Tom Brokaw And Reasonable Talk On Gun Control

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

All I will say to Little Tommy Lockjaw(Brokaw) is screw you.

Former NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw had a harsh criticism for gun owners yesterday. In the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, the venerable newsreader blamed gun owners for refusing to discuss gun control in any way, shape, or form. It seems we’re all just too unreasonable to sit down and let our gun-grabbing betters tell us what to do.

NBC’s Tom Brokaw stated Monday that gun owners get too “emotional” to talk to those who are on more “reasonable ground.”

Browkaw said, “It’s amazing what you can buy, at a gun show or illegally from other people.”

He continued, “We can’t have that conversation because it immediately becomes so emotional between the gun owners of the america[sic], who are protected by the NRA, and other people saying there ought to be a more reasonable ground. I’m a gun owner. I don’t have one of the AR-15s. I don’t need them. But almost all my friends out there have that kind of weapon.”

Wow. Just…wow.

Well, it’s good to know what we have someone like Tom Brokaw telling us all about “reasonable ground” on this issue. After all, it’s kind of confusing right now, what with all the progressives who are blaming the NRA for this shooting despite the fact that no one knew anything about just what the shooter had, where he got it, or anything.

Oh, maybe Brokaw meant we should be open to reasonable discourse like these folks?

Or how about this now protected tweet where one tolerant liberal said she wanted every Trump supporter dead?

Is that the brand of “reasonable ground” we’re supposed to meet people on?

The fact of the matter is that gun owners spent decades meeting gun control advocates on supposedly reasonable ground, despite the plain text of the Second Amendment saying “the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” We continued to meet on that ground because compromise was good.

But what happened was that we were like a kid trying to compromise with a bully over our birthday cake. He wants the cake, but it’s ours, so we decide to compromise and split it. He says OK, takes his half of the cake and leaves. A short time later, though, he comes back and wants the cake. Again, we compromise and give him half.

The bully returns wanting what’s left, so we compromise again and give him half. Now, left with an eighth of a cake, when the bully returns, we refuse to budge anymore, only to have the bully blow up about how we’re being so unreasonable.

The gun control crowd is offering nothing except to take our rights away. Those of us who did nothing are now fighting to hold on to rights because of the act of a madman. A compromise means both sides giving up a bit, but all the gun grabbers aren’t going to do that. The best we’ll see from them is that instead of demanding a ban on everything, they’ll “let” us keep something.

Not much of a trade, if you ask me.

But no, please continue on about how we should meet on “reasonable ground.”

We did. It wasn’t very reasonable, and most of us aren’t interested in stepping backward in the least.


I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

Leave a comment

H/T The Washington Post.

I am shocked The Washington Post ran this article.

I am really surprised that Commie Lib Leah Libresco wrote the article.

Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

7 talking points that are repeated after every mass shooting

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

Urban Myth: Crime Doesn’t Pay – California City Authorizes Stipends to Gang Members

1 Comment


Only liberals could be this stupid.

Gang members profit through criminal enterprises in a variety of ways: drug, weapon and human trafficking; theft, robbery, intimidation and extortion, and various kinds of fraud. In a win-win for gangbangers, material gains from criminality in one California municipality will soon include government-sanctioned payola.

In a special meeting on August 29, the nine-member City Council of Sacramento unanimously agreed to allocate $1.5 million in funding and to move forward with a “gun-violence reduction strategy” that will include cash payments (“LifeMAP milestone allowances”) and paid vacations for the handful of gang members suspected of committing the majority of gang-related gun crimes in the city.

