Too many people think that simply having a gun is all you need for protection when you hear breaking glass in the middle of the night.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Simply having a gun is not enough.
You must first have the mindset to use the gun without hesitation to defend your life and then have the ability to deliver life-saving hits on your opponent under the stress of a lethal encounter.
In this video we see a young man who lacked the proper mindset and did everything wrong.
Note his occupation, his admission that he always has a gun with him, and his understanding that his life was in danger, yet he lacked the mindset and the ability to do what was required and it cost him. He is dumb lucky to be alive.
Yes, this is a justifiable shooting. See the handgun in the suspect’s hand?
Did you identify the glaring tactical error on the part of the officers involved in the shooting?
They failed to stay in the fight, mentally and physically. Notice how after the suspect goes down, they get tunnel vision on the suspect, let their weapons hang one handed and casually walk up to him WHILE HE STILL HAS A GUN IN HIS HAND!
One of the officers even holsters his weapon as he walks up and stands over the suspect, while the suspect is still holding a gun.
Just because your opponent goes down, don’t make the potentially fatal mistake that he is out of the fight… especially if a weapon is still in his hand. He can initially be stunned yet still have enough fight left in him to press the trigger again as you approach. If wearing a ballistic vest or high on drugs, your opponent may be fully capable of taking you out after he goes down.
He may even be playing ‘possum’ to lure you in and get you to relax your guard, only to have him shoot you at close range in a fraction of a second!
You must approach your opponent with your weapon at the ready and the mindset that you will shoot again if he makes any move to use the weapon in his hand or within his reach. You do not let your guard down until your opponent is separated from his ability (the weapon) to hurt you.
Clearly, the incident was a tragic mistake by an officer with just two years on the job. This officer, like anyone else under stress, is only half as good in the field as he is on his best training day. This is all the more reason why private citizens and officers alike can never get enough training. There is quite a bit of speculation as to what happened. I do not believe the officer intentionally shot a prone man in the back.
The look of surprise on the officer’s face when the weapon discharged is evidence that the shot was unintentional. However, there did not appear to be a reason to present a handgun (or shoot) at that time. If there was a reason to present the gun, the officer should not have had his finger on the trigger unless he intended to shoot. Again, this a classic example of the adverse effects of stress in any physical confrontation.
The more lethal the confrontation, the more stressful, and the more likely you will be half as good (and half as smart) as you are on your best training day. Tragically for the suspect, a non-lethal encounter became lethal. Unfortunately for the officer, a career in law enforcement is over and he will forever carry this incident with him.
MORE TRAINING would have prevented this incident from happening.
In the wake of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary slaughter in Newtown, CT, New York state passed an “an expansive package of gun control measures” which read like a progressive fantasy: ban “assault weapons,” create a list of dangerous mental patients and confiscate their guns.
As today’s New York Times details, several problems arose on the road to peaceful Utopia. But, progressives can delight in the news that they’ve compiled a list of 34,500 Americans who no longer have 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment or 14th Amendment rights. For these folks, New York state is a Constitution-free zone.
Under the “Safe Act,” county officials were to screen and forward names from mental health workers to a state agency. But those county employees did not, generally, have direct contact with the patient, nor did the bureaucrats in Albany. The county workers, quickly overwhelmed with the volume of submissions, began rubber-stamping. The much-touted government oversight became at best cursory, at worst, nonexistent.
I have a great deal of respect for Roissy’s analysis of the female psyche. Even the mere terms he applies, in addition to being hilarious, provide tremendous insight for the average, clueless man who finds himself bewildered by the behavior of women around him. After all, what man could possibly assign much importance to the logical conclusions of a woman’s “rationalization hamster”. And many of the techniques he recommends will significantly increase the average man’s ability to get off on the right foot with women regardless of whether a casual encounter or marriage is the goal.
However, it must be kept in mind that Roissy’s social construction of Game is intentionally limited in two ways. The overly simplistic division of men into Alphas and Betas is the natural result of his laser-like focus on scoring vs not scoring. Either you score or you don’t score; scoring is Alpha and not-scoring is Beta. QED. And this singular, binary focus also leaves out the many other applications of the male social hierarchy that have nothing to do with women, much less sex. Note that this is not a criticism of Roissy’s construct or his conclusions, but rather a tangential expansion of it. Whereas in Game there are only Alphas who score and Betas who don’t, except for the Betas who learn the secret of becoming synthetic Alphas, I have come over time to view things in the following manner:
Alphas – the male elite, the leaders of men for whom women naturally lust. Their mere presence sets women a-tingle regardless of whether she is taken or not. Once you’ve seen beautiful married women ignoring tall, handsome, wealthy, and even famous men because that ugly old troll Henry Kissinger walked in the room, you simply can’t deny the reality of Alphadom. Example: Captain Kirk, Big from Sex in the City. Suggestion: Do you see a scoreboard? Right, so relax already!
But a century on, the rugged reliability and brute firepower that made the Lee-Enfield rifle the standard-issue weapon for entrenched Canadian troops during the latter half of the First World War makes it an ideal choice still for a modern group of this country’s soldiers.
The Canadian Rangers — a component of the armed forces reserves — conduct sovereignty patrols and assist search and rescue missions in the Far North and in remote coastal regions across the country.
And the red-shirted Rangers — made up largely of aboriginal volunteers — have been using Lee-Enfield rifles little changed from the First World War version since the group was first established in 1947.
“The Rangers were not issued this weapon to fight an enemy, they were given the rifle because they are operating in one of the harshest environments in the world,” says Capt. Mark Rittwage, officer commander of the 3rd Canadian Patrol Group, Northern Ontario.
“And . . . the predators that are there, polar bears, wolves, even bull moose during rutting season, can cause a danger to our Rangers,” Rittwage says.
The Lee-Enfield is still being used by many military and police forces around the globe.
That guy who invented Earth Day killing his girlfriend, hiding her body in a wall and taking off for France.
(Remember: More people died in Ira Einhorn’s apartment than at Three Mile Island.)
The stupid Weathermen succeeded mostly in blowing themselves up.
Then it eventually dawned on hippies (probably during some pot-fueled rap session):
They needed to think big, like their totalitarian heroes — Mao, Che, Castro.
Forget this penny-ante nihilism and creative destruction.
Sure, the Bible might be mostly b.s., but that stuff about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse was trippy:
Pestilence, War, Famine and Death.
Fans of Ed Driscoll may already know this one — Tom Wolfe’s eyewitness account of “life” in hippie “Year Zero” ground zero:
In 1968, in San Francisco, I came across a curious footnote to the hippie movement. At the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic, there were doctors treating diseases no living doctor had ever encountered before, diseases that had disappeared so long ago they had never even picked up Latin names, diseases such as the mange, the grunge, the itch, the twitch, the thrush, the scroff, the rot. And how was it that they now returned? It had to do with the fact that thousands of young men and women had migrated to San Francisco to live communally in what I think history will record as one of the most extraordinary religious fevers of all time. The hippies sought nothing less than to sweep aside all codes and restraints of the past and start from zero. At one point, the novelist Ken Kesey, leader of a commune called the Merry Pranksters, organized a pilgrimage to Stonehenge with the idea of returning to Anglo-Saxon’s point zero, which he figured was Stonehenge, and heading out all over again to do it better. Among the codes and restraints that people in the communes swept aside–quite purposely–were those that said you shouldn’t use other people’s toothbrushes or sleep on other people’s mattresses without changing the sheets, or as was more likely, without using any sheets at all, or that you and five other people shouldn’t drink from the same bottle of Shasta or take tokes from the same cigarette. And now, in 1968, they were relearning…the laws of hygiene…by getting the mange, the grunge, the itch, the twitch, the thrush, the scroff, the rot.
This process, namely the relearning–following a Promethean and unprecedented start from zero–seems to me to be the leitmotif of the twenty-first century in America.
Of course, that was just the beginning.
The hippies’ “free love” ethos spread old-fashioned venereal diseases and then a new one called AIDS.
Earlier this week, the UN issued a statement on the Ebola crisis that should set off alarms in every household in America.
In his briefing, Mr. Banbury told the 15-nation UN Security Council that he is “deeply worried” that the steps implemented by the international community were “not nearly enough” to halt the advance of the fatal disease.
“Ebola got a head start on us,” he said.
“It is far ahead of us, it is running faster than us, and it is winning the race. We either stop Ebola now or we face an entirely unprecedented situation for which we do not have a plan,” Mr. Banbury told the council on Tuesday via video link from the operation’s headquarters in Ghana.
Mr. Banbury recalled the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) recommendation that, within 60 days of October 1, 70 per cent of all those infected must be in the hospital and 70 per cent of the victims safely buried, to arrest the outbreak.
“This is what we are fighting for now; we are fighting to prevent unavoidable deaths. We are fighting for people who are alive and healthy today, but will become infected and die if we do not put in place the necessary emergency response.”
In its most recent situation report on the disease, WHO, which is leading the wider UN response, reported 8,376 cases and 4,024 deaths from Ebola based on information provided by the Ministries of Health of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.
The agency notes that the upward epidemic trend continues in Sierra Leone and also in Liberia. By contrast, the situation in Guinea appears to be more stable but a pattern of transmission is still of very grave concern.
“With every day that passes, the number of sick people increases,” Mr. Banbury added.
“Time is our biggest enemy. We must use every minute of every day to our advantage and that is what UNMEER is doing.”
In particular, Mr. Banbury called for an increase in the number of diagnostic laboratories, transport support and funding to help with operation logistics which would help aid the UN response to a crisis so vast in scope and magnitude.
Moreover, with the number of infected growing exponentially each day, he cautioned that UNMEER could expect new caseloads of approximately 10,000 people per week by December 1, meaning that 7,000 beds for treatment were needed.
The good news is that we know what has to be done to stop the virus in its tracks. The bad news is that we’re not even close to catching up because the international response to the crisis has been pathetic.
More than a million cases of Ebola by the end of January? Each passing day makes that scenario more likely and the spread of the disease worldwide a near certainty. Individual countries like the U.S. may initially be able to contain the outbreak, but what of our neighbors to the south?
Jonathan Last gives us “Six Reasons to Panic”:
And by the way, things could get worse. All of those worst-case projections assume that the virus stays contained in a relatively small area of West Africa, which, with a million people infected, would be highly unlikely. What happens if and when the virus starts leaking out to other parts of the world?
Marine Corps General John F. Kelly talked about Ebola at the National Defense University two weeks ago and mused about what would happen if Ebola reached Haiti or Central America, which have relatively easy access to America. “If it breaks out, it’s literally ‘Katie bar the door,’ and there will be mass migration into the United States,” Kelly said. “They will run away from Ebola, or if they suspect they are infected, they will try to get to the United States for treatment.”
Taking center stage for the foreseeable future will be a much-maligned group of citizens who call themselves “preppers.” They are portrayed as wild-eyed paranoids, or religious nuts, hiding in a cabin in the woods waiting for the Second Coming, or a race war, or an alien invasion.
In truth, they are normal citizens who have decided to take prudent, reasonable, logical precautions in case of natural disaster or a terrorist attack.
A federal regulation that banned the use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for self-defense purposes on property administered by, or subject to, the control of the Army Corps of Engineers violates the Second Amendment and is unconstitutional, according to a ruling this week by Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. This decision, granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granting a permanent injunction, follows an earlier ruling in January issuing a preliminary injunction.
With very limited exceptions, which do not include self-defense, the regulation prohibits possession of “loaded firearms, ammunition, loaded projectile firing devices, bows and arrows, crossbows, or other weapons” in the recreation areas surrounding 700 dams built by the Corps in the United States. Two residents who used Corps-managed areas in Idaho for camping and other recreational purposes sued, claiming that the regulation violated their Second Amendment rights by prohibiting them from possessing a functional firearm in a tent (a temporary home), and from carrying a firearm on the sites.
The Corps had raised several arguments in support of its regulation, such as: its recreation sites are public venues where large numbers of people congregate (over 300 million visitors annually), making it “imperative” that firearms be tightly regulated. In addition, these sites are “sensitive places,” being government property containing “critical infrastructure” that require firearm bans in light of homeland security threats. The Corps also claimed that it was entitled to be judged against a less restrictive standard of review because in imposing the ban it was acting as an owner managing its own property rather than as a governmental entity.
None of these claims was sufficient to overcome the fact that this regulation entirely “destroys” the core Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens to carry operable firearms for the lawful purpose of self-defense. The court, referring to Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014), noted that the right of self-defense extends outside the home, and the Second Amendment requires some form of carrying for self-defense outside the home. At most, this regulation would allow a person to carry an unloaded firearm without carrying its ammunition, which essentially made the firearm useless for self-defense. Because the regulation effectively extinguished Second Amendment self-defense rights, the court declared the law unconstitutional “under any light,” regardless of the level of constitutional review or scrutiny used. While government buildings and facilities could warrant protection as “sensitive” places, the court pointed out what was actually at issue was “outdoor parks.”
The message again is that the government cannot seek to accomplish its objectives — including a need to safeguard property or protect the general public — by completely ignoring the Second Amendment right of self-defense. Citing Peruta, the court noted: “We are well aware that, in the judgment of many governments, the safest sort of firearm-carrying regime is one which restricts the privilege to law enforcement with only narrow exceptions. Nonetheless, the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”
Although Chief Judge Winmill granted a permanent injunction enjoining the enforcement of the regulation, the scope of the injunction is limited to Idaho because the plaintiffs’ allegations are limited to Corps’ property in Idaho. The case is Morris v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 3:13-CV-00336-BLW (D. Idaho Oct. 13, 2014).
This week, D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier announced that the District would soon begin accepting applications for licenses to carry a concealed pistol. It’s questionable if many applicants will actually receive a license because of the nearly unfettered discretion given to the chief under the temporary law that is currently in effect. That law has numerous problems, yet the D.C. City Council appears to be intent on making the temporary law permanent.
At a hearing on the permanent concealed carry bill, which is virtually identical to the current temporary law, members of the council and Chief Lanier hinted that they may actually be planning to make the law worse. The Washington Times reports that Lanier proposed two changes while at the hearing.
First, Lanier proposes that taxi drivers be prohibited from carrying a firearm, presumably only while they are actually working. The public safety benefit of such a prohibition is not clear, but it is clear that such a requirement would pose a serious danger to cab drivers who have a very real need to carry a firearm. The law requires an applicant to show a special need to carry a firearm that requires the applicant to demonstrate “good reason to fear injury to his or her person, which shall at a minimum require a showing of a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life . . . .” Notwithstanding that this requirement all but requires an applicant to be a victim of a violent crime before applying for a license, which for some will be too late, Chief Lanier is seeking to deny a person who is in such imminent danger of the most a ready means to defend themselves based on their occupation as a cab driver.
Lanier would also like to further compound the problems in the law with places where even a licensee cannot carry a firearm. Because the temporary law and the proposed bill have several prohibited places that would be difficult for a licensee to identify, the law and bill both require that a person is informed of the existence of one of these prohibited places before they are arrested. Lanier would like to eliminate this notice requirement for “public gatherings and special events.” The chief did not explain how a licensee is supposed to tell the difference between an official “public gathering” and any other gathering of people, but she does want the authority to arrest any licensee who mistakenly enters one of these gatherings or events while carrying a firearm.
No changes were actually adopted at the hearing, but the council and Chief Lanier seem intent on implementing a law that fails to comply with the court decision that held the District’s prior ban on carrying handguns unconstitutional. Councilmember Tommy Wells obliquely admitted that the current proposal is likely unconstitutional when he told the audience at the hearing that the council would likely be forced to revisit the law in the future. Rather than passing such a blatantly unconstitutional proposal, perhaps Councilmember Wells and the rest of the council should instead focus on upholding their oaths of office by introducing and passing legislation more in line with the 42 states that actually respect their citizens’ right to bear arms.
E.R. Dickson Elementary School in Mobile, Ala., has introduced two new vocabulary words into their kindergarten curriculum: homicide and suicide. Local media outlets report that a 5-year-old was forced to fill out a bizarre safety agreement and risk assessment questionnaire containing those words after making an innocent gesture with a crayon.
The kindergartner’s mother told Mobile NBC affiliate WPMI that her daughter initially came to the attention of school officials after she drew an object resembling a firearm and “pointed a crayon at another student and said, ‘pew pew.'” After the crayon incident, the child was made to fill out a “suicide/homicide assessment scoresheet” that included questions about how often she felt depressed, “past thoughts of hurting self” and “frequency of suicidal ideas.” The 5-year-old was then made to sign a “contract” vowing not to kill others or commit suicide, all without a parent present. School officials also recommended that the kindergartner see a psychiatrist.
Understandably upset, the mother told WPMI, “My child interrupted us and said, ‘What is suicide mommy? Daddy what is suicide?’… As a parent that’s not right. I’m the one should be able to talk to my child and not have someone else mention words like this in front of her at all.”
According to AL.com, the questionnaire and contract are part of a “one size fits all” policy for dealing with threats of violence. The story goes on to note that following the incident receiving national media exposure, Mobile County Superintendent Martha Peek has promised to “rework” current policy. Good idea. While any response other than perhaps verbal correction and removal of the crayons was unnecessary in the present case, the district’s policy reflects the same sort of naïve, uninformed, and magical thinking that underlies most forms of gun control. Putting aside the farcical notion that signing a “contract” could actually deter homicidal or suicidal behavior in the first place, five-year-olds are legally ineligible to form binding contracts.
Unfortunately, the type of zero-tolerance abuse at E.R. Dickson is all-too familiar, with other students across the country facing punishment for squirt guns, pointing fingers in the shape of a gun, and even a creatively eaten breakfast pastry. Incidents like these have led NRA to support legislation in states like Florida and Oklahoma to help stop zero-tolerance abuse. Legislation enacted in Florida makes clear that “[s]imulating a firearm or weapon while playing or wearing clothing or accessories that depict a firearm or weapon or express an opinion regarding a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is not grounds for disciplinary action or referral to the criminal justice or juvenile justice system.”
The Mobile County Public Schools’ outrageous behavior in this instance should prompt Alabama lawmakers to consider this important zero-tolerance reform. In the meantime, the Mobile County Public School officials responsible for needlessly subjecting a 5-year-old to decidedly mature subject matter might want to consider their own advice regarding psychiatric help.
A new firearm policy from the United Kingdom Home Office, put in force on October 15, has accelerated the once-proud nation’s devolution into a police state. The Home Office’s October 2014 “Guide on Firearms Licensing Law” adds a new rule allowing for police to conduct warrantless surprise inspections of a gun owner’s firearm storage practices. As bad as that is, what’s far worse is that the President of the United States cites England’s gun control policies as a model for America to follow.
19.11. Where it is judged necessary, based on specific intelligence in light of a particular threat, or risk of harm, the police may undertake an unannounced home visit to check the security of a certificate holder’s firearms and shotguns. It is not expected that the police will undertake an unannounced home visit at an unsocial hour unless there is a justified and specific requirement to do so on the grounds of crime prevention or public safety concerns and the police judge that this action is both justified and proportionate.
19.12. It is recognised that there are no new powers of entry for police or police staff when
conducting home visits. To mitigate any misunderstanding on the part of the certificate holder the police must provide a clear and reasoned explanation to the certificate holder at the time of the visit.
If you figure the phrases “based on specific intelligence in light of a particular threat”or “clear and reasoned explanation” will prevent unjustified police action, think again. A recent press release from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), a nongovernmental police organization, sheds light on how law enforcement agents intend to interpret the rule.
Titled, “Police ask firearms owners: How secure are your guns?” the release reads like something put out by George Orwell’s Ministry of Love, as it intends to enlist collaborators willing to inform on their gun-owning fellow subjects. Crime Prevention Minister Norman Baker is quoted in it as stating, “The UK has some of the toughest gun laws in the world and I am determined to keep it that way… I would encourage the pubic to report any concerns they have about firearms licence holders to the new, dedicated Crimestoppers helpline.” Chief Constable Andy Marsh of Hampshire Constabulary shared a similar sentiment, but also sought to exploit the public’s fear of terrorist attack, noting, “If you are concerned that guns are being kept insecurely or notice signs that shooters may be vulnerable to criminal or terrorist groups or have shown sympathy towards extremist acts, please report it.”
