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.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep