SHOT Show 2025: The Ultimate Gathering for the Shooting, Hunting, and Outdoor Industries

The SHOT Show, the largest trade show for the firearms, ammunition, hunting, and shooting accessories industry, will return to Las Vegas from January 20–24, 2025. This premier event will take place at the Venetian Expo and Caesars Forum, spanning an impressive 821,000 net square feet of exhibit space.

Exhibitors and General Attendance

This year’s SHOT Show will feature over 2,600 exhibitors, showcasing the latest innovations and products in the industry. More than 55,400 industry professionals are expected to attend, representing all 50 states and numerous countries. Attendees include buyers, sellers, and professionals from various sectors, such as military, law enforcement, and tactical services, making it a global hub for networking and business opportunities.

Media Representation

In addition to industry professionals, the event will host over 2,000 media representatives, including outdoor writers, vloggers, bloggers, and other journalists. These media professionals will cover the event extensively, ensuring that the innovations and developments on display reach a global audience. They will have access to a full-service press room, exhibitor press releases, and digital press kits to support their reporting.

A Trade-Only Event

The SHOT Show is exclusively a trade-only event, meaning it is not open to the general public. Attendance is restricted to professionals within the shooting, hunting, and outdoor industries, as well as commercial buyers and sellers of military and law enforcement products. All attendees must be at least 16 years old.

Key Highlights

• Over 2,600 exhibitors presenting cutting-edge products and services.

• More than 55,400 attendees, including professionals from diverse industry sectors.

• 2,000+ media representatives providing global coverage.

The SHOT Show remains the premier destination for the shooting and outdoor industries, offering unparalleled opportunities for networking, education, and exploration of the latest advancements. For further details, visit the official SHOT Show website at SHOTShow.org.

Domestic Violence Allegations: The Need for Fair Scrutiny

Domestic violence is a serious issue, but it’s also a topic that has been prone to exaggeration and misuse in legal and social contexts. Allegations can and often do destroy lives, particularly when the evidence is scant and the consequences severe.

The Nature of Domestic Violence

Domestic violence doesn’t always manifest as physical abuse; verbal insults and threats can be equally hurtful. However, much of this behavior stems from learned patterns. If someone grows up in a household where violence or hostility was normalized, they may inadvertently adopt those behaviors.

That said, it’s crucial to distinguish between genuine abuse and conflicts that are part of normal relational dynamics. Words can indeed hurt, but labeling every argument or harsh exchange as “domestic violence” waters down the gravity of real abuse.

Media Influence and Legal Overreach

The push to investigate and enforce domestic violence laws gained traction in the 1980s, fueled by media campaigns. These campaigns often spotlighted extreme cases, pressuring lawmakers to create or strengthen legislation. While well-intentioned, this fervor has led to a system where allegations alone can result in severe consequences, even without substantial evidence.

Child custody battles and the exclusive use of shared residences are frequently at the heart of these cases. These disputes often devolve into “he said, she said” scenarios. Since most incidents occur behind closed doors, physical evidence, such as injuries, becomes critical—but even then, interpretation can be subjective. For instance, bruises might indicate defensive injuries, or they could result from restraint. Without clear evidence, the accused is often at a disadvantage.

Restraining Orders and the Impact on Lives

Restraining orders are issued liberally, often with minimal evidence, as judges fear media backlash if someone were to get hurt after an order was denied. These orders can lead to significant disruptions in the accused’s life. In cases involving firearms, for example, police may break in to dwellings to confiscate weapons from the accused—even if there’s no indication the weapons played any role in the alleged incident.

For those in professions like law enforcement or security, such orders can mean immediate suspension from their jobs, even before a case is resolved. The system errs on the side of caution, but this often comes at the expense of fairness.

Long-Term Consequences of Allegations

A domestic violence conviction carries lifelong repercussions. Beyond the immediate legal penalties, it permanently labels the accused as an abuser, barring them from owning firearms, limiting employment opportunities, and tarnishing their reputation. Even without a conviction, the stigma of an accusation can follow someone indefinitely.

In many cases, the burden of proof is unfairly shifted onto the accused. Instead of being presumed innocent, the accused must often prove their innocence—a reversal of the foundational principles of justice.

A Need for Balanced Assessment

The prior conduct of the accused is one of the most reliable indicators of guilt or innocence. If someone has no history of violence or similar allegations, this should weigh heavily in their favor. However, in many cases, this context is ignored in favor of a “better safe than sorry” approach that disproportionately harms the accused.

Conclusion

Domestic violence is a real problem that deserves attention and resources. However, the system’s current approach often punishes the innocent and overextends its reach. A balanced, evidence-based approach is essential to ensure justice for both the accuser and the accused. False or exaggerated allegations not only harm the accused but also undermine the credibility of genuine victims, diluting the seriousness of this critical issue.

The Erosion of Fair Trials: Media Circus and Public Opinion Taint Justice

True crime enthusiasts, bloggers, and pundits always frustrate me. They claim to seek justice but too often undermine its very foundation by injecting bias and speculation into criminal cases. The ongoing saga surrounding the Idaho murder trial of Bryan Kohberger is a textbook example of how outside influences taint our justice system.

On November 13, 2022, four University of Idaho students—Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin—were brutally stabbed to death in their off-campus residence in Moscow, Idaho. Authorities allege the victims were attacked while they slept. A suspect, Bryan Kohberger, was later arrested, with police citing DNA evidence found on a knife sheath at the scene, cell phone tracking data, and witness statements.

From the moment Kohberger was identified, a frenzy ensued. Bloggers, podcasters, and self-styled crime experts wasted no time casting judgment, often ignoring the cornerstone principle of our legal system: the presumption of innocence. Despite pleading not guilty—an act that merely invokes the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—Kohberger became the target of venomous hate and outrage.

Pretrial Publicity: Poisoning the Well

The situation deteriorated further when the local judge approved a change of venue to Boise, Idaho, citing overwhelming pretrial publicity. This decision, intended to ensure impartial jurors, was met with resistance from the true crime community. The same people who demand “justice for the victims” seem to have little understanding of—or respect for—the need for unbiased juries who will base their verdict solely on courtroom evidence.

What’s worse, the dissemination of incomplete or misunderstood evidence fuels speculation. Reports about DNA evidence, cell phone tracking, and eyewitness accounts quickly morph into assumptions of guilt. When experts challenge the reliability or interpretation of this evidence, the public outcry grows louder.

Let’s be honest: in today’s world, jurors are rarely uninfluenced. Despite legal admonitions to avoid external information, many will inevitably Google case details or read media coverage. This reality makes it nearly impossible for defendants, especially in high-profile cases, to receive fair trials.

The Role of Media Pundits

Figures like Nancy Grace—whom I unapologetically dub “Nancy Disgrace”—exacerbate the problem. They parade sensationalized narratives, stoking public outrage and poisoning the well of public opinion. High-profile cases are treated as entertainment rather than serious legal matters, turning trials into media circuses.

For instance, look no further than the Scott Peterson case, where a man was convicted of killing his wife, Laci Peterson, without any actual evidence of her cause of death. Or the Rebecca Grossman case in Westlake Village, California, involving the tragic deaths of two little boys struck by a vehicle. The facts of these cases were obscured by public demand for retribution, often at the expense of objective legal processes.

A Broken System

The Kohberger trial highlights a growing problem in our society: we claim to value fair trials, but our actions say otherwise. True crime fanatics, biased media, and the unrelenting internet chatter all conspire to rob defendants of impartial justice. Even when guilty individuals stand trial, they deserve verdicts rooted in evidence, not in hysteria.

If we are serious about justice, we must take concrete steps to shield our courts from outside interference. High-profile juries should be sequestered from the moment they are selected, stripped of access to smartphones, laptops, and media. Until we address these systemic flaws, the integrity of our justice system will remain under siege, and fair trials will be little more than a hollow ideal.

Journalism: A Career? Not Anymore.

Journalism was once a noble and rewarding career path. The pay was decent, and the profession demanded exceptional talent. To succeed, you needed strong writing skills, the ability to uncover hard-to-find information, and a solid understanding of government operations at all levels. Mastery of the criminal justice system and expertise in filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests were essential tools of the trade.

Today, both broadcast and print media are on life support. High-paid reporters and producers have been pushed out, and pay raises are a thing of the past. In fact, some journalists in major markets now qualify for food stamps—a shocking reality for what was once considered a prestigious profession.

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has dealt another blow to journalism. AI can take a mediocre draft, polish it in seconds, and churn out copy that reads like it was written by a seasoned professional. AI also simplifies research, providing step-by-step guidance on finding information. It can even draft and send FOIA requests to the correct recipient without you lifting a finger.

Deadlines? They’ve become irrelevant. AI can complete a story in minutes, leaving little room for the painstaking effort that once defined quality journalism. As a result, almost anyone with basic skills can produce work that could compete for a Pulitzer Prize.

The future of news is even more unsettling. AI-powered anchors and reporters are on the horizon, poised to replace their human counterparts. Video journalists and field reporters may still have a role, but they’ll likely follow AI-generated instructions on what questions to ask and which shots to capture.

Institutions like Northwestern and Columbia, long known for training top-tier journalists, will have to adapt. Their focus will shift to teaching students how to leverage AI for news gathering and publishing.

The industry has changed dramatically, and not necessarily for the better. Journalism as a career may soon be a relic of the past, replaced by an AI-driven model that values speed and efficiency over human insight and skill.

Sarah McBride: Breaking Barriers, Sparking Debates, and Maybe Some Bathroom Confusion

The rise of transgender popularity in the U.S. is undeniable. The Internet is full of stories about people—mostly men transitioning to women—embracing their “true” selves. Some even take the ghastly surgical route, which, let’s be honest, isn’t for the faint of heart.

Transgender individuals are making waves everywhere—on police forces, beauty pageant stages, and soon, maybe even as evening news anchors. Many might not win a “Miss Congeniality” award, but beauty is subjective, right?

Enter Sarah McBride, a trailblazing transgender politician from Delaware who made history by snagging a seat in Congress. Naturally, this led to the inevitable bathroom debate. In a building where even finding a decent parking spot is a Herculean task, building a third bathroom might be a stretch. But here’s a simple fix: a sign that says “Occupied—Give Me a Minute” works wonders. Let’s not sweat the small stuff.

Congress, after all, is supposed to represent everyone. Transgender people are part of the fabric of our society, so why not have a voice at the table? The real concern isn’t someone’s wardrobe or pronouns but their loyalty to America and the ability to keep America thriving—secure borders, economic growth, peace and all that jazz.

McBride is a liberal Democrat from Delaware, so naturally, conservatives should be wary. But imagine if McBride becomes the bridge-builder Congress desperately needs. If both sides can ditch the name-calling and focus on what really matters, we might just get somewhere.

In the meantime, let’s give McBride a fair shot. After all, America is a melting pot, and there’s room in the recipe for everyone—even if some ingredients are a little spicier than others.

The Death of Firearms Control in the United States

Any hope of effectively controlling firearms in the United States is dead. While politicians can continue drafting restrictive gun laws, advancements in technology and pivotal court decisions have rendered such efforts largely meaningless.

Today, anyone with access to a $200 3D printer can easily manufacture firearm components. These devices, guided by downloadable computer programs, can produce a perfect frame for a semi-automatic pistol. Since polymer-framed guns like Glocks require no traditional machining, they are particularly easy to replicate. The frame of a firearm is the regulated and serialized component under federal law, but a homemade frame bypasses these regulations entirely, allowing individuals to produce guns in secret. Importantly, 3D printers are common among hobbyists and are used to make a wide variety of items, further obscuring their potential use for firearm creation.

In addition to these technological advances, legal developments have further dismantled gun control efforts. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), redefined the constitutional landscape by striking down laws that impose undue restrictions on the Second Amendment. This ruling has effectively ended requirements for serialization and other gun control measures. Under existing laws, authorities can still confiscate firearms from prohibited individuals—such as violent felons or those deemed mentally ill—but such enforcement happens only after possession is discovered.

This combination of technology and legal precedent creates a new reality where criminals and other bad actors can manufacture untraceable firearms with minimal effort, ensuring an endless supply of weapons. While being caught in possession of such firearms can result in severe penalties, the ease of private manufacturing makes prevention nearly impossible.

The conclusion is stark: the rapid advancement of 3D printing technology, combined with the constitutional protections reinforced by Bruen, has rendered traditional firearms regulations obsolete. Whether for better or worse, meaningful gun control in the United States is a relic of the past.  Politicians just don’t get it. Gun laws only impact the law abiding.  

Gaza and October 7th Reimagined: A Vision of What Could Have Been

Imagine if the people of Gaza had cast aside hatred and chosen friendship with Israel instead. Picture the prosperity that could have emerged from cooperation and trade with one of the most advanced economies in the region. 

Imagine a world without terrorism—where there are no hostages, and Gaza’s homes, apartments, and businesses remain intact, thriving instead of reduced to rubble.

Think of hospitals serving as places of healing, not as shields for terrorist operations. Envision schools dedicated to educating children, nurturing hope, and building futures, rather than indoctrinating the next generation into cycles of violence.

What a remarkable and vibrant Gaza it could have been—flourishing, peaceful, and free from destruction. Yet this vision was sabotaged by intolerant Islamic extremists, whose obsession with hatred and violence has only ensured suffering for generations. It’s a tragedy that could have been avoided, if only wisdom and humanity had prevailed.

The gun laws of the last 65 years dismantled as the second amendment has been re-established.

The 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), delivered a seismic blow to the anti-gun agenda, striking down an estimated 20,000 federal, state, and local gun laws that blatantly violated the Second Amendment. This landmark ruling reaffirmed an undeniable truth: the Second Amendment means what it says and says what it means—the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Yet, in open defiance of the Constitution and the Supreme Court, blue states have launched a full-scale rebellion. They’ve flooded the courts with resistance and doubled down by enacting even more unconstitutional gun laws. Let there be no doubt: the Bruen decision is a line in the sand, a call to restore the fundamental freedoms enshrined in our Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment is not negotiable.

Children and Firearms: Why Training is Essential

The term “gun safety” has been hijacked by those advocating for gun control, overshadowing its true purpose: teaching the safe handling and use of firearms to prevent accidents. For children, gun safety isn’t a theoretical concept—it’s a critical life skill that could save lives.

Children are naturally curious, especially about firearms. TV shows and movies often glamorize guns, making them seem exciting and mysterious. If a child encounters a firearm, particularly one left unattended, their curiosity can lead to tragedy.

Many parents believe this isn’t a concern because they don’t keep firearms in their homes. However, children visit friends and neighbors where firearms may be present. In such situations, a lack of knowledge or training can become dangerous.

The Problem with “Don’t Touch” Rules

Standard advice like “stop, don’t touch, and call an adult” often falls short. Curiosity and excitement can easily override these instructions. Without a deeper understanding of firearms, warnings alone are unlikely to prevent accidents.

The Solution: Hands-On Training

The answer lies in proper education and hands-on training. Ideally, this training should come from a professional who can teach children:

1. How firearms function

2. Safe handling practices

3. The consequences of misuse

A key part of this training should include allowing children to actually fire firearms under controlled, supervised conditions. With proper safety glasses and hearing protection, children can see, hear, and feel the power of a gun when it’s fired.

This firsthand experience is invaluable. It demystifies firearms, satisfies their curiosity, and fosters a profound respect for their potential danger. Once children understand the seriousness of handling a firearm, they are far less likely to engage in reckless behavior if they encounter one elsewhere.

Understanding the Consequences

Another crucial part of training is teaching children the life-or-death stakes involved with firearms. They need to understand that a single moment of negligence or misuse can have permanent and devastating consequences. This knowledge reinforces the importance of following safety rules.

Once properly trained, children are far more likely to heed instructions like “don’t touch and call an adult.” Their curiosity is addressed, and they’ve developed a healthy respect for firearms through firsthand experience.

A Lesson for Parents Too

Even if you dislike firearms, prioritizing your child’s safety means overcoming that bias. Proper education isn’t about encouraging firearm use—it’s about preventing accidents. Participating in the training process with your children can also deepen your own understanding of gun safety and help foster mutual respect.

The old saying, “curiosity killed the cat,” is a stark reminder of how unchecked curiosity can lead to tragedy. Equip your children with the knowledge, skills, and respect they need to stay safe. Their lives—and the lives of others—may depend on it.