# data[].attributes.body
1.

# data[].attributes.body
-https://www.cnn.com/
--https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
-https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html
-http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604
-https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

# data[].attributes.body
1. Roughly 371 million firearms were owned by U.S. civilians and domestic law enforcement in 2014. Of these, about 146 million or 39% were handgun

2. Civilians accounted for 80% of non-military gun industry revenues in 2012

3.  Handguns comprised 52% of all new guns sold to civilians and law enforcement in 2014, as compared to 35% in 2000.

4. 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015

5. 11,385 people died on average annually in firearm incidents in the US between 2001 and 2011.

6. There were 64 school shootings in 2015

7. In 2014 nearly 32% of Americans own a gun

8. Roughly 371 million firearms were owned by U.S. civilians and domestic law enforcement in 2014. Of these, about 146 million or 39% were handguns

9. The US rate over that period is 4.5 gun-related homicides per 100,000 people.

10. Roughly 16,459 murders were committed in the United States during 2016

# data[].attributes.body
Check the assault rifle ban from 1994-2004 and see if that was effective at all
What about gun show loopholes and mental health checks too (HIPPA privacy)

# data[].attributes.body
Causes:
-The number of people in the United States that are being harmed by firearm each year.
- mental illness

Effects:
-Since restrictions are being placed on guns, many people go behind the laws and do illegal things, like posses them without a license.
-Many shooting are ocuuring
-Many lives are being lost

# data[].attributes.body
Gun control is a growing problem in the United States. Many officials are trying to
-impose intense background checks all states need same laws
-ban on all guns
-

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Washington police department has come under fire after turning an immigrant who called police for help over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

The Tukwila Police Department said officers were not acting "with malice" when they arrested the man after they mistook an administrative warrant issued by ICE for a judicial warrant.

The man had called police with concerns over a "suspicious person" trespassing onto his property at around 5:30 a.m. on Thursday, police said in a Facebook post.

Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now

"As with every incident, we establish the identity of those involved. During our normal process of verifying the identities, an outstanding warrant issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement was discovered," the department said.

Tukwila Police said the man "proactively acknowledged" that he had a warrant and was allowed by officers to contact a lawyer and call a friend before officers transferred him to ICE agents, who took him into custody.

"In this particular case, officers were informed there was a warrant, verified that the warrant was valid and transferred the individual named in the warrant over to the issuing authority," police said.

Only after the man's arrest did they realize the warrant had been an administrative one from ICE, rather than a judicially issued warrant.

A judicial warrant is an official court document signed by a judge, meaning "there has been due process backed by probable cause," Susan Gottehrer of the New York Civil Liberties Union explained in a post on immigration nonprofit Long Island Wins's website.

"An administrative warrant is simply a document signed by an ICE agent," she says, adding that it does not "pass constitutional muster."

Gottehrer adds that "you do not have to open the door" if agents show up at your home with an administrative warrant.
Read more: As U.S. clamps down on immigration, Canada accepts record number of asylum seekers
While the department did not issue an apology over the incident, it said in an updated post that its officers will no longer be responding to administrative warrants issued by ICE or collaborate with the agency.

The department said it has made other police chiefs in the region aware of the issues they may encounter in the future around warrants and also said it had met with immigrant advocates to "explain the situation."

"The Tukwila Police Department has worked tirelessly over the past several years to develop and maintain relations with our large immigrant and refugee population. These relationships are important to the Department," police said.

"Our goal has been to welcome and educate those that come from other countries that are oftentimes wary and or scared of law enforcement due to their interactions with police in their home countries," the department added.

But immigration advocates have warned that the damage has already been done, asserting instances like this one will create more anxiety for immigrants who are already fearful of arrest under the Trump administration's current crackdown.

"Every time people hear about this, they're going to wonder, well, if I call another police department is the same thing going to happen to me?" Jorge Barón, executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, told Kiro 7.

While Barón welcomed the department's decision to stop collaborating with ICE, he said he's "disappointed" over officers' failure to recognize that the warrant was administrative.

"I think it's profoundly damaging and troubling that this occurred," he said. "It's good obviously that they're changing the policy and they're not going to do this again, but I have to say I'm disappointed and a little disturbed they didn't know about this."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An immigrant was detained by ICE after calling police for help

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Washington police department has come under fire after turning an immigrant who called police for help over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. The Tukwila Police Department said officers were not acting "with malice" when they arrested the man after they mistook an administrative warrant issued by ICE for a judicial warrant.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
subscribe to NPR Politics Podcast podcast

The Senate began an unusual debate on immigration Monday. There's no specific bill to debate, and no certainty on how long this debate will go, or what it will ultimately produce.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

The Senate is beginning an unusual debate on immigration. There's no actual bill so far, no certainty on how long this debate will go or what it will ultimately produce. Democrats like Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin are cautiously optimistic.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

DICK DURBIN: I think the American people are going to watch this debate and hope that we do end up with something. And I think we can. I hope we will.

SHAPIRO: To discuss what that something might be, NPR congressional correspondent Susan Davis joins us now. Hi, Sue.

SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: Hey, Ari.

SHAPIRO: I'm thinking of that famous line from down the "Downton Abbey." What is a week end?

DAVIS: (Laughter).

SHAPIRO: What is an open debate in the Senate?

DAVIS: You know, true confession - I'm kind of excited to see how this week goes in the Senate because this just isn't something I've really covered before.

SHAPIRO: (Laughter).

DAVIS: What they're agreeing to have is essentially just a debate. There is no underlying bill that they're talking about amending, which is what makes this so rare. I even called the Senate Historian's Office to ask, is there any parallels to this? And even they were like, yeah, there's really nothing we can compare this to. There are no shortage of proposals on immigration. At least half a dozen pieces of legislation have been introduced on this. Obviously, President Trump has put forward his own proposal regarding what to do with people who were brought here illegally as children.

And what essentially they're going to do is jockey back and forth these ideas on immigration and see if they can cobble together a bill. Remember; this is the Senate, so they need a supermajority. They need something that can get to 60 votes and see if it can clear the Senate. It's going to take up the entire week. It's quite possible it takes even longer. They have three weeks until that March 5 deadline to come up with a solution.

SHAPIRO: But when there's no real legislation under debate, though, how does it work? Is it like each senator votes on every proposal that a senator makes? Or are they trying to write a bill together on the floor? Or - like, what's going on?

DAVIS: It's a little bit of both. So what - essentially, what the leadership - Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer will talk with their senators and they will come up with loose agreements on what kind of amendments will get votes, what the vote thresholds will be and whether they become part of a final package. I think you're going to see two things happening this week. One's going to be very public - that's the debate you're going to be able to tune into C-SPAN and watch - and the debate going on behind the scenes in the cloakrooms, in the leader's offices.

I would note that there are a group of moderate senators who are also meeting on the side, trying to come up with a solution from the middle to see if they can get their leadership and the president on board. And Dick Durbin, who I spoke with today, did say that he trusts Mitch McConnell in this process. He believes he's going to play it straight. He doesn't believe he's going to try and tilt the playing field. And they are going to at least try and see what the Senate can produce.

SHAPIRO: We've heard some senators say, perhaps pessimistically, that they think the only thing people be able to agree on is a short-term fix for DACA recipients.

DAVIS: Yeah.

SHAPIRO: How much optimism is there generally in the Senate right now?

DAVIS: The curious thing about this issue is that it is an issue that absolutely has majorities in both the Senate - House and Senate. It's just not clear that there is a political will to get it done. Again, where the president comes down on this is going to be very critical. The White House so far has not shown any ability to wiggle or negotiate on their proposal.

Part of what's the toughest part of this is the restrictions that the White House is seeking on legal immigration, specifically on family unification policies. And, yes, there is already talk that if all else fails, the best last solution could be just a one-year extension of that DACA program - maybe a little bit longer than that - to get people through the midterm elections. And they could just keep fighting over it into next year.

SHAPIRO: And if the Senate does pass a bipartisan deal, there is still the House. House Speaker Paul Ryan has said he's committed to a bipartisan DACA fix. What do you think could happen there?

DAVIS: The House is essentially in wait-and-see mode. They're not going to really move forward with anything until they know what the Senate can pass and if the president will support it. This is a much tougher vote for Republicans in the House. This is such a core issue to their base voters. Paul Ryan doesn't want to put anything on the floor that doesn't have the support of the president, that would make it an election year issue. So he wants to make sure the president's on board and it is certain to pass before he says what the House will do.

SHAPIRO: NPR congressional correspondent Sue Davis, thanks.

DAVIS: You're welcome.

Copyright © 2018 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio record.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Kinds Of Proposals Are Being Considered As Senate Immigration Debate Begins?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
subscribe to NPR Politics Podcast podcast The Senate began an unusual debate on immigration Monday. There's no specific bill to debate, and no certainty on how long this debate will go, or what it will ultimately produce. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: The Senate is beginning an unusual debate on immigration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Senate is set to start debate Monday afternoon on immigration, launching an unusual process that could lead to a bipartisan immigration fix - or leave Congress with no solution for the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who stand to lose legal protections by March 5.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., will open the unpredictable path with a Senate vote on unrelated legislation. The goal is for the Senate to vote on immigration proposals and amendments from every corner of the political spectrum. Anything that can get 60 votes will pass, everything else will fall by the wayside.

"Whoever gets to 60 wins," McConnell told reporters at a news conference on Feb. 6. He added, "There's no secret plan here to try to push this in any direction. The Senate is going to work its will, and I hope that we will end up passing something."

Many in Congress have been craving such an open debate because it will give senators to a chance to put their concepts and proposals to the ultimate legislative test. The plan carries a significant political risk that none of the ideas will have enough votes to pass, leaving Congress unable to fulfill their pledge to protect the roughly 700,000 people enrolled in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. The Trump administration's decision to end DACA, which offers protections for immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, is currently caught in a court battle.

"We're going to have something in the Senate that we haven't had in a while," said Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday. "It's a real debate on an issue where we really don't know what the outcome is going to be."

The outcome is particularly uncertain because the Senate debate is just the start of a longer process of passing an immigration package. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has not yet said how the House will proceed beyond promising to vote on an immigration bill, so long as it has the support of President Trump.

That promise has Democrats and other critics worried that the House could block whatever the Senate is able to pass. Ryan addressed those critics last week, telling reporters that he plans to hold a vote on immigration.

"To anyone who doubts my intention to solve this problem and bring up a DACA and immigration reform bill, do not," Ryan said. "We will bring a solution to the floor, one the president will sign."

The White House has not weighed in on any of the legislative options, but Trump has insisted that any immigration bill also include funding for a wall along U.S. border with Mexico.

Any deal on DACA that does not include STRONG border security and the desperately needed WALL is a total waste of time. March 5th is rapidly approaching and the Dems seem not to care about DACA. Make a deal!
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 5, 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Immigration Debate To Start As A Jump Ball In The Senate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Senate is set to start debate Monday afternoon on immigration, launching an unusual process that could lead to a bipartisan immigration fix - or leave Congress with no solution for the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who stand to lose legal protections by March 5.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
My friend Brian used to tell a charming story about the derivation of his last name. His paternal grandfather had been born "Dam." But upon arriving at Ellis Island, the first thing Grandpa Harry saw was a fruit seller, so he changed his name on a whim to Fruchter, later changed again to the more easily spelled Frazer.

At least that was the story until I offered to help Brian with his family tree a few years ago. I found his grandfather's birth record from Navariya, a town in the former Austro-Hungarian province of Galicia. Harry's name at birth had in fact been Dam. But "Fruchter" was clearly listed on that 1904 document as well: it was his mother's maiden name. And "Fruchter" was actually the surname printed on Harry's Polish passport and the name he had given when he boarded the S.S. Paris in Le Havre to come to the United States in 1930, before ever setting foot on Ellis Island. It was all right there in black and white. "Fruit seller" indeed.

Myths and secrets - some benign in the "fruit seller" vein, some far more explosive - can burrow themselves into family narratives with surprising ferocity. But genealogists come along and unpack them. We turn up the hidden arrest records and the never-discussed babies who died in infancy. We know that Great-Aunt Sadie was really five years older than she let on and that Cousin Harold had a shotgun wedding. We know that Uncle Morris, who passed himself off as British even to his children, was born Jewish in Riga, Latvia. In genealogy, we always have receipts.

And it's receipts that are sorely missing from the current debate over immigration policy. I've watched in dismay as the rhetoric has become both increasingly fraught and increasingly divorced from reality, with policy positions justified by little more than variations of urban legend-ish "fruit seller" stories.

Contemporary immigrants are demonized as bottom feeders living off "handouts," uninterested in assimilation. They skulk their way into the country through what the right now calls "chain migration," dragging hordes of unsavory associates across the border with them. As Maria Liasson of National Public Radio put it, "The message is immigrants are coming here to kill us." (For the record, those "migrants" are simply people, and the "chain" they are part of is more often called a family.)

Immigrants of old, on the other hand, are beatified with nostalgic but grossly simplified generalizations: they worked 12 jobs and never took a penny of assistance from anyone. They effortlessly adapted to American life, casting off all traces of their native countries and burning the midnight oil to learn English as soon as possible. Oh, and they walked to school uphill both ways while carrying a hot potato.

"Legal Italian immigrants didn't wave Italian flags coming into America," reads one social media meme. "They didn't riot and try to stop the election process. They didn't try to make Americans speak Italian. They learned English."

Without fail, every generation of newly assimilated Americans has looked down upon the next and considered pulling up the ladder behind them.

The objective truth that emerges from census documents, naturalization papers, ships' manifests and the like is nuanced and messy. Besides, crowing about "legal" immigration from Europe prior to 1924 is essentially meaningless, as there were almost no laws in place for immigrants to break.

Were our immigrant forebears all model Americans? Spend any time perusing census records and you'll see that many early 20th century immigrants never learned to speak English, some of them even after living here for decades. In 1911, a congressional commission published the results of a comprehensive three-year study of immigration. Of more than 246,000 immigrants working in mines and manufacturing, for instance, only slightly more than half, 53.2%, were able to speak English. Didn't take handouts? The same commission found that, nationwide, roughly 38% of charity was given to immigrants. In 15 of the 43 cities studied, more than half of the charity recipients were immigrants.

