Let’s Have a Real Conversation About Solutions for Gun Violence

October 03, 2017

WRITER

People are responding to the shooting in Las Vegas this week with understandable emotion and anger. But their outrage toward gun owners is misplaced – “gun control” will simply mean that powerful people and criminals have access to guns, not the average American.

While taking over for Glenn this week, Doc criticized the hypocrisy of gun control advocates who would never give up their own guns or armed guards.

“What they’re saying is they don’t want you to have a gun,” he said.

Doc listed some real solutions to fight gun violence and help every American.

Better mental health services available to more people

A freer, better economy

More guns in the right hands

Less government oppression and more opportunity

A society that values human life

Do you agree with his list?

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: Doc Thompson in for Glenn. I'll be with you tomorrow, then Pat Gray will be pinch-hitting on Thursday and Friday as well.

Coming up immediately following this broadcast, on TheBlaze Radio Network, Pat Gray is going to be covering the Alex Jones video from yesterday.

KRIS: He connected the dots. I'm so glad Alex Jones is in our lives.

DOC: I cannot fully do it justice.

KRIS: No.

DOC: I didn't talk about it. I didn't discuss it this morning on our broadcast, on The Morning Blaze because I knew I couldn't do it justice like Pat Gray.

KRIS: Oh, he's so good at it.

DOC: Pat Gray has covered the crazy that is Alex Jones for a while. Even on this program, you know if you're a regular listener of this broadcast that Glenn and Pat and Stu and Jeffy have covered this quite a bit.

Alex offered up some insight to the shooting in Las Vegas.

KRIS: Brilliant.

DOC: And by brilliant, we mean.

KRIS: Amazing.

DOC: And by amazing, we mean crazy.

KRIS: Crazy.

(laughter)

DOC: Even for Alex Jones, this is like crazy. I'm telling you, I'm telling you, here's what's going on!

KRIS: Does it have to do with gay frogs?

DOC: No. But he throws out -- and I'm not going to spoil it for you. He connects a lot of dots --

KAL: It's all about the flicker rate!

(laughter)

DOC: He connects the dots and even brings in a dot that is not a dot, it's so far off the chart. But you're like, okay. All right. There we go.

Pat will cover that today. TheBlazeRadio.com for more information. All right. We'll get some calls. 888-727-BECK. 888-727-BECK. We'll also get to some tweets and some comments from the Facebook as well.

KRIS: Oh, sorry. Yeah. Fell asleep on that one. You have this one. This is interesting, Doc, because you've been very critical of the left.

DOC: I was like, when specifically -- you mean beginning in 1995?

KRIS: The last two hours.

DOC: Oh, yeah. That's true.

KRIS: Very critical. You're mocking them.

DOC: Have I been mocking them?

KRIS: Very mockfully.

DOC: Really? Really?

KRIS: Yes. Yes.

DOC: Okay.

KRIS: Ron brings a good question. And actually I support Ron right here.

DOC: Okay. Let me have it.

KRIS: I've heard a lot of mocking others for offering solutions.

DOC: Yes. Yes. And I'm glad you bring this up. Because we bring up solutions all the time.

KRIS: But none from you. See. You all about blah, blah, blah, blah. What about you?

DOC: Okay. Yes, I'm about the blah, blah, blah, blah. I don't appreciate the high-pitch blah, blah, blah, blah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

KRIS: Yeah.

DOC: Yes, I have solutions to this thing. Are you talking about the shooting in Vegas?

KRIS: Yeah. What's the solution?

DOC: The mass murder. How do we keep that from happening?

KRIS: You have Vicente Fox, the former president of Mexico saying gun control.

DOC: Right.

KRIS: You got Jimmy saying, hey, we need to push more gun control.

DOC: Right.

KRIS: So what is your solution, Doc Thompson, go.

DOC: I will offer those solutions now. Let me first say, as far as gun control goes, the reason that is not a solution is because, first of all, when has gun control ever been inclusive of the government or the people in power? Chuck Schumer talks about gun control, and he owns a gun. Lots of these politicians talk about gun control. They own guns. Lots of the political left, the Hollywood, the limousine liberals out there, they talk about gun control. They own guns.

Many of them have security that own guns. They hire security forces with guns. So they're being hypocritical. What they're saying is they don't want you to have a gun.

Gun control has been used to keep you, the masses from having guns. The history of the world is one of oppression. That's the truth.

The history of the world is about some people having power. Now, they can set it up as a dictatorship, an oligarchy, a theocracy, any of these. They can even set it up as a seeming democracy or even a republic. That can happen as well. Because what happens -- well, even an oligarchy, those people in power, whether it's power through money, influence, or an outright dictatorship, theocracy or any of these, they still have access to guns. And they want access to keep you, the masses, from having them. That's the history of the world.

Part of the genius of America was that we would do the best to stave that off, to keep that from happening. And we have, for the most part. There are still those influential powers. Obviously, there's corrupt members of the government and some people that are powerful because of the money and influence they have.

But that's the reason I fight so hard for the Second Amendment and others. Is because as long as it's there, the playing field is level.

Gun control only controls the guns from some. And it's not just the criminals. Of course, the criminals are still going to have them. But also those people in power.

So my solutions, Kris Cruz and --

KRIS: I still don't hear any solutions. Ron.

DOC: -- other guy. Ron. Number one, as far as this guy is concerned and what happened in Vegas, better mental health screenings, better mental health services. And you know where we would get and have about right mental health services? In a redesigned health care system, where we would have access to more medicine. Where all people would have access to medicine because it would be cheap and it would be plentiful. And how do we get that? Less government, less rules, less regulation, and what we have never had when it comes to medicine in America, and that is a free market. The closest we've come is in the infancy of medicine in America, when a person could go to their family doctor out in the country and pay them in -- in a chicken or, you know, a couple dozen eggs or something like that. Or a couple of quarts of honey for fixing their kid. That's about the closest we've come.

A free market health care system would offer better mental health care services. It would be plentiful. It would be cheap.

What else would stop this from happening? A better economy. One of the reasons people go crazy and do these things, one of the trigger points is a bad economy. How do they radicalize people in the extreme -- extremist Muslim countries? How do they radicalize people in America? In the West to join their crazy exploits?

By telling them, how come you don't have more? You're just as good as everybody else. Join us. We'll make you strong. Look, you don't even have anything.

I mean, Kal, your family is from Egypt. The Middle East, a lot of poor people. A lot of poverty.

KAL: Yeah, primarily poor.

DOC: And because of that, a lack of education, a lack of money. People are easy to be preyed upon, to be radicalized, because they say, you don't have.

A better economy and better education through a better economy and less government rules and regulations and a free market, provides for more money and opportunity for people.

A secure border. How else have people attacked people in America? By bringing guns or bad people to America, when we don't know who they are or what they have.

Secure the border. What else would help? More guns! Yeah, sounds kind of counterintuitive. More guns likely wouldn't have happened -- or excuse me, wouldn't have helped with what happened on Sunday night in Las Vegas. Because the guy was in a room. More guns on the street from the average person probably wouldn't be able to stop him, but a lot of these other cases -- Adam Lanza. How about Cho at Virginia Tech? How about the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, with James Holmes? These were all gun-free zones. They were all gun-free zones.

There were no guns, except for the illegally gotten guns from those criminals who had nefarious intent.

More guns in those places would have at least given the opportunity for people to stop the rampage of those knuckleheads.

By the way, most casinos are gun-free zones. Not that he shot people in the casino. But he was in a hotel. Did it stop him from taking the gun in the hotel?

No. So more guns is something. What also helped? A less oppressive government. What do I mean by that?

I mean with a less oppressive government, I get to make more decisions for myself. I get to have more money and keep more money. To make my life and my family better. More education. More opportunity. And a government that will stop pissing me off by telling me how I'm supposed to raise my children and run my life. Because that is less of a trigger.

And finally, when it comes to some of this stuff, better police work. I'm not criticizing the cops. Cops do a pretty good job. But their hands are tied quite often because of police unions and the political left telling them that they're bad and they're just indiscriminately shooting people. Or even worse, purposefully shooting people and killing them because of their race. Better police work and more respect.

And finally, more appreciation for life. And we get that by recognizing our higher power and being more thankful of what we have. Human life is cheap in most parts of the world. Human life doesn't count for much. They don't value it. It just doesn't matter.

We've always valued it in America because we have that higher power and different covenants with God. We help each other.

The history of America is people getting together for barn buildings, to help their neighbor. In times of crisis, look at what happened with Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma and even now with Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, Americans help people. Americans help the world. America has saved the world countless time from bad guys.

So more faith and more appreciation for what we have. And a little more respect from our neighbors. These things will all stop some of this violence from happening. But you've got to remember one thing: Nothing will stop all of it. There will always be some bad.

We can tamp most of it down. We can get rid of most of it with the things I just mentioned. But there will always be some. And at those times, we have to fight against the natural knee-jerk reaction from a lot of the people we've discussed today on the air, to say, "Something must be done," as they wring their hands and call for more oppression.

Government oppression has led to more bad than guns. So when those rare cases under the system I just discussed, happen, we have to make sure we don't join with those people who are obviously upset, emotional because of the circumstances and say, "Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold it. Mourn. Be upset. Get the information. Get closure. All of that's therapy. That's fine. But stop right now, before you make a knee-jerk reaction, based on your emotions."

As long as the imminent threat is gone, hold it. Wait. Stop. We can discuss this. We can move ahead. Because most of what you want to do is a slippery slope that's going to bring about a lot more bad.

There's a story at TheBlaze.com. I have had my differences with Bill O'Reilly over the years. Seems like a nice guy. I think I met him one time. I don't agree with a lot of what Bill says. And I agree with some of what he says. But I've had differences. But one of the smartest things Bill has said is a story that's posted at TheBlaze.com. Bill O'Reilly said of this tragedy -- and I'm paraphrasing, but this is the price of freedom. Some bad will always happen in a free society. But good people will keep a lot of it from happening. And when it does, we'll make sure that there are the best circumstances in that bad.

This is the price for freedom. If you're willing to give up some freedom because of some bad, you will end up with neither safety and security, nor freedom. To paraphrase Ben Franklin. Back in a minute with more on the Glenn Beck Program.

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

America is no stranger to natural disasters. But it’s not the fires, floods, or earthquakes that are the most devastating — it’s the repeated failures to learn from them, prevent them, and take responsibility for the damage.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost homes, cherished memories, and livelihoods. But if we’re going to help California rebuild and prevent future disasters, we need to confront some uncomfortable truths about leadership, responsibility, and priorities.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

While Californians continue to face heart-wrenching losses, those who have the power to enact change are mired in bureaucracy, regulation, and ideologies that do nothing to protect lives or preserve the land. The result? A state that keeps burning, year after year.

Where did all the water go?

We all know that water is essential to life. When NASA searches for signs of life on other planets, it looks for water. Yet, California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure. The state hasn’t built a new major reservoir since 1979 — over 40 years ago. Back then, California’s population was roughly half what it is today. Despite massive population growth, the state’s water storage capacity has remained frozen in time, woefully inadequate for current needs.

Moreover, billions of gallons of rainwater flow straight into the ocean every year because no infrastructure exists to capture and store it. Imagine how different things could be if California had built reservoirs, aqueducts, and desalination plants to secure water for its dry seasons.

Water is life, but the state’s failure to prioritize this essential resource has put lives and ecosystems at risk.

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

This neglect of critical infrastructure is part of a larger failure of vision, and in California, the consequences of that failure are on full display.

Consider the progressive leadership in Los Angeles, where the mayor cut the fire department’s budget to fund programs for the homeless, funneling money to NGOs with little oversight. While helping the homeless is a worthy cause, it cannot come at the expense of protecting lives and property from catastrophic fires. Leadership must put safety and well-being over political agendas, and that’s not happening in Los Angeles.

The same misplaced priorities extend to environmental policies. Progressive leaders have blocked sensible forest management practices, prioritizing dead trees over living creatures. They reject controlled burns, forest thinning, and other commonsense measures, bowing to the demands of activists rather than considering real solutions that would protect those they govern.

California’s wildfire crisis is, in many ways, a man-made disaster. Yes, factors like Southern California’s dry climate, strong Santa Ana winds, and little rain play a role, but the biggest contributing factor is poor land management.

The forests are choked with dry brush, dead trees, and vegetation that turn every spark into a potential inferno. The crisis could have been mitigated — if only the state had made forest management and fire prevention a higher priority.

Finland and Sweden, for example, understand the importance of maintaining healthy forests. These countries have perfected the art of clearing underbrush and thinning trees sustainably, turning potential fire fuel into biomass energy. This approach not only reduces the risk of wildfires, but it also creates jobs, boosts the economy, and improves the ecosystem. And yet, California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore these solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

We need to stop pretending that something as devastating as the Palisades and Eaton fires are just “part of life” and hold leaders accountable.

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

California faces another major and often overlooked liability when it comes to natural disasters: insurance.

California’s ongoing disasters make the state an uninsurable risk. Insurance companies are pulling out because the odds of widespread devastation are just too high. This creates a vicious cycle: With private insurers gone, the government steps in to subsidize high-risk areas. This enables people to rebuild in fire-prone zones, perpetuating the destruction. The solution isn’t more government intervention; it’s better decision-making.

This doesn’t mean abandoning people to their fate, but we must address the root of the problem: California’s inadequate disaster preparedness and poor land management. If the state continues to resist commonsense solutions like forest thinning, controlled burns, and better zoning laws, no amount of insurance or government assistance will ever be enough to mitigate the losses. The cycle will repeat until the costs — financial and human — become unbearable. It’s time to stop pretending the risk isn’t real and start making decisions that reflect the reality of California’s landscape.

What’s the solution? California’s government needs to put its people over harmful political agendas that put its residents at risk. Start by managing your forests. Implement controlled burns, remove dead trees, and clear underbrush.

But how you vote matters. California’s progressive policies have focused on political correctness and ideology instead of practical, lifesaving solutions. Until voters hold leaders accountable, the cycle of destruction will persist.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement to lift content moderation policies across all of Meta's platforms and end the company's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, at first glance, is an incredible left turn given the platform's long-term participation in online censorship. However, does their shift signal a genuine change of heart, or are there more selfish motivations at play?

On the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and Stu looked at both perspectives. On the one hand, Zuckerberg's announcement, adding UFC President and avid Trump supporter Dana White to Meta's board of directors indicates major progress in America's pushback against online censorship. However, Glenn also posited that Zuckerberg's intentions are chiefly to win the good graces of the incoming Trump administration in order to maintain Meta's controversial work in virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR/AR).

There is evidence for both perspectives, and we lay it all out for you below:

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Zuckerberg’s bombshell announcement, at face value, suggests that Meta recognizes the greater demand for free speech on online platforms and growing discontent against content moderation that has censored non-mainstream political opinions, including Glenn and Blaze Media. Zuckerberg described this shift as an authentic attempt to return to the company’s roots of promoting free expression, acknowledging past mistakes in suppressing voices and content deemed politically controversial. Moreover, Meta's new adoption of community-driven content flags similar to X positions itself as a platform that values user input rather than the biased perspective of any single third-party "fact-checker."

Additionally, Zuckerberg’s evolving views on Donald Trump strengthen the argument that his "change of heart" is genuine. Before the 2024 election, Zuckerberg expressed admiration for Trump, even calling him a "badass" after the first assassination attempt, noting how the event changed his perspective on the then-presidential candidate. Moreover, his embrace of new board members, such as UFC President Dana White, a staunch Trump supporter, further suggests that Meta may be diversifying its leadership and welcoming a more inclusive approach to varied political opinions. In this context, Meta’s move away from fact-checking can be interpreted as a commitment to fostering an environment where free speech and diverse political perspectives are genuinely valued.

Or is it about self-preservation?

DREW ANGERER / Contributor | Getty Images

While it is tempting to view Meta’s policy change as a sincere commitment to free speech, there is also a compelling argument that the company’s motivations are rooted in self-preservation. Glenn suggested Meta’s financial interests, particularly in virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, indicate its pivot may be less about principle and more about ensuring continued government contracts and capital flow. Zuckerberg’s significant investments in VR/AR technology, which has already cost the company billions, may be driving his need to align Meta’s policies with the political climate to safeguard future funding from both the government and private sectors.

Moreover, the company’s financial projections for the coming years show a sharp increase in advertising revenue, driven primarily by Facebook’s dominance in social media. This revenue helps sustain Meta’s ambitions in the VR/AR space, where it faces significant losses. The government’s involvement in funding military and tech projects tied to VR/AR underscores the importance of maintaining favorable political relationships. For these reasons, many view Zuckerberg's policy change as an attempt to position Meta for maximum political and financial benefit.

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Apu Gomes / Stringer | Getty Images

As wildfires sweep across California and threaten to swallow up entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles, one question is on everyone's mind: What went wrong?

So far over 45 square miles of the city have been scorched, while the intense smoke is choking out the rest of L.A. Thousands of structures, including many family homes, have been destroyed, and many more are at risk as firefighters battle the flames. Many on the left, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have been quick to point to climate change as the cause of the devastating fires, citing the chronic lack of rain in L.A.

Others, including Glenn, have pointed out another potential cause: the severe mismanagement of the forests and water supply of Los Angeles and California in general. Unlike many other states and most other forested countries, California does not clear out the dead trees and dry vegetation that builds up on the forest floor and acts as kindling, fueling the fire as it whips through the trees.

On top of this, California has neglected its water supply for decades despite its crucial role in combating fires. The state of California has not built a new major water reservoir to store and capture water since the 1970s, leading to repeat water shortages in Southern California. To top it off, Gavin Newsom personally derailed a 2020 Trump order to divert water from areas of the state with excess water to parched Southern California. Why? To save an already functionally extinct fish. Now firefighters in L.A. are running out of water as the city is engulfed in flames. At least the fish are okay...

But what do you think? Are the wildfires a product of years of mismanagement? Or a symptom of a changing climate? Let us know in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep