Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

Authored by Jordi Calvet-Bademunt and Jacob Mchangama via TheConversation.com,

Google recently made headlines globally because its chatbot Gemini generated images of people of color instead of white people in historical settings that featured white people. Adobe Firefly’s image creation tool saw similar issues. This led some commentators to complain that AI had gone “woke.” Others suggested these issues resulted from faulty efforts to fight AI bias and better serve a global audience.

The discussions over AI’s political leanings and efforts to fight bias are important. Still, the conversation on AI ignores another crucial issue: What is the AI industry’s approach to free speech, and does it embrace international free speech standards?

We are policy researchers who study free speech, as well as executive director and a research fellow at The Future of Free Speech, an independent, nonpartisan think tank based at Vanderbilt University. In a recent report, we found that generative AI has important shortcomings regarding freedom of expression and access to information.

Generative AI is a type of AI that creates content, like text or images, based on the data it has been trained with. In particular, we found that the use policies of major chatbots do not meet United Nations standards. In practice, this means that AI chatbots often censor output when dealing with issues the companies deem controversial. Without a solid culture of free speech, the companies producing generative AI tools are likely to continue to face backlash in these increasingly polarized times.

Vague and broad use policies

Our report analyzed the use policies of six major AI chatbots, including Google’s Gemini and OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Companies issue policies to set the rules for how people can use their models. With international human rights law as a benchmark, we found that companies’ misinformation and hate speech policies are too vague and expansive. It is worth noting that international human rights law is less protective of free speech than the U.S. First Amendment.

Our analysis found that companies’ hate speech policies contain extremely broad prohibitions. For example, Google bans the generation of “content that promotes or encourages hatred.” Though hate speech is detestable and can cause harm, policies that are as broadly and vaguely defined as Google’s can backfire.

To show how vague and broad use policies can affect users, we tested a range of prompts on controversial topics. We asked chatbots questions like whether transgender women should or should not be allowed to participate in women’s sports tournaments or about the role of European colonialism in the current climate and inequality crises. We did not ask the chatbots to produce hate speech denigrating any side or group. Similar to what some users have reported, the chatbots refused to generate content for 40% of the 140 prompts we used. For example, all chatbots refused to generate posts opposing the participation of transgender women in women’s tournaments. However, most of them did produce posts supporting their participation.

Freedom of speech is a foundational right in the U.S., but what it means and how far it goes are still widely debated.

Vaguely phrased policies rely heavily on moderators’ subjective opinions about what hate speech is. Users can also perceive that the rules are unjustly applied and interpret them as too strict or too lenient.

For example, the chatbot Pi bans “content that may spread misinformation.” However, international human rights standards on freedom of expression generally protect misinformation unless a strong justification exists for limits, such as foreign interference in elections. Otherwise, human rights standards guarantee the “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers … through any … media of … choice,” according to a key United Nations convention.

Defining what constitutes accurate information also has political implications. Governments of several countries used rules adopted in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic to repress criticism of the government. More recently, India confronted Google after Gemini noted that some experts consider the policies of the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, to be fascist.

Free speech culture

There are reasons AI providers may want to adopt restrictive use policies. They may wish to protect their reputations and not be associated with controversial content. If they serve a global audience, they may want to avoid content that is offensive in any region.

In general, AI providers have the right to adopt restrictive policies. They are not bound by international human rights. Still, their market power makes them different from other companies. Users who want to generate AI content will most likely end up using one of the chatbots we analyzed, especially ChatGPT or Gemini.

These companies’ policies have an outsize effect on the right to access information. This effect is likely to increase with generative AI’s integration into search, word processors, email and other applications.

This means society has an interest in ensuring such policies adequately protect free speech. In fact, the Digital Services Act, Europe’s online safety rulebook, requires that so-called “very large online platforms” assess and mitigate “systemic risks.” These risks include negative effects on freedom of expression and information.

Jacob Mchangama discusses online free speech in the context of the European Union’s 2022 Digital Services Act.

This obligation, imperfectly applied so far by the European Commission, illustrates that with great power comes great responsibility. It is unclear how this law will apply to generative AI, but the European Commission has already taken its first actions.

Even where a similar legal obligation does not apply to AI providers, we believe that the companies’ influence should require them to adopt a free speech culture. International human rights provide a useful guiding star on how to responsibly balance the different interests at stake. At least two of the companies we focused on – Google and Anthropic – have recognized as much.

Outright refusals

It’s also important to remember that users have a significant degree of autonomy over the content they see in generative AI. Like search engines, the output users receive greatly depends on their prompts. Therefore, users’ exposure to hate speech and misinformation from generative AI will typically be limited unless they specifically seek it.

This is unlike social media, where people have much less control over their own feeds. Stricter controls, including on AI-generated content, may be justified at the level of social media since they distribute content publicly. For AI providers, we believe that use policies should be less restrictive about what information users can generate than those of social media platforms.

AI companies have other ways to address hate speech and misinformation. For instance, they can provide context or countervailing facts in the content they generate. They can also allow for greater user customization. We believe that chatbots should avoid merely refusing to generate any content altogether. This is unless there are solid public interest grounds, such as preventing child sexual abuse material, something laws prohibit.

Refusals to generate content not only affect fundamental rights to free speech and access to information. They can also push users toward chatbots that specialize in generating hateful content and echo chambers. That would be a worrying outcome.

Multiple Chinese companies are focused on commercializing flying cars, utilizing a design that is different from the popular eVTOL aircraft that have been developed over the last several years, according to a new report from Nikkei this week. 

XPeng AeroHT, an affiliate of the electric vehicle startup, plans to market a dual-mode eVTOL vehicle capable of both driving on roads and flying. The Civil Aviation Administration of China is currently reviewing the aircraft for commercial certification.

Nikkei reports that pre-orders in China are set to start in October, with mass production anticipated next year, targeting tourism companies and outdoor enthusiasts. Initially priced around 1 million yuan ($138,000), XPeng AeroHT aims to reduce costs in the future and is also planning to expand internationally.

Qiu Mingquan, vice president at XPeng AeroHT commented: "Normal eVTOL vehicles cannot drive on the ground, but our model is dual use."

"If large-scale mass production becomes possible, we can dramatically reduce costs," Qiu said, adding: "The Middle East is an important market for us, given the level of regulation, openness to new things and cost."

And, hey - the best part is you almost can't even notice a difference from a regular looking car!

As is blindingly obvious from the above photo, XPeng AeroHT is developing an integrated eVTOL aircraft that doesn't require detachment, with the flight propeller folding on top during road use.

It debuted a concept model at a Las Vegas trade show in January. Meanwhile, EHang's two-seater EH216-S, capable of a 25-minute flight per charge, began sales on April 1 after receiving type certification in October. Last month, EHang was authorized for mass production and plans to partner with hospitality businesses for tourism services.

The report notes that China leads globally in eVTOL development, holding 50% of the world’s models, significantly ahead of the U.S. and Germany. This surge is supported by advancements in EV technologies like high-density batteries essential for eVTOLs, with Chinese firms like CATL at the forefront.

Other Chinese initiatives include Guangzhou Automobile Group's GOVE eVTOL with a detachable aircraft section, and Geely’s Aerofugia, a six-seater for longer flights. China's burgeoning "low-altitude economy," which includes eVTOLs, drones, and helicopters, is being actively promoted by the government alongside biotech and space industries, with local support measures from cities like Shenzhen and Guangzhou.

However, the expansion faces challenges such as limited takeoff/landing infrastructure and undefined traffic regulations for eVTOLs.

One eVTOL executive told Nikkei: "We will be forced to fly relatively infrequently for the next few years."

Authored by Charles Kennedy via OilPrice.com,

The UK saw two consecutive quarters of wind power overtaking fossil fuels as the single-largest source of electricity generation for the first time, per data from think tank Ember quoted by Reuters columnist Gavin Maguire.

In the first quarter of 2024, wind-generated a total of 25.3 terawatt hours (TWh) of Britain’s electricity, higher than the 23.6 TWh generated from fossil fuel sources, Ember data showed.

As a result, wind power generated an average of 39.4% of the UK’s electricity between January and March 2024, versus a 36.2% share of fossil fuel generation.  

Wind power generation, however, could begin to dip with warmer and still weather in the summer months, Reuters’s Maguire notes.

Last September, a report prepared for power group Drax showed that Britain has now installed more wind capacity than any other type of power source, with wind power capacity overtaking combined-cycle gas power stations for the first time and ending more than a century of fossil fuels dominating the electricity system.

As of June 2023, Britain’s fleet of wind farms reached 27.9 gigawatts (GW) of capacity, exceeding the gas-powered stations total capacity of 27.7 GW, according to the study prepared by experts from Imperial College London and the University of Sussex for the quarterly Drax Electric Insights.

For the whole of 2023, power generation from renewable technologies matched the previous record high of 2022 but renewables’ share of electricity generation increased to a record 47.3%, UK government data showed last month.

Wind generation hit a record-high share of 28.7% of generation in 2023, up from just 2.7% back in 2010.

Generation from fossil fuels fell to a record low, a share of 36.3%, but generation from gas remained the principal form of UK generation at 34.3%, the statistics from the UK’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero showed.

Low carbon power generation, of renewables and nuclear combined, increased to a record-high share of 61.5% in 2023.

A staffer who worked for a high profile German member of European Parliament for years has been arrested on charges of spying for Chinese intelligence, Germany’s federal prosecutor’s office announced on Tuesday.

Identified only as Jian G., he had reportedly been a staff member for German MEP Maximilian Krah going back to 2019. Krah is with what mainstream media commonly dubs the "far-right" AfD (Alternative for Germany party).

"In January 2024 the accused repeatedly shared information about negotiations and decisions in the European Parliament with his intelligence service employer," the prosecutors office said.

European Parliament, Getty Images

The suspect has also been accused of spying on and monitoring Chinese opposition communities inside Germany. Beijing has long been suspected in the West, including the US, of keeping close tabs on the political leanings and activism of expat enclaves via a network of spies connected to consulates.

German interior minister Nancy Faeser subsequently announced on X, "If it is confirmed that there was espionage for Chinese intelligence services from within the European Parliament, then that would be an attack on European democracy from within. Whoever employs such a person carries responsibility."

The investigation into "Jian G", who was detained Monday, was led by German domestic intelligence services. Recent days and weeks have seen other arrests in Europe of suspected Chinese spies, including a couple in the UK in recent days.

On Tuesday China's foreign minister reacted by denouncing the "hype" surrounding such cases, describing it as more anti-China propaganda aimed at political manipulation and to ratchet pressure on Beijing.

According to Politico, "The bombshell arrest, which rocks the AfD while it polls in second place nationally, sparked calls from one top European lawmaker for a tougher crackdown on Chinese and Russian infiltrators attempting to influence EU democracy."

Authored by Thomas Brooke via ReMix News,

The notion that mass immigration brings a net economic benefit to a developed nation is a myth that needs to be debunked, a former U.K. government minister who resigned over the spiraling numbers arriving in Britain has claimed.

In an interview with the Conservative Home website, Robert Jenrick, the Conservative MP who stepped down from his role as immigration minister in the Home Office last year, called the government’s post-Brexit immigration policy a “complete disaster” and a “betrayal to voters” who for decades have elected parties promising to cut the number of new arrivals into Britain.

“The numbers are just so large that it has a proportionally much greater impact on everyone’s lives. This cuts to the housing crisis, why we have such low productivity, and why we have concerns about community cohesion and integration,” he told the site.

Net migration is at record levels in Britain since the U.K. left the European Union, peaking in the year to December 2022 at 745,000. It subsequently fell to 672,000 in the year to June 2023, but after leaving the European Union Single Market, this is a paradox that Jenrick finds difficult to accept.

“For years, politicians made promises to cut legal migration they knew they couldn’t keep because ultimately the UK was beholden to the EU’s freedom of movement.

“The great reform was the Conservative Party delivering Brexit, which finally took back control of the levers of migration. But the decisions made in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote were a betrayal to voters — they created a system that was even more liberal than the one before by lowering the salary threshold, creating a graduate route and an unregulated social care visa,” he said.

“Frankly, these decisions were two fingers up to the public, and in public policy terms they’ve been a complete disaster.”

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has made “stopping the boats” a key pledge throughout his tenure in Downing Street — a nod to the illegal immigration crisis on England’s southern shores as thousands of undocumented migrants are transported across the English Channel from mainland Europe where they claim asylum and use human rights laws to avoid deportation.

However, despite attempts to combat this issue through the flagship Rwanda policy — a plan to deport migrants to the African nation for offshore processing — Jenrick believes that this is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to tackling immigration.

“To me, legal migration has always been the more important issue,” he explained.

“I’m 42, and for my entire adult life, if not longer, political parties of all persuasions have stood at elections saying they’re going to bring down the level of legal migration.

“All alighted on this challenge, said they were going to take action, and all ultimately failed.”

The Conservative MP challenged the view that mass immigration has a net economic benefit on a developed country like Britain, highlighting that just 15 percent of non-EU migrants who came to the country last year arrived with work visas.

“So, the overwhelming majority of people were students, dependants, or were those coming as refugees.”

The figure is actually slightly higher than 15 percent. In the year to June 2023, 968,000 non-EU migrants arrived in Britain, of which just 169,000 were the main applicants on a work visa, amounting to 17.5 percent.

“One can make arguments for and against each of those categories, but they’re not people who are demonstrably making an economic contribution to this country.”

He warned the economic model that Britain has adopted when it comes to immigration isn’t working.

“If importing hundreds of thousands of foreign workers to the UK was a route to prosperity, the U.K. would be one of the richest countries in the world,” he said, adding that Britain has been in a recession in terms of GDP per capita for almost the last two years.

“I care about the prosperity of our own citizens, not the overall size of the economy.”

The former immigration minister accused businesses in Britain of becoming “hooked on the drug of imported foreign labor” and said the government had done too little to “boost training for young people in our country” to take on jobs in key sectors like construction.

He urged the government to adopt a “highly selective” immigration policy that enables it to choose the types of people that will make an economic contribution to Britain, noting that there is no longer the bogeyman of the European Union to fall back on as a reason why immigration figures should remain as high as they are now.

“What we need is radically reduced, highly-selective, high-skilled, and high-productivity migration,” Jenrick added, suggesting that an annual cap could “serve as a democratic lock” on Britain’s immigration policy and ensure that promises to the electorate to bring down the numbers are met.

Several studies support Jenrick’s observation that mass immigration is an economic drag on developed nations.

In November 2021, a Danish Ministry of Finance report revealed that the net cost of immigration from non-Western countries, after tax contributions had been deducted, amounted to €4.2 billion in 2018.

Similarly, a study from the University of Amsterdam published in December last year revealed the net cost to the Dutch public sector for decades of mass immigration between 1995 and 2019 was €400 billion, averaging €17 billion a year.

The research categorized the types of migrants arriving in the Netherlands during that time by nationality, revealing that those arriving from other EU and European countries had a net positive contribution to the Dutch economy, while those coming from countries such as Turkey and Morocco had cost the Dutch taxpayer the most with a net negative contribution of €200,000 and €260,000, respectively.

Read more here...

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

At a cost of $250 million, Millennium Challenge 2002 was the largest and most expensive war game in Pentagon history.

With over 13,500 participants, the US government took over two years to design it.

The exercise pitted Iran against the US military. Washington intended to show how the US military could defeat Iran with ease.

Paul Van Riper, a three-star general and 41-year veteran of the Marine Corps, led Iranian forces in the war game. His mission was to take on the full force of the US military, led by an aircraft carrier battle group and a large amphibious landing force in the Persian Gulf.

The results shocked everyone…

Van Riper waited for the US Navy to pass through the shallow and narrow Strait of Hormuz, which made them sitting ducks for Iran’s unconventional and asymmetric warfare techniques.

The idea is to level the playing field against a superior enemy with swarms of explosive-laden suicide speedboats, low-flying planes carrying anti-ship missiles, naval mines, and land-based anti-ship ballistic missiles, among other low-cost but highly effective measures.

In minutes, Van Riper emerged victorious over his superior opponent and sank all 19 ships. Had it been real life, 20,000 US sailors and marines would have died.

Millennium Challenge 2002 was a complete disaster for the Pentagon, which had spent a quarter of a billion dollars to set up the extensive war game. It produced the exact opposite outcome they wanted.

So what did the Pentagon do with these humbling results?

Like a child playing a video game, they hit the reset button. They then rigged and scripted the game so that the US was guaranteed to win.

After realizing the integrity of the war game had been compromised, a disgusted Van Riper walked out mid-game. He then said:

“Nothing was learned from this. And a culture not willing to think hard and test itself does not augur well for the future.”

The main lesson of Millennium Challenge 2002 is that aircraft carriers—the biggest and most expensive ships ever built—wouldn’t last a single day in combat against even a regional power like Iran. Russia and China would have an even easier time dispatching them. They are overpriced toys.

That means the US has wasted untold trillions on military hardware that could prove to be worthless in a serious conflict.

Nonetheless, the US government still parades aircraft carriers around the world from time to time to try to intimidate its enemies.

However, it’s a flawed strategy prone to catastrophic results if someone calls their bluff.

While Millennium Challenge 2002 occurred more than 20 years ago, it is of paramount importance today.

Iran has substantially improved its asymmetric and unconventional warfare capabilities. It’s doubtful the US military would fare much better today than 20 years ago.

In short, war with Iran today could be even more disastrous than the Millennium Challenge 2002 simulation.

Unfortunately, war with Iran is an increasingly probable outcome as tensions in the Middle East are at their highest point in generations and are trending higher.

Previously, I lived in Beirut, Lebanon, for several years while working for an investment bank. The experience was effectively an advanced training course in Middle East geopolitics. Today, it helps me see the big picture in the region… and unfortunately, it isn’t pretty.

I think the next big war in the Middle East is coming soon and could be the biggest one ever. It will focus on Iran.

The market doesn’t appreciate how close we are to a big war and the implications of it.

But this distortion in the market is a blessing. It’s handing us a golden opportunity.

First and foremost, I think there’s a huge opportunity to profit in the oil market right now.

I’m certainly not cheering for war. I despise war, which is the health of the State.

Regardless, a big war is highly likely, with significant investment implications that would be foolish to ignore.

In short, we are only one escalation away from potentially the biggest oil shock in history as the Middle East is on the verge of the largest regional war in generations.

Fortunately, it doesn’t have to blindside you, your family, or your portfolio.

Quite the contrary.

That’s precisely why I just released an urgent new report with all the details, including what you must do to prepare. It’s called The Most Dangerous Economic Crisis in 100 Years… the Top 3 Strategies You Need Right Now. Click here to download the PDF now.

Last October, when we pointed out that China's FX outflows had just hit a whopping $75BN - the single biggest monthly outflow since the 2015 currency devaluation - we concluded that the "unfavorable interest rate spread between China and the US will "likely imply persistent depreciation and outflow pressures in coming months", or in other words, September's biggest FX outflow in years is just the beginning, and very soon - in addition to geopolitics and central banks - the world will also be freaking out about the capital flight out of China... not to mention where all those billions in Chinese savings are going and which digital currency the Chinese are using to launder said outflows."

We wrote that on October 20 when Bitcoin was trading just under $30,000, a level it had been for much of 2023. And, just as we correctly predicted at the time...

Clockwork: every time China FX outflows surge, bitcoin erupts.

From last Friday: China Capital Flight Panic Eruptshttps://t.co/j0eWLnbFMq

... following this surge in Chinese FX outflows, bitcoin - traditionally China's preferred means to circumvent Beijing's great capital firewall since gold is, how should one put it, a bit more obvious when crossing borders - promptly exploded more than 100% higher in the next 4 months.

And while conventional wisdom is that this surge in the price of the digital currency was largely due to the January launch of Bitcoin ETFs, what many missed was a Reuters story in January which confirmed our thesis from back in 2015, according to which much more than ETFs, and much more than rapidly shifting sentiment or frankly any day-to-day newsflow, it is China's massive wall of inert capital that has been the biggest driver of bitcoin moves, and never more so than during periods of FX and capital outflows which usually precede some form of capital controls.

We bring all this up because six months after our first correct prediction that China's spike in FX outflows would send bitcoin surging, it's time to do it again.

One wouldn't know if, however, if one merely looked at the official Chinese FX reserve data published by the PBOC, here nothing sticks out. In fact, at $3.246 trillion, reported Chinese reserves are now near the highest level in past four years, and monthly flows are very much stable as shown in the chart below.

The problem, of course, is that as we have explained previously China's officially reported reserves are woefully (and perhaps purposefully) inaccurate of the bigger picture.

Instead if one uses our preferred gauge of FX flows, one which looks at i) onshore outright spot transactions; ii) freshly entered and canceled forward transactions, and iii) the SAFE dataset on “cross-border RMB flows, we find that China's net outflows were $39bn in March, up from $11bn in February and the fastest pace of outflows since the September spike in FX outflows which we duly noted half a year ago.

How did we get this number? The portfolio investment channel showed net outflows in March. The Stock Connect channel showed net outflows of US$8bn vs. US$5bn inflows in February, and inflows to the bond market slowed in March (US$6bn, vs. US$11bn in February)...

... primarily on record net selling of central government bonds.

Finally, the current account channel showed also net outflows in March, mainly as services trade related outflows picked up.

At the time when FX outflows were re-acclererating, the broad USD strengthened further in March, and USD/CNY spot drifted higher, as one would expect when there is capital flight... Oh, and Bitcoin hit a record high above $70K.

And while Chinese policymakers are still keen on maintaining FX stability - the countercyclical factors in the daily CNY fixing remained deeply negative and front-end CNH liquidity tightened notably in recent weeks - the reality is that with China desperate to boost its exports at a time when its great mercantilist competitor, Japan, has hammered the yen to the lowest level in 3 decades, it is only a matter of time before the currency devaluation advocates win, as they did in 2015. 

We hope that we don't have to remind readers that the first big trigger for bitcoin's unprecedented eruption higher starting in 2015 was - you guessed it - China's August 2015 FX devaluation.

So don't be surprised if in the next 6 months Bitcoin doubles again, and the move has nothing to do with ETF inflows, the halving, or frankly anything else taking place in the US... and instead is entirely driven by China's massive wall of money which at last check was almost 3x bigger than the US.

One of the biggest questions of our time is whether China and the United States can escape Thucydides's Trap. It seems that, in the short term, the US will likely avoid direct conflict with China, but in the long term, there will be a slow march toward conflict in the Indo-Pacific region. 

On Tuesday, Admiral John Aquilino, the head of the US Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM), told reporters in Tokyo that China has become increasingly aggressive across Asia. 

"We all need to understand that it's moving very fast," Aquilino said, as quoted by Bloomberg. 

He said, "The buildup of military power despite a bad economy, the increased narrative of all things inside the 10-dash line are Chinese sovereign territory, then the actions that are going toward enforcement."

After serving three years as the head of INDOPACOM, Aquilino will step down. He oversees 380,000 soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, guardians, Coast Guardsmen, and Department of Defense civilians. 

He warned about rising tensions near the Second Thomas Shoal, where the Philippines has held the line since World War II. A recent incident of Chinese vessels using water cannons to block Philippine military vessels has been an ominous sign for some military observers. 

Aquilino also spoke about China's economy, indicating the world's second-largest economy "has drastically been reduced" because of a "real-estate market crash."

"You go ask any economist if the Chinese are going to deliver 5.3% growth, and they will tell you, 'No way,'" Aquilino said.

Aquilino also called North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's regime "disgusting" for spending large sums of money on the military while a food shortage ripples through the country. 

Aquilino's comment comes days before US Secretary of State Antony Blinken travels to China. He is expected to convey Washington's "deep concerns" about Beijing's support for Russia's defense industrial base.

"We're prepared to take steps when we believe necessary against firms that ... severely undermine security in both Ukraine and Europe," Blinken told reporters ahead of Wednesday's trip. 

David Asher, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, commented on Aquilino's remarks by stating:

"Admiral Aquilino has been a forward-thinking, leaning, and acting US Combatant Commander in the Indo-Pacific. But the facts on the ground and sea have been allowed to strategically favor Communist China which has fortified coral reefs and atolls across the South China Sea and fan its naval forces across the region from the seas surrounding Japan to Taiwan to the Philippines and Vietnam. 

"China's relentless expansionism has been largely unopposed. Beijing cannot be allowed to continue its expansionist wave. It's time for the US, Japan, and Australia to link up and provide active protection to the Philippines and start to begin freedom of navigation missions to Taiwan. Incoming Commander Admiral Sam Paparo will have a lot on his plate." 

Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine and soaring turmoil in the Middle East, including Israel and Iran, with risks of conflicts flaring up in the Indo-Pacific region, are all confirmations that a multipolar world has emerged. 

That said, we have noted that defense spending worldwide has surged, pushing the defense industry into a bull market:

• World Stumbles Into "More Dangerous Decade" As Defense Spending Soars, Says Military Think Tank

• Germany Reportedly Goes On Military Spending Spree To Hit NATO Spending Minimums For First Time

• Lockheed Martin Wins $17BN Interceptor Contract To Protect US Homeland

• German Tank Builder Says "New Decade Of Security Policy Begins" As Defense Bull Market Roars

• SAAB CEO Says Rising War Risk Drives Defense Spending; Missile Stocks In Bull Market

• Global Military Spending Hits All-Time High Of $2.4 Trillion

There's a bull market in global defense stocks. 

The multipolar world will only bring more chaos and destruction. 

Does your state support your 2nd Amendment rights or make it exceedingly difficult to keep and bear arms?

Ammo.com has ranked the worst states to be a gun owner below...

How?

By analyzing each state’s current laws, upcoming laws, concealed carry guidelines, self-defense statutes, and 2A-centric taxes in order to identify the worst states for gun owners in 2024.

Report Highlights

• Hawaii is the #1 worst state for gun owners due to strict purchasing and carry laws, as well as defying the Supreme Court on the individual’s right to carry.

• California is the #2 worst state for gun owners due to its permit-to-purchase and reciprocity laws.

• New York, Illinois, and New Jersey take the #3, #4, and #5 spot in our list of worst states for gun ownership due to strict purchasing and carrying requirements.

• North Carolina, Maine, and Ohio fall into spots #25, #24, and #23 due to new restrictive legislation with some relaxed carry laws.

• Some states rank lower than others due to excessive infringements, additional taxes, and the current Governor’s 2A statements.

• State and local laws defining Stand Your Ground vs. Duty to Retreat vary and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Jump to a state: AL | AK | AZ | AR | CA | CO | CT | DE | FL | GA | HI | ID | IL | IN | IA | KS | KY | LA | ME | MD | MA | MI | MN | MS | MO | MT | NE | NV | NH | NJ | NM | NY | NC | ND | OH | OK | OR | PA | RI | SC | SD | TN | TX | UT | VT | VA | WA | WV | WI | WY

Read the full report on the worst states to be a gun owner in 2024 at Ammo.com.