Surely none of their descendants could possibly be among those now bashing immigrants for not learning English and draining the social services system, right?

The current nativist furor is shrouded by a puzzling selective amnesia. The founding narrative of our country is an immigrant narrative. "American culture" is an evolving amalgam - one built by eradicating native cultures and exploiting slave labor, to boot - so that the definition of "American" is always going to be a subjective moving target, at best.

Of course, nativism is nothing new. Without fail, every generation of newly assimilated Americans has looked down upon the next and considered pulling up the ladder behind them; it's practically a rite of passage.

Benjamin Franklin, for instance, worried that the Germans in Pennsylvania would "shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion." "Shortly?" That was in 1751. (The reference to complexion is hardly coincidental, either, as racism plays an undeniably troubling role in our immigration history.)

"Fifty, even thirty years ago, there was a rightful presumption regarding the average immigrant that he was among the most enterprising, thrifty, alert, adventurous, and courageous of the community from which he came," bemoaned the Atlantic 145 years later. " Today the presumption is completely reversed." Those words were published, incidentally, before President Trump's Scottish mother and Vice President Pence's Irish grandfather had even been born in their respective countries.

I've seen this particular trope play out in my own family: my "greenhorn" grandfather, who arrived in 1920, was belittled by his American wife's sisters, who thought he was beneath them. One of those sisters was born in New York City in 1895, a mere four years after her mother had stepped off the boat from Ukraine. If that kind of entitlement can breed in just four years, imagine what can happen in 50 years. Or 100. Or 250.

When Rep. Steve King of Iowa asks how we can restore "our" civilization with "somebody else's babies," I say: "How do we define 'our,' exactly?" King's grandmother was once one of those very babies, arriving steerage at Ellis Island from Germany in 1894 with her family. It's all there on the ship's manifest for the SS New York, which indicates they were headed to the United States for a "protracted sojourn." I feel confident there wasn't a fruit seller in sight.

Jennifer Mendelsohn is a Baltimore-based freelance writer and the creator of #resistancegenealogy, a project that highlights the unifying nature of our immigrant past.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Missing from the immigration debate: receipts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
My friend Brian used to tell a charming story about the derivation of his last name. His paternal grandfather had been born "Dam." But upon arriving at Ellis Island, the first thing Grandpa Harry saw was a fruit seller, so he changed his name on a whim to Fruchter, later changed again to the more easily spelled Frazer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We've been winning thanks to a relatively young and skilled population. But those advantages are changing in ways that threaten to sap U.S. strengths.

Today's political arguments on immigration are nasty but they aren't unique, and they ignore the positive impact immigrants have had and continue to have on our economic competitiveness and national security.

Since our nation declared independence, we have alternately welcomed and excluded newcomers. The first national immigration law appeared not long after the United States was officially founded.

The 1790 Naturalization Act excluded non-white immigrants from eligibility to naturalize. Dozens of other restrictive policies pepper America's history as well - the Asian Exclusion Act of 1875; the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882; the 1921 Emergency Quota Act to try to keep America white; and the even more restrictive Immigration Act of 1924.

But there were also times in U.S. history when the need for immigrant labor trumped nativist sentiment. One of these was in the latter 1800s. The Immigration Act of 1864 was enacted to address labor shortages due to the Civil War. War again brought labor shortages and the U.S. openly recruited agricultural workers from Mexico under the Bracero Program from 1942 to 1964.

More: Is 'chain migration' a racist term? No, it's just you, Democrats.

More: DACA deal dud: Trump's extreme 'dreamers' plan makes no sense for America

One law has done more to make America a nation of immigrants than any other policy: The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act got rid of the national origins quota system that tried to keep America white, and instead focused re-uniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor. Since then we have grown stronger and more competitive as we have become more diverse.

Without the tremendous immigration over the last 50 years, the U.S. would be whiter, but also demographically older and smaller and less able to compete in global trade or to challenge terrorism and other conflicts.

We have had a competitive advantage over our peers and competitors for decades thanks to a relatively younger population and an abundance of skilled working-age and military-age people who have helped keep America's economy and military strong.

China's median age is set to surpass America's no later than 2020, while Japan's is already 46 years. Much of Europe and Asia are rapidly aging while the U.S. looked to remain an exception for two big reasons: immigration and fertility.

But now both of those advantages are changing in unprecedented ways that threaten to sap America's strengths.

For one, America's Latinos have kept it younger and growing. Their median age in 2015 was 28 years, compared to 43 years for whites. The non-partisan Pew Research Center has called the Latino population "the principal driver of U.S. demographic growth." But lately, more Mexicans are returning than coming to the U.S. - suggesting a wall is unnecessary.

Additionally, fertility has now dropped below replacement level. And the Pew Center estimates that without immigrants, the nation's working-age population will shrink by more than 17 million people in the next 17years - right during the period boomers are retiring.

If the U.S. stays open to current levels of immigration, immigrants and their descendants will account for 88% of population growth over the next 47 years. President Trump is proposing to cut legal immigration nearly 25%. Yet without immigrants, our demographic advantage is gone.

More: On immigration, Trump is positioned to do what Obama and Bush couldn't
POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media
Europe has chosen to compensate for population aging by allowing immigrants. Japan, the world's oldest country, has not. Instead, it is increasing the workforce participation of women and older people and turning to robotics to address labor shortages in manufacturing and health care. Japan has had only limited success with these initiatives so far; the economy is somewhat healthy but the national security implications are worrisome as neighboring North Korea grows more threatening.

Whether such strategies would work for the U.S. is uncertain. The first Baby Boomers collected Social Security checks in 2008. With our pay-as-you-go entitlements system, we need a robust workforce to make good on their checks.

We need to remember how the 1965 immigration act reshaped America's racial and ethnic composition by emphasizing family reunification and skilled labor and keep that emphasis in the future. For example, we should increase the number of H-1B visas so U.S. employers can attract more workers from abroad. In 2014, immigrants were 17% of our labor force, and the majority of those were lawful. Still, unlawful immigrants comprise 5% of the workforce, so there need to be more pathways for lawful immigration, especially for low-skilled workers.

Both sides of political spectrum want a strong, competitive America. What U.S. demographic shifts show us is that the only way to have a winning America is to have a welcoming America.
Jennifer Sciubba is an Associate Professor in the Department of International Studies at Rhodes College. Follow her on Twitter: @profsciubba
Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2GG88Av

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Our older, less fertile America needs immigration to stay competitive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We've been winning thanks to a relatively young and skilled population. But those advantages are changing in ways that threaten to sap U.S. strengths. Today's political arguments on immigration are nasty but they aren't unique, and they ignore the positive impact immigrants have had and continue to have on our economic competitiveness and national security.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
LEBANON, N.H.--()-- Global Rescue, the leading provider of medical, security, evacuation and travel risk management services to enterprises, governments and individuals, today released results of the Global Rescue 2018 Travel Safety Survey.Overall, a majority of respondents (82%) expressed concerns for their safety during anticipated 2018 travel. Nineteen percent (19%) are more concerned about travel safety in 2018 compared to 2017.

Top survey findings:

Terrorism remains the top-ranked travel threat in 2018. Fifty percent (50%) of respondents ranked terrorism among the top perceived threats, ranking it as either first or second on a list of potential threats to 2018 travel. Thirty-nine percent (39%) rated health/medical issues as a top-two threat, and 37% ranked crime as a top-two threat. Traffic accidents ranked fourth, with 18% rating it as a top-two threat, followed by civil unrest (17%) and cybersecurity/identity theft (12%). Natural disaster was ranked a top-two threat by 6% respondents.

Despite heightened awareness of the threat of a nuclear attack, including announced plans for nuclear preparedness training by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), only 5% of survey respondents ranked nuclear attack as a top-two threat.

Nearly one in five are more concerned about 2018 versus 2017. Eighty-two percent (82%) of respondents expressed some degree of concern for travel safety in 2018, including 30% who say they are "Concerned" or "Very concerned." Nineteen percent (19%) indicated greater concern about travel safety this year compared to 2017.

A majority of survey participants (51%) noted that travel concerns would somewhat impact their 2018 travel. Eight percent (8%) responded that their travel would be significantly affected.

"Sadly, we don't feel safe traveling to places of interest, such as Iran, Egypt, Russia. The world we feel comfortable to travel in has shrunk in the past 10-15 years," noted one survey participant. Another commented, "Globally we plan to only travel in North America or Western EU for the foreseeable future due to political, civil, and other significant uncertainties that many countries are struggling with managing."

Concerns remain high about travel to Europe. Europe remains a top-three destination for travelers' concerns, along with the Middle East, followed by Africa. Among respondents who expressed some level of concern, 73% pointed to Europe and 73% to the Middle East, followed by Africa (71%). Intensity of concern is highest in the Middle East, with 45% indicating "Very Concerned."

One respondent commented, "Going to France this year and fairly worried about being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Less worried about Brazil/Amazon than France. Who would have thought that a few years ago?"

Thirty-seven percent (37%) are at least somewhat concerned about travel in North America in 2018. According to one respondent, "Only concerned when we go to America. No concern here in Asia."

Greater concern for personal and family travel compared to business travel. Respondents who expressed some level of concern indicated that personal travel (76%) and family travel (66%) were more concerning than business travel (39%) in 2018.

Research, research, research. What will travelers do differently in 2018? Forty-eight percent (48%) responded "Do more research." Nearly one in four (22%) will change travel destinations, while 24% intend to prepare for a possible crisis.

Despite perceived travel safety issues, nearly all respondents (96%) say that they are likely or very likely to travel in 2018.

"People tend to react to the spectacular and most frightening events that gather the most media attention," said Global Rescue CEO and founder Dan Richards. "However, there are less spectacular albeit more likely events that will negatively affect travel. Certain risks such as minor injuries, illnesses and car accidents cannot be predicted or fully preventable. Careful planning and preparation are always recommended prior to any travel."

The Global Rescue 2018 Travel Safety Survey was conducted January 3 through January 14, 2018.The study is based on a survey of 1,200 current and former Global Rescue members ages 25 to 70 or older, with household incomes of $35,000 to $200,000 or more.

About Global Rescue

Global Rescue is the world's leading provider of medical, security, evacuation and travel risk management services to enterprises, governments and individuals. Founded in 2004, Global Rescue has exclusive relationships with the Johns Hopkins Emergency Medicine Division of Special Operations, and Elite Medical Group. The Company provides best-in-class services that identify, monitor and respond to client medical and security crises. Global Rescue has provided medical and security support to its clients, including Fortune 500 companies, governments and academic institutions, during every globally significant crisis of the last decade. For more information, visit www.globalrescue.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Global Rescue 2018 Travel Safety Survey: Concerns for Terrorism High, Nuclear Attack Low

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LEBANON, N.H.--()-- Global Rescue, the leading provider of medical, security, evacuation and travel risk management services to enterprises, governments and individuals, today released results of the Global Rescue 2018 Travel Safety Survey.Overall, a majority of respondents (82%) expressed concerns for their safety during anticipated 2018 travel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - A federal grand jury indicted a Sterling man Tuesday with obstructing a terrorism investigation.

21-year-old Sean Andrew Duncan is accused of altering, destroying, mutilating, concealing and covering up a thumb drive and memory chip with the intent to delay and obstruct an FBI investigation. He was charged with obstruction of justice and faces up to 20 years in prison if he is convicted.

The indictment says that in February 2016, one of Duncan's relatives told the FBI that Duncan may have been radicalized after converting to Islam. The relative told authorities that Duncan voiced his approval of westerners being beheaded in the Middle East.

Later that month, Duncan was denied entry into Turkey and returned to the United States. When he returned stateside, he deleted his Facebook account and changed his phone number.

In June 2017, the FBI learned that Duncan had been in contact with someone who had been detained in a foreign country for actively planning to travel to join ISIS. Sometime around February 2015, Duncan supposedly told the person that he wanted to make "hijrah" to Syria and that he wanted her to go with him.

Around this same time, the woman reportedly told Duncan she was upset a work because non-Muslim women were wearing revealing shorts. Duncan reportedly replied with a link to a website and message saying she could "try this;" the link contained pictures and redirected to an Inspire magazine article titled, "How to build a bomb in the kitchen of your Mom."

The indictment says that in December 2016, Duncan contacted the woman and told her that he had returned from Turkey, where he and his wife were deported back to the U.S. He told her that he thought the FBI was monitoring him.

Sometime around October 2017, law enforcement authorities of a foreign government arrested one of their citizens, referred to as Recruiter 1, for inciting rebellion. Recruiter 1 is said to be an ISIS recruiter who is suspected of drawing foreign fighters from around the world to her home country by using social media.

Recruiter 1 kept names and phone numbers of people who requested to join her social media groups. Her notes included a handwritten name appearing to be "Sean Ibn Gary Duncan," with Duncan's known previous phone number and known previous mobile messaging account.

Around October 6, 2017, the Allegheny County Police Department gave a copy of Duncan's phone to the FBI. The department obtained this copy during an investigation surrounding the recent death of Duncan's infant child.

The FBI's review of Duncan's imaged phone revealed numerous internet searches for ISIS-related material, ISIS attacks, weapons, body armor, surveillance and defense tactics, as well as paintball venues in the Pennsylvania area from in or around March 2017 to June 2017.

On December 29, 2017, FBI agents executed a search warrant at Duncan's residence. Agents knocked on the door, identified themselves and announced that they were there to execute a search warrant, to no response.

They knocked on the door and announced their intention again, again receiving no response. Agents then forcibly opened the door, identified themselves and said that they were there to execute a search warrant.

Before the agents forcibly entered the home, Duncan ran out the back door barefoot and with something clenched in his fist. Agents guarding the back door yelled at Duncan to stop. Before stopping, Duncan threw a plastic baggie over the agents' heads.

Agents recovered the baggie, which contained a memory chip from a thumb drive that had been snapped into pieces and placed in a liquid substance that produced frothy white bubbles. When agents searched Duncan, they recovered a broken casing for a thumb drive from his pants pocket.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Virginia man with interest in ISIS indicted for obstructing terrorism investigation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - A federal grand jury indicted a Sterling man Tuesday with obstructing a terrorism investigation. 21-year-old Sean Andrew Duncan is accused of altering, destroying, mutilating, concealing and covering up a thumb drive and memory chip with the intent to delay and obstruct an FBI investigation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
HANOI - Vietnam listed a U.S.-based group still loyal to the now defunct state of South Vietnam as a terrorist organization on Tuesday, the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) said.

The California-based Provisional Government of Vietnam, led by U.S. citizen Dao Minh Quan, established groups inside Vietnam to "execute acts of terrorism and sabotage, and assassinate officials", the ministry said in a statement.

A Vietnamese naval soldier stands guard in the South China Sea in this 2013 file photo. Reuters

Quan was a "former lieutenant" of the U.S.-backed Republic of Vietnam, the statement said, referring to the now defunct state, also known as South Vietnam, which once ruled the southern half of the country until the Vietnam War ended in 1975.

Quan did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A U.S. Embassy spokesman in Hanoi said the organization is not designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.

Despite sweeping economic reform in Vietnam, and increasing openness toward social change, including gay, lesbian and transgender rights, the ruling Communist Party retains tight media censorship and does not tolerate criticism.

Earlier this month, Vietnam jailed four men for flying the flag of South Vietnam. The flag, a bright yellow rectangle with three thin horizontal stripes, is used by political activists in Vietnam who oppose the Communist-controlled government in Hanoi.

A video on a website the MPS said was operated by Quan's group showed a convoy of cars moving through a U.S. town, some of which were flying the flag of South Vietnam. The website describes Quan as the "Prime Minister" of the Provisional Government of Vietnam.

In late December, a Vietnamese court jailed 15 people for their part in an alleged April bomb plot by Quan's group at Tan Son Nhat airport, the transport hub which serves Ho Chi Minh City - formerly known as Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam.

Fifteen people acted on instructions from an overseas group which had used social media to spread propaganda and recruit its members, local media said, citing the court indictment.

Vietnam, one of the top 10 countries for Facebook users by numbers, has called for tougher internet controls and set up a military cyber unit to fight "wrong" views online.

The group "planted fuel bombs in the car park and at the arrival hall at Tan Son Nhat International Airport" in April, 2017," Tuesday's MPS statement said.
Follow NBC Asian America on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Tumblr.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vietnam lists U.S.-based Vietnamese-American group as 'terrorist' organization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
HANOI - Vietnam listed a U.S.-based group still loyal to the now defunct state of South Vietnam as a terrorist organization on Tuesday, the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) said. The California-based Provisional Government of Vietnam, led by U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
After Deadliest U.S. Shooting, States and Cities Take Lead on Gun Control

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the immediate aftermath of the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, there was a fevered pitch to ban bump stocks, the device that allowed the shooter's semi-automatic rifles to mimic the rapid fire of machine guns.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gun Violence | National Institute of Justice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How Prevalent is Gun Violence in America?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sen. John Kennedy said Wednesday that the problem in America isn't guns but the "idiot" government workers who fail to enforce already existing gun-control laws.

Mr. Kennedy, Louisiana Republican, said he opposes a bipartisan gun-control bill put forth by Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn that reinforces the requirement for federal agencies to report criminal offenses to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

"I support background checks. What I don't support is federal bureaucrats' inability or unwillingness to do their job," he told The Times-Picayune. "We don't need a law to try to get federal workers to do their jobs. We shouldn't be asking government workers to 'pretty please with sugar on top, can you do your job?' "

The bill was introduced after Devin Kelley shot and killed 26 people at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, in November. Kelley was able to obtain multiple firearms legally after Holloman Air Force Base officials failed to enter his 2012 court-martial and conviction on two counts of domestic assault into the federal database.

Mr. Kennedy said he supports background checks but stands against a provision in the bill that offers financial incentives for state governments to also report offenses to the system.

"They already get an incentive for loading records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; it's called a paycheck," he said. "If that's not a good enough incentive, then they need to be fired."

"I don't think we need more gun control; I think we need more idiot control," he added. "One of the problems around this place, I've found out after a year on Capitol Hill, is that nobody ever gets fired."

Mr. Kennedy said he may be the only no vote on the bill, which is co-sponsored by 17 Republicans, 17 Democrats and one independent.

A Cornyn spokeswoman told The Times-Picayune: "We look forward to reviewing any suggestions Senator Kennedy has for ways to strengthen the bill."

Click to Read More

Click to Hide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
John Kennedy: America needs 'idiot control,' not more gun control

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sen. John Kennedy said Wednesday that the problem in America isn't guns but the "idiot" government workers who fail to enforce already existing gun-control laws. Mr. Kennedy, Louisiana Republican, said he opposes a bipartisan gun-control bill put forth by Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn that reinforces the requirement for federal agencies to report criminal offenses to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
New Mexico has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the U.S. There's no waiting period to buy a firearm, and there aren't any state laws restricting what kinds of guns people can own. It is llegal for someone convicted of a felony to have one here, and legislators are working to increase the penalty. But that may not be the kind of law gun-control advocates are looking for.

Lawmakers rolled several measures into one anti-crime package, and it passed the House last week on a nearly unanimous vote. It includes a push to increase the sentence for people who've been convicted of violent felony offenses and are caught with a firearm.

Miranda Viscoli, co-president of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence, supports the bipartisan package overall. But she said research shows that bumping up this possession penalty isn't going to help anything. "Look, if a felon knows that they're not supposed to be possessing a firearm and they can go to prison for it, they're not going to say 'Oh, now that I'll be in prison for 18 more months, I'm not going to buy that firearm.' It's just not going to happen," she said. "It just makes it look like we're passing gun violence prevention laws when we're really not."

Viscoli said the measure also risks over-incarcerating young men of color. There are a lot of gun control reforms she would like to see, but if she were to pick just one, she said it's requiring a background check for every gun purchase.

The anti-crime package is heading to Senate committees.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gun Control Advocates Say Penalty Bill Won't Help

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New Mexico has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the U.S. There's no waiting period to buy a firearm, and there aren't any state laws restricting what kinds of guns people can own. It is llegal for someone convicted of a felony to have one here, and legislators are working to increase the penalty.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
RICHMOND, Va. - Democratic legislators said Tuesday they will continue to fight for gun control laws as Republicans continued to kill bills to restrict firearms.

Six Democratic delegates held a press conference to discuss proposals such as banning weapons from public libraries. Del. Roslyn Tyler of Sussex County said gun violence has been endangering Virginians for years.

"We cannot allow this problem to get worse," Tyler said. "We cannot stay idle as gun violence leads to more and more empty seats at the dinner tables across the country."

Del. John Bell of Loudoun County touted his bill to require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show in-person "competence with a handgun." Currently, applicants can get a permit by completing a video or online training course.

Bell called HB 91 a "very common-sense bill." Last week, a House subcommittee killed it on a 4-2 vote.

Bell, who served in the U.S. Air Force for more than 26 years, noted that he went through extensive training to be able to carry a weapon. He said civilians also should receive adequate training in front of a certified instructor before obtaining a concealed carry permit.

"The current online training is far inadequate," Bell said. "It doesn't have eyes on from qualified instructors to know if that holster is properly fitted. You have to watch those things in real life, in real time."

Groups such as the National Rifle Association opposed Bell's measure. He said they should support it.

"I believe the groups like the NRA and the Virginia Citizens Defense League who oppose this bill are missing a tremendous opportunity to provide low-cost frequent training and to do a public good," Bell said.

"I believe in the Second Amendment. I'm a gun owner. But I think responsible gun ownership is important, and I believe every gun owner should have a background check and should show they were properly trained before they're given a concealed carry permit."

So far this session, Republicans have defeated several gun control bills sponsored by Democrats, including one to require background checks on all gun purchases. On Monday, the Republican majority in the House rejected a resolution to ban firearms from the chamber's gallery while delegates are in session.

Shortly after the Democrats' news conference, Republican legislators held one of their own. They argued that citizens should be able to carry weapons in places of worship.

Virginia law prohibits guns in churches and other religious settings. But last week, the Senate voted 21-18 along party lines to repeal that law.

Just as politicians are protected by armed security, members of a congregation should be allowed to arm themselves for self-defense, said Del. Dave LaRock of Loudoun County.

He stood next to a poster of Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam speaking to an interfaith group about gun violence at St. Paul's Episcopal Church last week. LaRock pointed out that the governor's security detail was nearby.

LaRock said it is not fair that the governor gets treated differently than Virginia citizens who are barred from carrying weapons in places of worship. He said it appears to be a double standard.

"The law that's on the book says that weapons are prohibited in church without good and sufficient reason, which is vague," LaRock said. "And we don't believe laws that are vague should be on the books."

He said Northam signaled that he would veto SB 371, which would rescind that law, if it passes the General Assembly.

"We pose the question," LaRock said. "He deserves armed protection in church, but others don't? We're just asking him to fill in the blank and explain to us why."
By Aya Driouche/Capital News Service Capital News Service is a flagship program of VCU's Robertson School of Media and Culture. Students participating in the program provide state government coverage for Virginia's community newspapers and other media outlets, under the supervision of Associate Professor Jeff South.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Democrats vow to push for gun control laws

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
RICHMOND, Va. - Democratic legislators said Tuesday they will continue to fight for gun control laws as Republicans continued to kill bills to restrict firearms. Six Democratic delegates held a press conference to discuss proposals such as banning weapons from public libraries. Del. Roslyn Tyler of Sussex County said gun violence has been endangering Virginians for years.

# data[].attributes.body
-Gun Control
-Terrorism
-War in Syria
-Immigrations
-War on Drugs
-Police Brutality