The New Yorker:

Earlier this year, the International Business Times ran this bewildering headline: “El Salvador to Become Deadliest Peace-Time Country in the World.” It’s an odd turn of phrase; something about it doesn’t quite scan. Perhaps, given the context of life in El Salvador, it’s best to reëxamine what we mean when we say “peacetime.” Consider this: since the collapse, early last year, of the truce between local gangs and the government, the murder rate has risen by a staggering fifty-two per cent. Or this: El Salvador, with a population of a little over 6.3 million, registered more than six hundred murders in May, the most since the end of the civil war. (For comparison: despite its reputation for violence, Chicago, with a little under half the population of El Salvador, had forty-eight murders that same month.) Or this: more than thirty-five police officers have been killed so far in 2015. Everyone has been touched, directly or indirectly, by the chaos, and Salvadorans of every social class have learned to cope with the constant sense of insecurity. One friend likened returning home from abroad to being splashed with boiling water—and he wasn’t referring to the heat. If this is peacetime, one shudders to think what a war would look like.

I was in San Salvador two weeks ago, when El Faro, a local online newspaper, published an explosive investigation into a killing at a farm just a few hours from the capital. The article was entitled “Police Massacre in San Blas,” and it re-creates, through eyewitness testimony, the examination of forensic and ballistic reports, and private social-media postings by police who were present, the events of March 26th of this year, when eight alleged members of the gang Mara Salvatrucha were killed at a coffee plantation.

[ … ]

I met with one of the authors of the story, Óscar Martínez, the night before it went live on the Web site. Óscar is best known in the United States for “The Beast,” his 2013 chronicle of life on the harrowing migrant trail through Mexico. He’s always a bit manic, but that night, Óscar seemed unusually jittery, even anxious. He and his co-authors were all preparing to leave the country the following morning, for their own safety. This extraordinary measure says a lot about the kind of backlash that El Faro was expecting. As the violence has increased, the debate about what exactly should be done about it has become even more poisonous. Thus far, President Salvador Sánchez Cerén’s populist response has been to disown the truce that held for the better part of two years, and instead confront the gangs directly. No politician wants to be seen as soft on the gangs, which are rightly seen as a scourge. The public, for the most part, supports this strategy. For El Faro to criticize the police is to risk being seen as defenders of the gangs that everyone despises. Óscar had already received death threats for an earlier story about police misconduct.

[ … ]

One young woman, soft-spoken, exceedingly polite, detailed her life in a gang-ridden neighborhood on the outskirts of the capital. It was one terrifying encounter after another, each delivering the same dispiriting lesson: she was helpless in the face of the gangs and their malevolent power. She had done everything she could to avoid them, and still they found ways to control her life. Her father was forced to pay extortion money to one of the gangs—she wouldn’t say which one. By the end of our conversation, she was almost weeping with fury. “I’m a Christian,” she told me, “but those people aren’t my brothers. I would burn them all.”

Fill in the blanks and read the rest at The New Yorker.  Caught between brutal gangs and just as brutal police.  And coming to a neighborhood near you, through open borders courtesy of the Democrats and the GOP.  But hey.  All of that cheap labor is the bomb.

I wouldn’t worry about purchasing guns and ammunition.  The police will serve and protect you.

NYT:

The shooting looked bad. But that is when the professor is at his best. A black motorist, pulled to the side of the road for a turn-signal violation, had stuffed his hand into his pocket. The white officer yelled for him to take it out. When the driver started to comply, the officer shot him dead.

The driver was unarmed.

Taking the stand at a public inquest, William J. Lewinski, the psychology professor, explained that the officer had no choice but to act.

“In simple terms,” the district attorney in Portland, Ore., asked, “if I see the gun, I’m dead?”

“In simple terms, that’s it,” Dr. Lewinski replied.

When police officers shoot people under questionable circumstances, Dr. Lewinski is often there to defend their actions. Among the most influential voices on the subject, he has testified in or consulted in nearly 200 cases over the last decade or so and has helped justify countless shootings around the country.

