegedly not truthfully responding about his past drug use in filling out an application for a gun.
What we should be looking to stop is criminal action, not trying to once again further demonize guns, and once again not truly addressing the issues.
Most aspects of American life today are more secure than the average elementary school. It takes more to walk into most concerts than it does to enter into most schools. Is that ok with you? If we can have measures in place to protect attendees to sporting events, surely we can do the same for our children.
I hope that this time we can actually focus on getting something done, instead of immediately retreating to our partisan corners and fighting with each other. If our leaders are truly interested in making our children safe, they will make sure that no school in the United States is a soft target. It won’t prevent all of these tragedies, but it will go a long way to preventing most of them.
Finally, we have to admit something that we rarely discuss in public life anymore. We will never truly and fully fix this problem until we turn our hearts back to God. I know that is offensive to some, but the truth is freedom without God is not freedom, but anarchy. Laws, while important, cannot fix the heart. As the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr said, “Man cannot save himself, for man is not the measure of all things and humanity is not God. Bound by the chains of his own sin and finiteness, man needs a Savior.”
During a Thursday press conference, Santa Rosa County (Florida) Sheriff Bob Johnson emphatically supported responsible gun owners forced to defend themselves. Johnson was giving a briefing to the media discussing the arrest of Brandon J. Harris, a criminal with a history of convictions.
Johnson told reporters that the police received multiple calls about a suspicious person in the Pace neighborhood, and that Harris had burglarized several homes. In one instance, he had broken into a home but fled when the homeowner opened fire at him. Harris was not struck by any bullets, but was later captured while breaking into another house. //
The sheriff then asserted that the individual who fired at Harris was within his rights to do so. In fact, he welcomed the idea that homeowners should protect themselves and their homes with firearms if it’s necessary.
“We don’t know which homeowner shot at [Harris]. I guess they think that they did something wrong, which they did not,” he explained. “If somebody is breaking into your house, you’re more than welcome to shoot at them in Santa Rosa County. We prefer that you do, actually.”
The sheriff added, “Whoever that was, you’re not in trouble. Come see us. We have a gun safety class we put on every other Saturday, and if you take that, you’ll shoot a lot better and hopefully save the taxpayers money.”