NRA Personal Protection Expo is Now the Carry Guard Expo

Following up on the announcement of National Rifle Association Carry Guard coverage and training, John Richardson of No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money tipped me off to the fact that the NRA Personal Protection Expo has now been re-branded as the Carry Guard Expo.

I still can’t help but think that having the Expo in the United States Concealed Carry Association’s back yard is deliberate, and I wonder whether folks in Gun Culture 2.0 who are aligned with the USCCA like Andrew Branca will be persona non grata at the Carry Guard Expo?


  1. The only two non-deliberate, not in your face, rationales that I can come up for having the “Carry Guard Expo” in Milwaukee is a) as a favor to Sheriff David Clarke of Milwaukee and b) close enough to Chicago to attract participants without having to deal with Illinois and Chicago gun laws.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. If there is one thing that I don’t understand, though I only know a bit about “branding” as a marketing technique, is why NRA can’t be secure in its 500 lb gorilla position and at least give credit where credit is due, more than grudgingly, to groups like SAF, who aren’t direct competitors, when they “move the ball forward” even if NRA isn’t involved. You’ve got the gig NRA, you can stop auditioning.

    Don’t know where the quote originally came from, but the intro to a song by Undercover from years ago said, “When an institution becomes self-perpetuating, the people become secondary.”

    I blame NRA’s leadership and marketing department, which seem to be operating strictly from a revenue standpoint, self-perpetuation, rather than in support of the (claimed) philosophical goal of actually increasing gun rights. If the mission was driving, they would be seeking mutually-beneficial *partnerships* with others who share the same goal rather than trying to take their clients. That would grow the pool of supporters for all faster, increasing the “pie”, instead of competing for every tiny bit of market share at the expense of the others, “eating the seed corn.”

    Nothing wrong with honest competition to increase options for members, but leave the tearing down, direct or indirect, of allies to the fringe outfits.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. This does seem weird. Trump may be President and the GOP may control Congress, so that makes it unlikely that the gun folks will be taking flak from the Feds. But Bloomberg/Everytown/Moms et al are attacking at the state level and sometimes quite effectively. And elections come often enough.

    Mind you, I think both the NRA and the Bloomberg clones are equally guilty of placing themselves along the rhetorical foul lines in Right and Left Field rather than playing towards the center, but I would prefer that the pro-firearms community take the long view rather than claw at each other for market share, even if I disagree with the NRA on details. Frankly, its all we got.

    As far as the Carry Guard expo itself, what I would like to see is some sort of critical outside review (such as by police or FBI training organizations) to evaluate the education/training being put forth by various organizations such as MAG, NRA, USCCA, etc. David has taken Mas Ayoob’s class so perhaps he can comment on what he thinks of this sudden desire on the NRA’s part to capture the CHL/personal defense market and whether we can critically evaluate the various options out there for their Quality (with a capital Q, in honor of the recently departed Robert Pirsig). Assuming for the moment that obtaining all this self defense training is actually going to be used by us rather than being a bit of old time religion or cult belief on our part.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Hello. I’ve comment before about the anti gun website “armed with reason.” Mr. Yamane, how have you dealt with that site? The information there seems quite legitimate, and to me poses a huge threat to the 2nd Amendemnt. What are your thoughts?


    • Armed With Reason isn’t an oracle. They spend a lot of time lately shooting at a fish in a barrel, John Lott, who has a lot of self-inflicted wounds that harm his ability to promote any good work he might do (and he does some). That is more Lott’s problem. Everyone else’s problem is sorting the wheat from the chaff in the gun debate.

      I scanned one other article at the site and found an egregious omission in their discussion of Omar Mateen that when included, makes their argument specious. Both sides in the gun debate are good at laundering facts and overhyping data. Its a problem with any advocacy movement.

      The debate about gun violence vs. gun availability has been going on since I was a kid in the sixties. It will continue to go on, likely after I reach the other shore.

      What we in the gun community need to do is be more thoughtful than our adversaries and be willing to watch for the beam in our own eye as well as point out the mote in the other side’s eye. As said in Matthew, there is more than enough hypocrisy to go around.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks for the response! That site has been bothering me for several months. Would you mind telling me what they omitted in the Omar Mateen article?

        Liked by 1 person

      • They said “… In Canada, the gunman could not have obtained a license to purchase a firearm because of his history of domestic violence, signs of mental instability and vocal support for terrorist organizations. If gun-shop owners had to notify the FBI when somebody on or previously on one of the terror watch lists purchased a weapon, agents could have investigated and perhaps prevented the attack. ”

        What they omit is that Mateen was never reported for domestic violence. I was following the story at the time and that came out. Had his spouse/domestic partner had him arrested or obtained a domestic violence restraining order, he might well have been on the NICS no-buy list. The site also omits that Mateen had been reported and investigated by the FBI and cleared. Finally, since Mateen was a licensed, armed security guard, it was no secret that he had firearms. So the comparison to Canada’s gun laws was a red herring.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Mateen had been reported for his rants about terrorism to the FBI and cleared” is what I should have said.