He has appeared as an expert witness in criminal trials, civil cases and disciplinary hearings, and before grand juries, where such testimony is given in secret and goes unchallenged. In addition, his company, the Force Science Institute, has trained tens of thousands of police officers on how to think differently about police shootings that might appear excessive.

[ … ]

Many policing experts are for hire, but Dr. Lewinski is unique in that he conducts his own research, trains officers and internal investigators, and testifies at trial. In the protests that have followed police shootings, demonstrators have often asked why officers are so rarely punished for shootings that seem unwarranted. Dr. Lewinski is part of the answer.

Dr. Lewinski said he was not trying to explain away every shooting. But when he testifies, it is almost always in defense of police shootings. Officers are his target audience — he publishes a newsletter on police use of force that he says has nearly one million subscribers — and his research was devised for them. “The science is based on trying to keep officers safe,” he said.

[ … ]

A former Minnesota State professor, he says his testimony and training are based on hard science, but his research has been roundly criticized by experts. An editor for The American Journal of Psychology called his work “pseudoscience.” The Justice Department denounced his findings as “lacking in both foundation and reliability.” Civil rights lawyers say he is selling dangerous ideas.

Hmm … let me see.  He got his doctorate from a diploma mill (you do the research), engages in pseudoscience (which has as its stated outcome keeping cops “safe”), trains cops, always testifies in their defense, and by virtue of the fact that he is the one being called as an “expert” witness, becomes the one who is called to testify as an “expert” witness in future cases, a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy.

Yea.  You know what else might become a self-fulfilling prophesy?  People knowing that police are going to discharge weapons as a matter of first recourse, and then act accordingly.

Examiner:

A study of the growing Hispanic immigrant population declares that the country is on the verge of the “Latinization of the United States,” a “browning of America” that by 2050 will be 29 percent Latino — and politically influential.

Published in the authoritative journal “Ethnicities,” the immigration analysis by two California experts noted that while big states such as California and Florida are home to most Hispanics, there has been a recent growth surge exceeding 300 percent of mostly Mexicans to Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, North Carolina and Arkansas.

[ … ]

“By the sheer force of numbers, the kinds of adults that Latino students become will dramatically shape the future history of this country, as the former white majority becomes a minority population, at least in terms of number,” said the study provided to Secrets. It sits behind a paywall.

“Latinos have become more than an electoral voting bloc, emerging as strategic actors in major processes of democratic social transformation,” they added.

Gosh.  I sure am glad that this doesn’t effect SNAP payments, taxes, medical care, social security, emergency room protocol, or especially gun rights.  The government is in charge, so I’m sure everything will be okay.

Why won’t Scott Walker say Obama is a Christian?  Um, well, you know, because he’s not.  He’s a Marxist  A man cannot serve two masters.

David Codrea:

No.  Your move.

More David:

A Washington DC “Democrat media consulting firm” affiliated with Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (and a host of anti-gun politicians) is offering Oregon gun dealers $1,500 to allow them to film an on-location “public service announcement,” Oregon Firearms Federation announced Friday. The filmmakers need a gun store as a backdrop for an actor to tell viewers how “easy” it is to comply with form requirements …

Uh huh.  They’d better not.

Mike Vanderboegh:

… and twist old Chris Christie’s 2nd Amendment titty.

Now that’s something we’d all like to see.  By the way, I’m not sure I could name a single person with whom I went to High School.  Honestly.

Recall I said that the DoD should have a policy of allowing Marines to arm themselves?  Recall I described the current MARADMIN concerning the ownership and use of personal weapons, onerous in all of its requirements?  Well, one Navy officer did arm himself, shot at the attacker, and now will be charged with discharging a firearm on federal property.

Because they would rather he have perished in the attack.  Because they are control freaks and pussies in the superlative degree.

Military Times:

Following the recent fatal shooting of four Marines and a sailor in Tennessee, Defense Secretary Ash Carter is ordering the military services to consider new policies that would enhance security for troops at home, including potentially arming more personnel.

In a memo released Thursday, Carter urged top military officials to “develop action plans to improve the security and force protection of DoD personnel.”

His memo noted that current Defense Department policy authorizes the arming of additional “qualified DoD personnel (not regularly engaged in law enforcement activities) based on the threat and the immediate need to protect DoD assets and lives.”

Carter also urged military officials to “consider any additional protection measures including changes to policy and procedures that protect our force against the evolving threat,” according to the memo.

Another key aspect of the “action plans” should be identifying ways to “improve off-installation site security, including practical physical security upgrades and procedural improvements.”

Carter’s memo also calls for a new assessment of “mass warning notification systems and regional alert systems” to identify any problems or gaps.

Well, perhaps.  It isn’t clear that the DoD will authorize weapons in recruitment centers.  They still work for the current administration, after all, and the administration is as anti-gun and anti-personal defense as any we’ve had in our history.

This whole debate reminds me of the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki.  It split the conservative community.  Fight terrorists wherever they are, said some.  Others, like me, said don’t ever allow the President or anyone else the authority to kill citizens.  This power can be turned on gun owners and patriots of all stripes (or anyone else who happens to be out of vogue).  The debate would be muted if we actually trusted the government.

For the record, I advocated allowing Marines to arm themselves with personal weapons, although not issuing arming orders for them on U.S. soil.  This simple solution would, if adopted, solve all of the issues.  But I also pointed out the current Marine Corps Commandant orders via a MARADMIN that prohibits even personal weapons in personal homes of Marines except under very strict conditions (which would prevent their actual use in an emergency).

This question of arming Marines is a fake problem created by the gun controllers (some of who live in the military), which has real world consequences.  Solution: let the Marines arm themselves.  They’ll do a fine job.  They don’t need your help.

The Advertiser:

Retired Gen. Russel Honore’, Louisiana’s most well-known 21st Century military hero, said America is mired in a state of denial about its gun culture that’s harming the country.

“As a country we’re in a state of denial because we’ve confused the right to bear arms with the right to carry arms all the time anywhere or anyplace you want,” Honore’ told Gannett Louisiana on Monday. “We have to have a different kind of conversation in America and be prepared to speak about the politically unspeakable.”

Honore’ said the string of recent mass gun murders — culminating with the tragic movie theater shooting in Lafayette Thursday in which two victims died — should provide a wake up call.

“It breaks my heart to see that happen in my home state or anywhere in America,” he said. “We’ve got a problem in this country, and at some point the politicians have to get down into the community and find some answers to this problem.”

Honore’ had considered running for governor this fall but decided against making the race earlier this summer.

The retired army general, best known for his role leading the Hurricane Katrina recovery in New Orleans, said during his time in the military soldiers “were required to clear their weapons and turn them in as soon as they came in from the field.”

“The best place for weapons when you’re not in the field is to be locked up in the garrison,” Honore’ said. “Our biggest problem before Desert Storm was (soldiers) accidentally firing their weapons, and they’re trained.

“I’ve been around guns all my life, but when I was growing up they were locked in the cabinet unless you needed them for hunting.”

Honore’ also said he disagrees with those advocating for military men and women at recruitment offices to be armed. Some armed civilians have taken it upon themselves to stand guard at recruitment locations since the mass shooting at a Tennessee office this summer.

One such civilian accidentally fired a round at an Ohio recruitment office last week. Nobody was injured.

“I don’t think it’s a good idea to arm military at the recruitment offices or to have civilians there with guns,” Honore’ said. “That’s the job of law enforcement. On our bases, yes, we guard our gates and our bases, but not at the recruitment offices.”

Field training with weapons owned by the armory and civilians with personal weapons.  I think he is conflating very simply different issues.  Moreover, if his Soldiers were “accidentally firing” their weapons, it was no accident (we’ve learned on the pages of TCJ that there are no accidents and that negligent discharge is a much better phrase), and they apparently weren’t well trained as he is claiming.

But his uneducated, simpleton ideas aside, take note of the claim.  He is perhaps Louisiana’s most well known war hero of the 21st century.  The Times-Picayune also has information on Honore.

“We’ve got to rethink and re-set our thoughts about guns,” said Honore who played a key role in post-Katrina recovery. “We have to focus less on ideology and more on practicality.”

Aside from the civil war he wants to start, there’s that assertion again: ” … who played a key role in the post-Katrina recovery.”

It’s obvious that he’s running for something, or is trying to bolster his collectivist credentials for some consulting or political gig.  But I want to know more.  As readers know, I have submitted Freedom of Information Act requests asking who issued the arming orders for the National Guard troops who were in the field post-Katrina?

My intention was not only to learn this information (the merit of such knowledge is obvious), but use it to lead to other information, such as who issued the order to confiscate personal weapons from civilians post-Katrina?  The courts slapped down such unconstitutional antics, but it was a long time before everyone recovered their weapons.

Who issued the arming orders for General Honore, and who ordered the general to confiscate weapons?  Is this something he did of his own volition, or does the chain of command go yet higher in culpability?

General Honore knows something, and I have not yet given up on finding the truth, even though the government never intends to honor my request or federal law concerning the FOIA.  And if the reporters who wrote all of this about the general cared about real reporting rather than just parroting collectivist talking points brought to them by the handlers, they would help me find the truth.

News from the great Northeast:

MEDFORD (CBS) — A Medford police officer is on administrative leave after he was recorded threatening a driver during a traffic stop Sunday night.

“I’ll put a hole right through your head,” Detective Stephen Lebert is heard telling the driver, who recorded the heated encounter on his dashboard camera.

In the video uploaded to YouTube titled “Medford Detective threatens to kill civilian,” the driver explains that he made a wrong turn on an unfamiliar rotary at Winthrop and High streets.

The video shows Lebert, who was off-duty at the time, wearing shorts and an undershirt. He’s seen pulling in front of the driver in an unmarked vehicle, saying “now you’re done” and ordering him to roll down his window.

The driver, a software designer named Mike from Malden, then backs up before seeing Lebert pull out his police badge. He tells Lebert that he didn’t realize he was a cop.

“I’ll blow a hole right through your [expletive] head,” Lebert says as the driver pulls over. “You’re lucky I’m a cop because I’d be beating the [expletive] out of you right now.”

[ … ]

Medford Police Chief Leo Saco told WBZ-TV that Lebert was placed on leave when he arrived to work Monday morning. Saco said he couldn’t explain the Sunday night incident, but said Lebert is a 30-year veteran of the department and a good officer.

This is not the first time Officer Lebert got in trouble for a confrontation with a civilian that was captured on camera. He had to undergo counseling for an encounter during an arrest in 2012.

During that incident, he was being recorded by the brother of a man who was being arrested. Lebert poked the camera and said, “what you should do with your brother is take him up on the railroad tracks and tell him to lay down.”

The cop isn’t in a marked car, isn’t uniformed, and comes running up to a car in a threatening manner.  The driver would have been entirely within his moral rights – and perhaps within his legal rights since he could have been shot at any time as far as he knows – to have put the car in gear and run the cop over.

But remember.  He’s a “good officer.”

UPDATE: Just sent to the Medford PD chief: “My God I’m glad I don’t live in a collectivist “heaven” like you do, where it isn’t legal to own guns, and “the only ones” are the people who get to bully others around.  The driver should have put the car in gear and run the bully over.  I might have just shot him.”

I was going to comment on the fact that when folks carry weapons – whether they are defending a recruiting center or simply carrying to defend themselves – and they have a negligent discharge, they are helping no one but the forces of anti-gun politics.  I’ve harped on trigger and muzzle discipline so much that I’m sure readers tire of it, but it always pays to rehearse the rules one more time.  But David Codrea beat me to the punch.

Basic safety rules are things Oath Keepers with real-world experience can share with all gun owners. So are command, discipline and training, all vital elements whether performing guard duty or participating in an armed event. Leaders organizing such operations must make certain those joining them understand all safety and conduct rules, which should be assured beforehand and then monitored for continued compliance.

Serious business is at hand that requires alertness and attention along with seriousness and maturity. If someone shows up and is resistant to that, you don’t need him.

Good intentions on the part of volunteers are not enough, because we all know where the road paved with them leads.

To me the most interesting perspectives are found in the comments:

flinter: Perhaps it is time to tell civilians who show up at recruiting centers to leave their guns at home. Lets leave the ARMED stuff to the veterans and oathkeeping LEO’S………….I will cook for them and give them any support I can.

GIJEFF69: I NEVER keep one CHAMBERED! Wtf?

Now, these two commenters could always be trolls.  God knows there are enough of them to go around.  But I find it interesting that these comments were made at Oath Keepers.  We all know LEOs and we all know the statistics.  LEOs have their fair share of NDs.  But differentiating between LEOs and ordinary civilians is a throwback to collectivist thinking, and saying that you will make dinner for boys who come out and show moral support has the obvious intention of insulting the reader.

As for the notion of carrying without a round chambered, you can make the decision you want to, and there are times I have a round chambered and times I don’t (depending upon the circumstances that would be too involved for this specific conversation).  But for a supposed LEO to say something like that is astounding.  If you join reddit/guns and tell those boys that you carry a gun without a round chambered, you will be savaged in the comments.  And honestly, if you cannot trust yourself to carry a weapon with a round chambered because you want to handle it or touch it or are afraid you’re going to stick your finger inside the trigger guard, you probably shouldn’t have the gun to begin with.  Something is wrong with you.

All in all, the entire exchange of comments at this Oath Keepers discussion thread is technically and tactically juvenile, and the tone is highly disappointing.  I expected better.

More Chris Christie (as if anyone can really stand that):

ANKENY, Iowa — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) got into a heated exchange with a skeptical voter who accused the presidential candidate of being “anti-gun” during a town hall on Saturday, citing New Jersey’s tough gun control laws.

Responding to the man, who did not identify himself but mentioned he was part of the Iowa Gun Owners organization, Christie defended his record, refuting every claim the voter mentioned, and, at times, even raising his voice.

“Come up with one fact that shows one thing I’ve done as governor in New Jersey that’s done anything, anything not to support the rights of legal gun owners,” Christie said as the crowd gathered inside a local community college auto body shop erupted in applause. “Don’t come in front of this group of people and lie about my record, which is what you did.”

The voter accused Christie of proposing to ban .50-caliber rifles, requiring a government-issued ID for every firearms purchase and setting up a statewide firearms registry of guns and gun owners. Christie responded harshly, holding true to the theme of his campaign, “Telling it like it is.”

“I don’t know where you’re getting your information from, but your information is wrong,” Christie told the man.

Christie noted that he vetoed the .50-caliber ban, the statewide ID system and the law that was passed to reduce magazine sizes from 15 to 10.

The man in the crowd then asked if Christie is planning on pardoning Brian Fletcher, a North Carolina man who is facing prison time after telling a police officer in New Jersey that he had a gun in his vehicle, which is the customary and legal thing to do in his home state. Christie said he hasn’t made a decision yet, but is reviewing the situation.

“I’m not going to make that decision in 15 minutes nor should I. Nor should you want me to,” Christie said. “I see you shrugging your shoulders, why are you shrugging your shoulders about? You have your point of view, but have some facts about it.”

Good Lord!  Are we really going to have to listen to this loud mouth for the next year?  Chris, you are gun control collectivist from way back, and you made your fame in New Jersey pushing an “assault weapons” ban.  As for Mr. Fletcher, I do indeed want you to make your decision quickly rather than be cowardly about it.  And it should be to destroy all of the paperwork you ever had on him and tell your LEOs to stop arresting people who come across state lines with weapons, right after you pass a reciprocity law recognizing the permitting system of every other state in the country.

The fact that you won’t do that tells us everything we need to know about you.  The fact that you think we don’t want you to make your mind up about it should tell you something about yourself.  You have lived in collectivist-land for so long you don’t have even the slightest understanding of what the rest of us believe.