With law enforcement officials using language like this, one can easily imagine how a neighborly feud or one person’s political, racial, or religious prejudice could degenerate into unwarranted persecution of a lawful firearm owner.
The new guidelines, along with ACPO’s press release, are a chilling reminder of what can happen to a citizenry who fails to insist on their basic rights. In the U.S., our Second Amendment protection of the right to keep and bear arms, along with our Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, are designed prevent such onerous invasions of privacy. Ironically, we have the British monarchy to thank for that. But such protections mean little in a society — like the one Great Britain is rapidly becoming — where even lawful gun ownership is inherently suspect.
Americans should view the UK’s ever-expanding gun control efforts with grave concern. Barack Obama has repeatedly touted the UK’s gun laws as an example for the U.S. Exploiting the 2013 shooting at the Washington Navy Yard, he proclaimed, “In the United Kingdom, in Australia, when just a single mass shooting occurred in those countries… They endured great heartbreak, but they also mobilized and they changed.”
Obviously, this latest rule was not in force when Barack Obama made those comments commending UK gun control. Whether these developments will change his mind on the superiority of Britain’s approach to gun policy remains to be seen (we have our doubts). In the meantime, consider that wherever “reasonable gun safety regulations” may begin, we already know where they are headed. For UK residents, warrantless home “inspections” by government agents, based on flimsy tips to a dedicated line for accusations against licensed and presumptively lawful guns owners, is merely the latest step in an ongoing march to civilian disarmament.
Eric Holder may have announced his resignation as U.S. attorney general, but his legacy of mismanagement, incompetence, and the politicization of federal law enforcement will continue to plague Americans for some time to come. That became even more evident this week with further revelations about Operation Fast and Furious based on information of which the Justice Department was presumably aware but withheld from the American people.
According to records obtained by Judicial Watch through a public records lawsuit against the City of Phoenix, Ariz., an AK 47-type rifle involved in Operation Fast and Furious was used in a gang-style shooting in the city that left two people injured with multiple gunshot wounds. The incident could have been far worse, moreover, as the assailants had also shot up the front of an occupied apartment building where the victims were found. The findings are detailed in a letter sent to a Justice Department official by Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government reform.
According to the letter, an AK-type rifle recovered from a vehicle fleeing the scene of the crime was determined to have been purchased by Christopher Steward – one of 40 he bought in a single day – while he was under the surveillance of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosive (BATFE). Steward was later charged with purchasing some 289 firearms with funds provided by the leader of a firearms trafficking organization. Despite the suspicious circumstances under which Steward purchased the rifles and distributed them between different vehicles, agents did not immediately attempt to seize and recover the firearms but allowed them to “walk,” apparently to further the investigation. At least two men paid the price for that decision on this side of the border (so far), while other firearms Steward purchased have also been recovered in Mexico, indicating the potential for more victims in that country.
The letter also chides DOJ for ignoring three prior requests for information on firearms associated with Fast and Furious and recovered in connection with violent crimes. It notes that the rifle seized in the Phoenix shooting was traced by BATFE on July 31, 2013, but DOJ failed to notify the committees about it. According the letter’s authors, “This lack of transparency about the consequences of Fast and Furious undermines public confidence in law enforcement and gives the impression that the Department is still seeking to suppress information and limit its exposure to public scrutiny.”
This latest revelation might not be the last in connection with Fast and Furious. A federal court ruling in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in September denied a request for an extension and ordered the White House to release to Judicial Watch by October 22 information it had previously withheld on documents related to Fast and Furious. This was the second such order, as DOJ had failed to comply with an earlier one issued in July. DOJ had sought to delay release of the information to Judicial Watch until the day before the November elections. Meanwhile, another judge gave DOJ until November 3 to turn over additional documents related to Fast and Furious to Rep. Issa’s committee.
Whatever the contested documents may or may not ultimately prove, the fact remains that firearms sold to dangerous criminals with the knowledge and consent of BATFE officials undoubtedly remain in circulation with violent gangs and drug traffickers. Thus, while Eric Holder’s disgraceful tenure will soon come to an end, the risks that he created to innocent people in America and countries to the south will continue.