The report and funding agreement before the council indicate that the program, the “Peacemaker Fellowship,” is to be implemented by a group called Advance Peace. It proposes to reduce gang violence through “transformational opportunities to young adults identified as most likely to be” involved in “gun violence” and by ensuring “greater connectivity to culturally competent human, social, and economic opportunities” for these individuals. The details, as fleshed out during the council meeting, were that participants will be selected from a small group of gang members thought to be behind the “re-cyclical and retaliatory” gun crimes in the community. Among other things, program participants will be required to identify and commit to “LifeMAP goals” (academic aspirations, or more basic things like “getting a driver’s license or improving their relationship with their parents or their kids”). As part of “incentivizing achievement,” the program’s “touchpoints” include “Transformative Travel” and cash stipends for participants. The cost associated with each participant tops out at an estimated $30,000.

The four-year agreement requires the city to pay $500,000 over the course of two years, starting this year. Implementation will consist of two 18-month segments, with 50 participants in each segment. The expected “outcomes” listed in the report are a reduction in firearm assaults and firearm-related homicides by 50 percent” over the four years, “reduc[ing] by $26 million the government costs associated with gun violence,” and the dismantling of “gang war zones within and around the City.”

At the meeting, only one council member, Angelique Ashby, raised significant concerns with the agreement and the authorizing resolution. Among these deficiencies, she noted that out of the “many, many numbers” referenced in the proposal, including “$26 million in government savings,” there was “not one citation” to explain or substantiate these references. The agreement was “front loaded with the cash,” with all of the funding paid out in the first two years but with “zero outcomes” due until year three, meaning the city had no payments that it could withhold if there was a default in performance. More generally, nothing allowed the city to terminate the agreement if the benchmarks and goals weren’t met, which was complicated further by the fact that the goals (like an initial reduction of 20 percent in gun-related assaults and homicides) had no clearly defined baseline or starting point against which performance would be measured. The agreement start and end dates were left blank; the only “quantifiable dates” in the contract were the dates on which the payments by the city had to be made. Nowhere was there a requirement that the program be coordinated with local law enforcement or schools. And despite an assumption that Advance Peace was going to “match” the city funding with an equal amount, this obligation wasn’t documented in the agreement wording.

Determined to waste not a moment, the council rejected councilor Ashby’s request for a one-week delay to address these concerns, although it agreed to incorporate some changes. 

A much more fundamental problem – considering the whole premise is a reduction in gang-related violence – is that nothing in the agreement or resolution requires fellowship participants to make a commitment to forego violence and forsake their gang lifestyle as a condition of participation, or mandates withholding payments and other incentives from participants who commit violent crimes or are charged or convicted of criminal offenses. While fellowship participants will be evaluated for “new gun charges/arrests” as part of the overall benchmarking reports, this doesn’t extend to criminal charges more generally, or operate as a disqualification. A participant who is paid council-approved funds for accomplishing his “LifeMAP goal” of getting a driver’s license is under no agreement-imposed impediment against using that license to facilitate other criminal acts.  

One law enforcement official – Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones – points out the program may actually shield participants who commit crimes. “They do not engage in law enforcement at all, and I have been told that if they become aware of one of the participants committing crime, they will NOT notify law enforcement.”

This funding is not just “counter-intuitive,” it is simply wrong. Apart from the most obvious, glaring lack of anything in the agreement that conditions payments on “good behavior” and a repudiation of gang violence, the perception is this “incentivizing” is compensation for lawbreakers that weakens respect for the law and the criminal justice system. Heather MacDonald, the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, calls it “an absolute abdication of the law and of the moral authority of the law, and a perfect example of defining deviance down…I mean, you’re basically holding the state hostage.”

These misgivings might arguably be overlooked if there was some guarantee that the spending program significantly reduced gang violence over an appreciable period of time. City residents looking for assurances that their taxpayer funds are being spent wisely will find little in the Council Report. Its lengthy recital of statistics, percentages and cost savings omits, surprisingly, information on the merits and success of this and similar programs. The government bureaucracy may be just as well served, in terms of reducing gang crime and violence in Sacramento, by giving the same participants a bus ticket and $20,000 to stay out of the city. 

Residents who aren’t gang member fellowship recipients will have to wait and see. Unfortunately for them, at the same time that the Sacramento City Council embarks on this bold new program to assist “hard-to-reach” residents to escape crime and violence in their communities, lawmakers across the state continue their efforts to prevent law-abiding Californians from doing the same through the exercise of their Second Amendment rights (here and here and here).

Texas: Governor Abbott Calls for Temporary No-Cost License to Carry Replacements

Leave a comment


A Big Thank-you and Bravo to Texas Governor Greg Abbott for his efforts to support Texas gun owners.

In a press release issued by the Governor’s office today:

Governor Greg Abbott has directed the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) to provide no-cost replacements of License to Carry a Handgun (LTC) cards and Private Security Board (PSB) licensee cards for eligible residents who have had their cards lost or damaged as a result of Hurricane Harvey.

“As Texas begins the recovery process, we are prepared to respond to a wide range of issues to help victims of this Hurricane,” said Governor Abbott. “By eliminating burdensome fees to replace these important licenses, Texans can focus on rebuilding their lives and communities.”

Residents who live in counties that have received a gubernatorial disaster declaration, and who are currently active Texas LTC or PSB license holders, are eligible to apply for free replacement cards. Affected customers must call the Regulatory Services Division contact center at 512-424-7293 for assistance in waiving the fee (This service is not available online). Cardholders should be prepared to provide proof of identity. LTC standard replacement cards would normally cost $25, and PSB replacement cards normally cost $15.

For more information on the DPS LTC and private security programs, please visit:

For more information on replacement driver license and identification cards and surcharge deferments for those affected by the hurricane, visit:

For a list of the counties covered by the gubernatorial disaster declaration, please see:

National Reciprocity Bill Nears Goal Line in the House but Needs Your Support to Reach the End Zone

1 Comment


We need to put pressure on our Congress Critters to get this bill passed and sent to President Trump to sign into law.

Gun owners received good news this week with the passage of the SHARE Act by the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources (see related story). Meanwhile, progress continued to be made on another NRA legislative priority, as Congressman Rob Goodlatte (R-VA) – chairman of the House Judiciary Committee – signed on to co-sponsor H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. The latter bill now has 212 co-sponsors, and its prospects in the House are looking better with each passing week. 

That hasn’t stopped Michael Bloomberg’s gun control cabal, however, from crowing about their supposed “grassroots” effort to defeat the bill. Referencing the practically limitless war chest of their gun-hating patron, the group’s president sneered in an editorial that “Everytown and Moms Demand Action will do, and spend, whatever it takes, including leveraging the full weight of our grassroots network, to defeat the gun lobby.”

While Everytown claims to have a grassroots army, it’s really a vanity project for billionaire and ex-New York City mayor Bloomberg, who funds and inspires the group’s activities virtually single-handedly.  

Urge Your Representative and Senators to Support Concealed Carry Reciprocity

Please contact your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative and urge them to cosponsor and support passage of S.446 — the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017– in the Senate, and H.R.38 — the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017– in the House. You can contact your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative by phone at (202) 224-3121


We recently highlighted how a disaffected gun control activist challenged the group’s supposed “grassroots” character in a scathing essay in the Huffington Post. “For too long,” she wrote, “gun control groups like Everytown have implemented top-down organizational models that treat gun violence prevention advocates like servants and gun violence survivors like fundraising fodder, giving us little or no say in our own advocacy.” That author ultimately resigned her position as an Everytown Survivor Fellow after being blocked from the group’s Survivor Network Facebook page for posting comments critical of management decisions. “I was not as empowered as I thought,” she fumed.

Another article from May notes how Shannon Watts, the principal behind Everytown franchise Moms Demand Action, has been described by sources close to the group as a “nightmare” and a “self-promoting tyrant.” That article detailed a number of high-level staff departures attributed to the difficulties of working for Watts.

Nevertheless, another article reported that Everytown has pledged over $25 million specifically to defeat the NRA’s national reciprocity effort. 

That’s certainly no stretch for egomaniac Bloomberg, whose nearly $45 billion net worth and seemingly inexhaustible zeal to control those he considers his inferiors make him a formidable foe.  

In fact, the only hope of defeating Bloomberg’s anti-gun aspirations is to show him what real grassroots activism looks like by keeping up steady pressure on Congress to send a national reciprocity bill to President Trump’s desk.  

Please contact your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative and urge them to cosponsor and support passage of S.446– the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017– in the Senate, and H.R.38 — the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017– in the House. You can contact your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative by phone at (202) 224-3121, or click here to Take Action.

“Social Justice Collective” Calls for Four-Year Universities to Ban Veterans, Cites NRA Ties



I am shocked and saddened by the way our veterans are being disrespected.

It’s admittedly getting more and more difficult to separate fact from fiction these days, especially when it comes to the increasingly bizarre world of anti-gun social justice crusaders. But it is apparently true that a publication recently appeared on the campus of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs (UCCS) arguing that “we must ban veterans from four-year universities.” Among the reasons the author of the essay cites is that “veterans usually are associated with extremist right-wing groups such as the tea party and the NRA.”

The publication also faults veterans for “openly mock[ing] the ideas of diversity and safe spaces for vulnerable members of society,” frightening fellow students with their “overwhelming presence,” and making “insensitive jokes.”  Nevertheless, it denies any intention to deprive veterans of an education, explaining that they “should be allowed to attend trade schools, or maybe even community colleges.” It asserts, however, that veterans’ military service has left them “permanently tainted” and “no long [sic] fit for a four-year university.” 

report by Colorado Springs news station KKTV said the publication, identifying itself as Issue #1 of the Social Justice Collective Weekly, was posted on a UCCS bulletin board and was also available “in the library and other places,” before students began removing them. A notation on the bottom right of the newsletter states, “UCCS University Center Approved for posting.” The report goes on to state that KKTV viewers contacted an email address included on the publication and were told by the editors of publication that those behind it are “using fake names to protect themselves.” Whether or not these individuals are current or former students of UCCS is unknown. KKTV was not successful in its own attempt to elicit comment from the producers of the publication.

The university, for its part, has not denied that the publication was distributed on campus or that its posting on the bulletin board had been approved. A UCCS spokesman told KKTV, however, that the article “has nothing to do with the school and does not represent the institution’s views.” The university also claimed that “anyone is allowed to post items on the board” (although why, if that’s the case, posting must be “approved” is not explained).

On August 25, UCCS Chancellor Venkat Reddy issued a press release defending veterans as “positive and valued members of our academic and campus community,” with “experience and viewpoints that enrich our discussions.” Chancellor Reddy also defended the right of the article’s author – identified as Terry Steinawitz – to air anti-veteran views. “I reject the notion that we should censor those who denigrate others,” Venkat stated, “as censorship would have silenced many voices over the decades who needed to be heard.” He went on to insist that UCCS’ “core values” include various forms of non-discrimination and that “[p]eople earn the right to study at UCCS by virtue of hard work and individual effort, and we do not bar the door.”

Although it’s tempting simply to dismiss the publication as satire or the work of extremely immature and underexposed students encountering more worldly peers for the first time, it is largely consistent with the climate on many college campuses toward firearms and those who use them. We’ve recently reported on a campus-wide lockdown caused by an art student with a glue gun, a lawsuit by college professors claiming the Second Amendment itself requires universities to BAN law-abiding students from possessing firearms on campus, and a geography professor who taught class in protective combat gear because he fears students who lawfully carry concealed handguns on campus. We’ve also chronicled how a University of Kansas professor called for the death of NRA members’ children as a token of “God’s justice.”

Perhaps not surprisingly, public opinion polling shows a far greater percentage of Americans who are highly confident in the military than in universities. And more Americans have a favorable opinion of the NRA than express high confidence in higher education. 

We certainly agree with Chancellor Reddy that, whatever their motivations, the producers of the anti-veteran publication at the UCCS have a First Amendment right to express their opinions. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether they are merely jokers or the more usual intellectually shallow, self-contradictory, elitist, and exclusionary types who haunt academia these days. America’s veterans will not require a safe space to lick their wounds after reading this document. For they, like the NRA, know that protecting freedom is not a job for those who are easily offended, defeated, or deterred or who require thanks from otherwise helpless people who depend on the security their efforts provide.

Which Political Party Wants You Disarmed?


H/T AmmoLand.

It is scary how the DemocRat party has changed since John F.Kennedy was president as he was a lifetime member of The NRA.

Now they want people to be helpless subjects.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” — George Mason 1788

Which political party wants to take your guns?

Democrats War on Guns
Democrats War on Guns

Slow FactsUSA –-(  I hadn’t thought about that question until this last election. Sure, I’d seen the usual campaign photographs of political candidates wearing hunters-orange and carrying a long gun. That picture changed when Secretary Hillary Clinton said the NRA was her enemy.  Now I’ve looked at the data.  The Democrats are out to disarm us.

I recently looked at why the concealed carry rate varies across the fifty states.  Fewer people receive their carry permits where politicians mandate long hours of training.  Fewer people get their permits when the application is cumbersome and expensive.  As you’d expect, fewer of us are willing to pay these higher costs.

Rules matter more than money.

Fees and training only explains part of what we see.  The larger factor than the price of the permit is if we may apply for a permit at all.  States fall into three broad categories when they regulate concealed carry of a firearm in public.

Some states grant permits on a “may issue” basis.  In those states, a judge or sheriff can deny your application for any reason..or for no reason at all.  Politicians, judges, and retired law enforcement officers are the usual permit holders in “may issue” states.

Some states give permits on a “shall issue” basis.  Law abiding citizens are granted a permit in those states.  There may be mandatory training and fees, but an ordinary citizen can apply.

Some states said their firearms laws weren’t effective at disarming criminals.  Rather than disarm their honest citizens, these states adopted “unrestricted carry” also called constitutional carry.  There, you’re allowed to carry any firearm that you’re legally allowed to own.

The carry rate varies from a high of about 15 percent down to zero in some states.  The number of us who will get our permit is determined by the issuing scheme and the costs.  These factors explain how many, but they don’t explain why.

Why do we see these large variations in fees and issuing regulations?

The answer is politics.  Some states have Democrats as their governor, attorney general, and in control of their legislatures.  Others have Republicans in those positions.  The degree of Democrat control is strongly linked to the decline in carry permits.  Look at the next figure.  All the states in the upper left corner are Republican controlled while all the states in the lower right corner are all Democrat controlled.

On average, the permit rate is about three-and-a-third times higher in Republican controlled states than in Democrat controlled states.  Said another way, about 70 percent of us are disarmed as we move from Republican to Democrat controlled states.  To put a number on it, 10.9 million of us are disarmed by the gun-control regulations in Democrat controlled states.

Where do those restrictions come from?

On average, Democrat controlled states impose higher fees and mandate longer training hours before they will issue a carry permit.  In some states, Democrats refuse to grant permits to any ordinary citizens.  All the states with an effective zero percent licensing rate use a “may issue” licensing scheme.  The states that use a “may issue” licensing scheme are all Democrat controlled.  They are shown in blue in the following figure. In contrast, most of the states that recognize “unrestricted carry” are Republican controlled or politically neutral.  They are shown in red.  Vermont is the single exception and has never required permits.

I didn’t believe it at first, but Democrats really are out to disarm honest citizens.

Widespread firearms prohibition is a fairly new political phenomenon.  Both parties used to support the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.  There also was a time when Democrats supported the working middle class.  Today, the middle class wants to protect themselves at home and in public.  We will be better served when both political parties address our needs and recognize the right to bear arms.


About Rob Morse
The original article is here.  Rob Morse writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Clash Daily and on his SlowFacts blog. He hosts the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast and co-hosts the Polite Society Podcast. Rob is an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: