“our measure shows an uptick in gun prevalence beginning in the 1950s, a period defined by low homicide rates and peak trust in government, prompting questions about why and how more households acquired guns during a period of relative calm.”
…
“Of all the potential explanations we tested, we discovered that the post-Second World War economic boom and relaxed federal gun regulations most drove the surge in demand for guns. As unemployment rates decreased and incomes increased, firearms – once deemed a luxury or practical necessity – grew within reach for more and more Americans. Simultaneously, cultural attitudes surrounding gun ownership may have shifted, as multiple generations of Americans returning from the Second World War, the Korean War and the Vietnam War became accustomed to owning and using guns.”
…
“McKevitt shows, surplus war firearms flooded the US market at dirt-cheap prices. This influx was facilitated by the ‘new gun capitalists’, a group of little-known entrepreneurs who imported and sold these guns to US consumers. They reshaped the US gun industry by establishing a mass market for civilian guns that had limited practical use elsewhere and faced stricter regulations in other countries. Capitalising on the surplus of inexpensive imported firearms, the new gun capitalists learned how to stimulate demand through marketing foreign guns as desirable consumer goods for the everyday American. They mass-marketed these imported guns to consumers flush with cash and eager to acquire these one-of-a-kind war arms from across the globe.”
…
“When considering explanations for Americans’ unique gun culture, Hofstadter thought that perhaps it emerged from the enduring national idea that access to arms counters tyranny. He was partly right. As the new historical evidence shows, it was post-Second World War economic prosperity, abundant supply of cheap guns, along with increased incomes, that made way for the unique gun culture of the US. Once that gun culture took root, it flourished, helped along by public policy. Hofstadter’s theory is consistent with the fact that the steady rise in gun prevalence from 1949 to 1990 was made possible by lenient regulations, upheld by voters who saw gun rights as a symbol of freedom and the right to self-defence.”
…
“For much of US history, guns were used mainly for recreation and hunting, but during the Cold War the nation turned towards a new era of gun culture. Hofstadter died in 1970, the same year as he wrote his piece on guns. He did not live to see the transformation in the ethos around gun ownership to one of celebration that carries on to the present day.
Hofstadter believed Americans armed themselves against tyranny from above, but today’s reality is different. Guns, primarily used for hunting and sport in the mid-20th century, became largely owned for protection against fellow civilians – a reflection of a modern fear, the tyranny of uncertainty from each other.
In a country in which tens of millions of people own guns, public safety becomes a personal responsibility, and so individuals often decide that it is in their best interest to protect themselves by buying a gun. This desire to be protected against those who have guns by getting a gun, multiplied across millions of people, has resulted in an arms race that makes everyone less safe. Historical events along with policy choices have shaped this explosion in gun ownership, leading to a society in which many people have grown to associate guns with a sense of personal security.”
“The House Foreign Affairs Committee has long been seen as one of the few corners of relative bipartisanship in Congress. Democrats on the panel are warning incoming Chair Brian Mast is about to blow that up.
Three Democratic staffers said Mast is expected to focus on divisive culture war issues and that his previous incendiary statements on the Middle East and Ukraine will make it difficult to get any across-the-aisle work done.
“The days of bipartisanship and collegiality on the committee could be over,” said one staffer, a sentiment echoed by the two others, who were granted anonymity to speak freely about internal conversations. “There are moments when Mast is a level-headed guy, but those are rare. It doesn’t happen very often.”
The House Foreign Affairs Committee holds considerable sway over U.S. foreign policy. Its top Democrat and Republican can block or slow-walk weapons transfers to foreign countries. The committee’s mandate also allows it to scrutinize initiatives by the State Department and other agencies, chart major foreign policy priorities, design sanctions and shape the country’s national security strategy.
Those are the type of issues and crises that Democrats and Republicans have traditionally tried to put aside some of their partisan rancor to solve. Outgoing Foreign Affairs Chair Michael McCaul of Texas took pains to work with Democrats on legislation to support Israel and Ukraine, address the rise of China and publicly show that the committee’s members were working across party lines to advance U.S. national security interests around the world.
Mast’s imminent selection came as a very unwelcome shock to committee Democrats. The assumption had been that either committee Vice Chair Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) or Helsinki Commission Chair Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), both more moderate Republicans, would prevail.
Mast has alienated some staunch Democratic supporters of Israel with incendiary comments about Palestinians. And his hardline views on Ukraine could upend the bipartisan consensus under McCaul that U.S. support for Ukraine should continue and that restrictions on Kyiv’s use of donated weapons should be lifted.
In an interview, Mast reiterated his commitment to giving the State Department “a colonoscopy” to examine how money is spent and to pursuing an “America first” foreign policy on the committee.”
…
“Mast separates him from some more moderate critics of the Biden administration’s Ukraine policy, including Trump’s pick to be secretary of State, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. Rubio opposed supplemental funding as well, but the Florida Republican argued that his vote was in protest over a lack of funding for tighter security measures at the U.S. southern border. That said, Mast did previously back Ukraine receiving NATO membership and a no-fly zone in Ukraine, a stance that puts him in line with the staunchest allies of Kyiv in both parties.
And the committee could still accomplish bipartisan work on China. Mast, like McCaul and many committee Democrats, supports a tougher line on Beijing. He could also find some common ground with Democrats on policy towards Israel and the Middle East, including the need to provide Israel with defensive weaponry and counter Iranian aggression.
Democrats are expressing hope that the pressures of leadership will change the way he approaches committee work and his relationships with Democrats.”
“Nunes previously served as a Republican lawmaker from California and was chair of the House Intelligence Committee.
“Devin will draw on his experience … and his key role in exposing the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, to provide me with independent assessments of the effectiveness and propriety of the U.S. Intelligence Community’s activities,” Trump said Saturday in a Truth Social post.
The board “has access to all information necessary to perform its functions,” according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as well as direct access to the president.
Nunes has led Trump Media since late 2021. His selection to lead the Intelligence Advisory Board further ties the company to the incoming Trump administration. Linda McMahon, Trump’s pick to lead the Education Department, and Kash Patel, who has been tapped to become FBI director, both sit on Trump Media’s board alongside the president-elect’s son, Donald Trump Jr.”
“Trump’s decision to nominate Patel has proven particularly controversial, since his principal qualification appears to be his sycophancy toward Trump. (A Trump transition spokesperson said, “Kash Patel has served in key national security positions throughout the government. He is beyond qualified to lead the FBI and will make a fantastic director.”)
Many observers, including former federal law enforcement officials, oppose Patel’s nomination on the grounds that he would likely use the FBI to pursue Trump’s political opponents and that he might substantially corrupt the culture and professionalism of the bureau. To some, Patel calls to mind the specter of J. Edgar Hoover, the infamous FBI director whose nearly 50-year stint running the agency until 1972 was marked by egregious abuses of power — including illegal surveillance, blackmail and the harassment of political dissidents.
Patel clearly lacks the qualifications, experience and temperament to lead the agency. But how worried should the American public really be about him at the helm of the FBI?
The truth is that there are stronger internal and external safeguards in place against law enforcement abuses than during the Hoover era. He will indeed face some constraints because of the culture and bureaucracy of the FBI. But they may not contain him. And he will have plenty of opportunity to damage the bureau and its work — and to use and abuse the FBI for political ends. His nomination poses a considerable and unjustifiable risk to the country.”
Most of the “mysterious” drone sightings over New Jersey are not mysterious at all. They are basic things that are often in the sky, like stars, planets, commercial aircraft, police drones, and hobbyists’ legally operated drones.
There could be government red team drones, or corporations could be testing new drones, or even something more interesting, but it’s also possible that all the sightings are normal things.
“Jeff Bezos, Larry Fink and Donald Trump’s Treasury pick Scott Bessent all agree: Turbocharging economic growth is the best route to reining in the U.S.’s massive $36 trillion debt. History is not on their side.
Bessent warns that this is the “last chance” for the country to grow its way out of the record debt without becoming a “European-style socialist democracy.” Fink, who heads the world’s largest asset manager BlackRock, urged the incoming administration in an Election Day op-ed to promote artificial intelligence and infrastructure investments to grow the economy and tame the deficit. And Amazon founder Bezos told economic power brokers at the DealBook Summit this month that the only way to solve the problem is to expand the economy by 3 to 5 percent a year while simultaneously trimming annual deficits.”
…
“That’s a tall order that few modern presidents have managed to achieve for any sustained period. Bill Clinton famously generated budget surpluses while the economy soared at rates of more than 4 percent in the late 1990s. Ronald Reagan brought down deficits in 1984 and 1987 but otherwise ran up the red ink. And Trump himself will face even more significant challenges if he follows through on tax and tariff pledges that budget forecasters say could add $4.1 trillion to $15.6 trillion to the debt over the next decade.
Trump promised during the campaign that a combination of lower taxes, more energy production, looser regulations and punishing tariffs would generate “explosive” growth to pay down the debt. And government budgets would shrink by “trillions,” he said, with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy tasked with tackling government waste.
But Trump has also vowed that he won’t touch entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, which are by far the chief drivers of the debt and are projected to be insolvent by the mid-2030s. Imposing tariffs on imports could trigger reprisals that would harm growth, and even if they didn’t, many economists believe it would take a historic economic boom to meaningfully address the country’s fiscal challenges.
“You can’t improve this with growth,” said Tom Porcelli, the chief U.S. economist at PGIM Fixed Income. “You’d have to have 5 percent growth for a pretty decent amount of time to have any real notable impact.””
…
” Fiscal watchdogs and credit-rating agencies have been clanging alarms for years about the U.S.’s growing debt, which is the accumulation of annual budget deficits. Rising deficits — which can be inflationary and push up interest rates — could become more acute as the population ages and spending for mandatory entitlement programs climbs. Even steep cuts to discretionary federal programs wouldn’t make a meaningful dent in the debt without extensive structural reforms.”
“There have been over 322 school shootings in the United States in 2024, according to a report by data scientist David Riedman in his independent K-12 School Shooting Database. Riedman found that there have been at least 210 victims, both deceased and wounded.
The number is slightly lower than the report for 2023 of 349 school shootings — the highest number between 1966 and 2023. In 2023, there were least 249 victims reported as a result of school shootings.
These numbers do not include shootings on college campuses, but they do include gang and domestic violence, shootings at sports games and other after-school events, escalated fights, accidents and suicides.”
“House Agriculture Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) said Saturday that he will oppose any spending measure that leaves out the billions in extra aid farm state Republicans were seeking for farmers still reeling from Donald Trump’s 2018 trade war, inflation, a delayed five-year farm bill reauthorization and a raft of other economic pressures. Republicans in agriculture-heavy states and some Democrats have warned about a crippling economic crisis hitting rural America, which overwhelmingly supported Trump in the last election.”