        The so called no buy list has never been implemented and probably will not be as it would violate the 4th Amendment’s due process clause. Uncle Sam is having a hard enough time keeping the no-fly list in place against legal challenge and flying is not an enumerated right.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I have not looked at their stats. Stats are stats but sometimes, to quote the title of a book a good friend of mine (a math major and college classmate) owned, “How To Lie With Statistics” is the real name of the game. Dr. Dan Nolan and I took apart the Center for American Progress statistics on gun violence as it was a highly deceptive report.

        One has to dig deeply into the statistics. David Yamane has done a good job explaining statistics in the context of the gun control/gun rights discussions. Do a search on “statistics” or “Arthur Kellermann” on this site as David has thought about this a lot more than me.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Remmi,

    Most of the studies cited are by public health researchers using epidemiological methods. That approach is arguably not a proper one for study of criminal activity, and has demonstrably been undertaken with less than honest intentions on the part of many researchers. The Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership website has a helpful history of that issue. Three articles giving the history of CDC gun-control research, and why that research was de-funded, are linked in the article below.

    In a general sense, many public health researchers begin their research with the assumption that private firearm ownership, like infectious disease, is inherently a public health threat, and thus the research is focused on ways to confirm and allay the threat. The premise has been assumed and much of the research is self-referential.* The extant research by actual subject matter experts in criminal behavior: economists, criminologists, sociologists, law enforcement statisticians and researchers, etc, is typically ignored or derided as it puts the onus on controlling the behavior, not the inanimate “vector.”

    The actual data, which even some CDC research shows, is that the majority of criminal violence is a localized problem among discrete sub-cultures of violence not evenly distributed within the population and with no meaningful correlation with lawful gun ownership as far as that can be measured. A people problem, not a “gun problem.”

    * David Hemenway at the Harvard School of Public Health, and his associates and students, is a one man gun violence research generating machine. If you look at the abstracts of much public health research, not just the titles, you will often see Hemenway’s name 4 or 5 contributors in, and will certainly see his research cited as supporting evidence. I’ve seen entire Reference lists containing nothing but work he participated in. Beyond that, my particular self-referential complaint is that he and his fellows frequently reference a study claiming to have “accurately estimated gun ownership” in various states. A study which he did, which used firearm suicide as a large component of the metric for determining gun ownership rates, which study has been used as support in other studies on the relationship between gun ownership and… firearm suicide.

    Liked by 1 person

      • To toss more gasoline on the fire, Prof. Hemenway has made at least one pretty biased statement criticizing gun owners, which makes me wonder about his objectivity. As if that is not obvious from his published work.

        Liked by 1 person

      • That reminds me, DeFillipis and Hughes cite a lot of work that Prof. Hemenway was involved in. Then again he is cited by a lot of anti-gun people.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. I just checked the bibiography at Armed With Reason. I was looking specifically for anything out of the Yale group (Andrew Papachristos et al) and didn’t find anything. That is bad, as the Yale group is doing some cutting edge work and also providing some pretty good information on how to really reduce gun violence, i.e., by targeting high risk cohorts.

    The comment Matthew Carberry makes about a lot of gun violence research, i.,e. that it treats the gun is the pathogen and the public as helpless victims, fails in that as a pathogen, guns are pretty weak. States like Wyoming, Montana, Vermont have really high gun ownership rates and extremely low homicide rates (although they may have higher suicide rates but that is a different social issue; I don’t walk down a dark alley in Albuquerque and worry about suddenly being overcome by a desire to blow my brains out). What the Yale work shows is that much gun violence in places like Chicago is concentrated among cohorts who are networked into gun violence. So its more like an AIDS epidemic where you have to be intimately involved with gun violence in order to be “infected” rather than like the flu, where merely being in the same room with a carrier can get you nailed. I’d like to see those sorts of gun-violence network studies carried out in other high violence areas.

    So I don’t know if the two authors of that site just haven’t done the research or if they are selectively listing stuff that matches their political point of view.

    The flip side of Andrew Papachristos work is that it gives the lie to the other side of the argument, too. In other words, most of us are at low risk to ever need a handgun for a DGU situation. Just as I don’t need tsunami insurance in Los Alamos, one has to put in perspective whether to carry a hand cannon if there is vanishingly small risk. I might want to instead put my time and money into physical activity to prevent heart disease. Tennis, anyone?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.