New Documentary Featuring Katie Pavlich Won’t Make Anti-Gun Crowd Happy

The one-hour special debuts April 1 on Outdoor Channel and represents a break from the network’s typical sports and entertainment programming.

Hosted by author, Fox News contributor and Townhill.com News Editor Katie Pavlich, “Safe Haven” makes the case that gun-free zones are not necessarily saving lives, and may actually put more people at risk.

According to the documentary, since 1950, all but two of the mass shootings in America took place in gun-free zones. It cites a study from Purdue University’s Homeland Security Institute when asking the question, “Would having an armed security officer or a teacher with a gun make schools safer?”

Purdue’s computer models suggest two simple things could significantly reduce the number of victims in school shootings — locks on classroom doors and armed school personnel.

Eric Deitz, the Purdue institute’s director, references the fact that average response time by police called to an active shooter situation is ten minutes.

“We’ve seen over and over a single resource officer, or even an armed teacher in a defensive position between attacker and students, can reduce the number of victims by up to 70 percent,” Deitz said.

It’s an issue Dietz told TheBlaze last year must be stripped of emotion.

“The issue of school shootings is obviously a very emotional debate,” he told Jason Howerton at the 2014 NRA convention. “What we are trying to do is take the emotion out of the debate and figure out how we can save the most lives and educate the policy makers, as well as parents and citizens.”

Also featured in the documentary is Special Agent Katherine Schweit of the FBI’s Active Shooter Initiative. Schweit talks about the FBI’s data concerning law enforcement response times to active shooter situations. The FBI’s data points to “the need not only for enhanced preparation on the part of law enforcement and other first responders, but also for civilians to be engaged in discussions and training on decisions they’d have to make in an active shooter situation,” said Schweit.

The documentary points to the story of concealed carry permit holder Amanda Collins to make its case. Despite being licensed to carry a concealed firearm, Collins followed the gun-free zone rules of University of Nevada – Reno and left her weapon at home on days she was attending classes. She was raped, unable to defend herself with her firearm. Compounding Collins’ tragedy, her assailant went on to rape and kill another woman just three months later.

Collins believes had she been allowed to carry her gun on campus, her story would have ended differently.

“I know without a doubt in my mind, that there is a particular point in time, during my attack, that I would have been able to stop it as it was in progress,” she said.

Watch Amanda Collins tell her story:

Now, the Outlet Is Getting Sued

It may explode, but its maker is adamant about one thing: It isn’t a bomb.

Tannerite Sports has filed a libel suit against NBC and WLEX-TV after the news outlets ran a segment claiming Tannerite rifle targets were “bombs.”

The lawsuit alleges NBC made a slew of defamatory claims in a March 23 “Today Show” report, including:

• On March 23, 2015, Defendant NBCU released a defamatory “report” that falsely claimed that Plaintiff’s rifle targets are “bombs for sale.”
• In a related video, Defendant NBCU’s investigative reporter falsely asserted that “I am basically holding a bomb in my hand.”
• NBCU’s report contains one or more written false statements that were intended to impugn Plaintiff’s rifle targets and Plaintiff’s reputation in the hunting industry.
• On March 24, 2015, Defendant WLEX published an Internet article that falsely
  asserted that Plaintiff’s rifle targets are “ready made bombs [that] are being sold in sporting goods stores . . . .”

The lawsuit goes on to assert that “[Tannerite] rifle targets are not bombs” and that the media outlets “had no evidence” to support their public, malicious claims.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Of course, Tannerite can certainly be used to wreak massive destruction: Last year, TheBlaze covered a viral video of a man blowing up his barn with 164 pounds of Tannerite, and the Today report cited the story of a woman who claimed she was injured when a friend fired on Tannerite targets inside a refrigerator, exploding the appliance and sending shrapnel flying.

But Bearing Arms broke down the composition of Tannerite, noting that its Oregonian inventor Daniel Tanner had “perfected and patented a non-flammable, non-incendiary, extremely stable binary explosive target mixture that leaves nothing behind but a cloud of water vapor and the sound of a concussive blast.”

Bearing Arms continued:

Tannerite cannot be set off with a lit fuse, open flame, or electricity. It cannot be set off by dropping it or striking it. It will not go off if shot with a .22LR rifle, or any common handgun caliber.

Tannerite will go off only if struck by a high velocity rifle bullet moving in excess of 2,000 feet-per-second (FPS). It is not remotely a “bomb” as Jeff Rossen and NBC News claimed, and is perfectly safe and easy to use.

The “Today” report appealed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for increased regulation on Tannerite, but when the show’s reporters reached out to the company that makes the product, they got the following response: “Only girly-men want to regulate Tannerite Rifle Targets.”

When the Wisconsin Senate gathered in June of 2011 to take up a bill allowing the state’s citizens to carry concealed weapons, protesters around the Capitol building were still in a state of high dudgeon. As a result, Republicans were accused of “rushing” through “socially divisive” bills such as concealed carry and voter identification through the legislative process while the state’s attention was focused elsewhere.

Indeed, on the very day the Senate met to debate concealed weapons, the state Supreme Court issued an opinion upholding Gov. Scott Walker’s union changes. Yet in retrospect, the alleged clandestine nature of concealed carry’s passage didn’t help the bill’s supporters. Instead, it may have aided its opponents a great deal more. Now, four years later, there is scant record of how terrible their hysterical predictions actually turned out.

Naturally, there were hyperbolic predictions that Wisconsin would become the “Wild West,” where hypothetical people at traffic stops would suddenly open fire on one another. Current Senate Minority Leader Jennifer Shilling (D-La Crosse), whose parents were tragically shot to death more than 20 years ago, once argued that legalizing concealed weapons “kills people,” and that “Guns will beget guns.”

“Rational people can become irrational on occasion — good people can become bad people,” said veteran Democrat Fred Risser of Madison during the debate in June of 2011. “More guns create more possible gun accidents, and there’s going to be more gun deaths.”

Perhaps the most novel anti-concealed carry argument was made by Democratic Sen. Chris Larson of Milwaukee, who argued for exempting zoos from the law. “I don’t think we want to have someone playing ‘Big Buck Safari’ in our zoos with real animals,” said Larson, as if someone might be tempted to take a shot at a giraffe who had beat him in a poker game the night before.

Yet nearly four years later, nearly 250,000 concealed carry licenses have been issued, and one would be hard-pressed to notice any difference in the state. Total violent crimes and murders dropped between 2010 and 2011, the first year concealed carry was partially in effect. After increasing between 2011 and 2012, both measures dropped once again in 2013. Between 2008 and 2013, Wisconsin averaged about 153 murders a year, a far cry from the average of 225 between 1990 and 1995.

Further, regardless of the total violent crimes committed, it’s impossible to attribute those fluctuations to the choice to allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms. Sure, in one case, a concealed carry permit holder was convicted of shooting a man who had pummeled him, and there have been incidents where loaded guns have been left in public places.

But one of the arguments for concealed carry is that people were carrying anyway, so it’s unclear whether these incidents would have been avoided without a law. People didn’t just start shooting each other when the law passed in June of 2011 — at the very least, those who want to carry must now receive training, which makes everyone safer.

Further, these are a couple of incidents in a state with a quarter-million license holders. Now, Wisconsin citizens are able to exercise their Second Amendment right as they are in every other state, and the crimes prevented because a permit holder might be carrying are impossible to measure.

Of course, anyone paying attention to the facts would have known this to be the case. When Wisconsin passed concealed-carry, it became the 49th state to do so. And upon passage of similar laws in other states, exactly none of them became the open firing ranges concealed carry opponents feared.

In fact, it is now safer to be an American resident than at any time in recent memory. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, firearm-related homicides declined 39% between 1993 and 2011, and non-fatal firearm crimes dropped 69% over the same period. This crime recession came at the same time states all over the country were liberalizing their gun laws allowing more people to carry hidden firearms.

That’s not to say that gun violence isn’t a problem. It is, and every time a police officer shoots a suspect or vice versa, we are reminded of it. A number of high-profile school shooting cases have put the public on edge; according to a 2013 report by Pew, 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than two decades ago.

But because the fickle public believes something to be the case, doesn’t mean legislators have to ignore the facts. Instead, they continue to scare people with tales of mafia activity in the kangaroo cage, knowing they rarely will be held accountable for their bogus predictions.

The question is, how wrong do these people have to be before we stop believing them?

The Conversation That Made Veteran Cop Change His Views on Concealed Carry: ‘They Schooled Me’

Speaking before the Maryland Senate last week, a retired Maryland State Police officer and former commander of the Maryland State Police Licensing Division admitted that he once thought the prospect of many residents having concealed carry permits was “scary.” However, as he educated himself about gun owners, his opinion on concealed carry changed.

As the head of the Maryland State Police Licensing Division, Jack McCauley decided what would qualify as a “good and substantial” reason to obtain a handgun permit on a case by case basis. Maryland is a “may issue” state — meaning the ultimate decision on whether to issue a concealed carry permit is left to a government official.