Firearms Friday 4/4/25 | Dr John Lott on Non-Lethal Defense | Willie Waffle

Welcome to the party, pal. The Michael Duke Show. I have two guns, one for each of you. Firearms Friday. As Thomas Jefferson stated, it is the right and duty of the people to be at all times armed. I say that the Second Amendment is, in order of importance, the first amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows rights to exist at all. Not being French. Not being French. Firearms from my cold, dead hands. Friday.

Firearms Friday. Your chance to sound off on issues of a 2A nature right here on the Michael Duke Show. Good morning, my friends. Welcome to it. A beautiful, balmy 41 degrees here. In the Cosmic Hamlet by the Sea, Homer, Alaska, we are...

enjoying some beautiful weather here. We're ready to dive into it. Our first, or excuse me, our favorite day of the week, Firearms Friday, a chance to talk about issues related to guns and the Second Amendment and laws and tips, tricks, tactics, the whole thing. You know what it's all about. We are ready to go and ready to jump into it today. Our guest in just a moment is going to be Dr. John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center.

And he's going to come on to talk to us with a couple different topics. One that I think is really kind of relevant to a lot of the things that I've been hearing, and that's the use of non-lethal force. And we're going to go through some of the... peculiarities of that line of thinking. And it's an interesting topic. It really is. And we're going to talk about that here with John Lott as well. Some of his latest work talking about national reciprocity and more.

He'll be joining us in hour one. In hour two, we've got some headlines and some other discussions. And then we're going to finish up, as we always do, every Friday with our friend Willie Waffle. Yes, that's his real name, Willie Waffle.

who is our entertainment critic, who's going to come in and lighten it up for us right before we go away for the weekend with our entertainment reviews and streams and movies, etc., etc. So without further ado, let's just jump into it and get things ready to rock and roll. Dr. John Lott is in the green room, and he's ready to dive into it.

Of course, the author of Gun Control Myths and More Guns, Less Crime, a statistician and all around good dude. Dr. John Lott joins us this morning. Good morning, doctor. How are you? Uh-oh, I can't hear you. Can you hear me, Doc? You can hear me, but I can't hear you for some reason. Well, that's odd. Let me see if I can...

Let me punch this up here. We'll see if we can get Dr. Lott back on the program. Don't forget, you can always join us in the chat room as well. The chat room is available at facebook.com slash michaeldukeshow. slash live if you'd like to come right into the chat room directly uh dr lot you are um uh let's see you are i'm gonna i'm gonna call you on your phone how about that we'll just uh

We'll make this work here. We'll get it done one way or the other. You just turn your speakers off and we'll have the video and the audio because I will... Call you. I'll call you on your phone and we'll get that squared away. There we go. We'll get Dr. John Lott. Hey. Good morning. How are you doing? Doing good, doing good. Technical issues this morning, but it's all good, ready to rock and roll.

Dr. Lott, you, and I'm really glad you reached out to me on this. You don't know this, but I purchased some radio stations down here in the lower part of the state and I've been setting them up. And so I spent a lot, a lot of time. listening to talk radio over the last 90 days, three months, four months.

as we've gotten all this set up. And one of the things that I noticed, and you mentioned this specifically in this article that you have in the Washington Times, as you're talking about non-lethal firearms alternatives. You mentioned that talk radio hosts are talking a lot about non-lethal stuff, Berna specifically. Berna is, and it seems like a really good piece of kit.

But the problem is, and I kind of agreed with you when you sent me this text, I was like, my head was nodding. This may not be a popular take. But this push by Dana Lash and Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck and, you know, Vince, the Vince Show and others. that Berna is the magical bullet, so to speak, on self-protection. It can lead to some real misconceptions, and you go into this in the article. Tell me what your thoughts are here on some of this push for a lot of non-lethal options.

yeah i mean you're right i mean you listen to conservative radio and i listen to a lot of the podcasts and it's all over you know Not just the ones you mentioned, but Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, Megyn Kelly. It's all over it. And, you know, they make it seem like these. non-lethal devices, you know.

shooting uh pepper ball projectiles or kinetic ones uh are a replacement for guns and you know they'll mention things like police are using this but what they don't make clear is that the police when they have this have a gun as a backup in case it doesn't work. And there's a lot of evidence that indicates that there are real limits to using these things. The National Institute of Justice finds that only about 20% of the time that you use some type of pepper gas.

for police, does it actually accomplish what they want it to do? But they have the gun as a backup. And there are lots of reasons why there are limits to it. So, for example, the weather, depending upon the wind blowing or if it's raining. There are limits on using it when you're in enclosed areas because if you use it, to the extent it will affect people, it will also affect the person who's using it.

And there's limits, physical limits on people. So, for example, if the person that you're using it on has been exposed to it in the past. it can limit its effectiveness on that individual. But I suppose the biggest... To me, misconception. is the fact that you have either a lethal option or you have to use one of these other things for a non-lethal option. And what it ignores is the fact that about 95% of the time... that people use guns defensively. It's not necessary to fire the gun.

simply brandishing the gun is enough to cause the criminal to break off an attack. You're talking about way less than 1% of the time that defensive gun uses are used. do you have a fatality or a wounding that occurs? And so... you know, guns themselves. overwhelmingly have a non-lethal option. One of the guys, Brian, who is the owner of this Berna company, I did a podcast with him recently. He gave an example where he had a road rage incident years ago.

The person had gotten mad at him for some reason and had driven his car in front and cut him off and forced them both to go to the side of the road. And they did. And this man got out of the car, came charging at Brian there. He was much larger than Brian, he said, and was... and was younger, and he was worried that the guy could hurt him.

But, you know, the thing is, you don't need Bruna to do that. He had simply brandished a gun. My guess is... very extremely likely that the individual would have backed off at that point right and So, you know, and one can go through the limits for other types of things, like they go and they have a kinetic weapon, which is basically a hard ball that gets fired out.

But there are limits to that, too. If the person's wearing heavy clothing or if, you know, like a leather jacket, for example, and or if it's windy or rainy. It's much less accurate to fire that than it is to go and fire a gun.

simply because it has greater surface area and it has less velocity less force behind it so that wind or whatever uh will cause it to deviate from the path that you want it to do but right you know they don't They make it sound like, well, you use this and you'll incapacitate the attacker for 40 minutes, up to 40 minutes.

They ignore the fact that there's a large percentage of the time that it won't incapacitate the person at all. Right. Well, and look, I want to make it clear to the audience first and foremost. There is a place for this tool, this Berna launcher or any other non-lethal alternative tasers, etc. There is a place, and these are good implements. These are not something that we're poo-pooing on their face.

But I think part of the problem is that the messaging is what we're hearing. The messaging is you don't have to carry a lethal firearm because... The implication is this will do just as good a job is kind of the reaction. And we know from statistics that that's not true. Look, I agree. Yeah. Look, you may have individuals who just refuse to have a real firearm. That's fine. You may have people who are going like police officers who may have a burner device and a gun.

My concern is that with the advertising, as you're saying, there are going to be a lot of people who aren't going to carry both a Berna-type weapon and a gun. And they think that this is simply going to be enough to have the burner weapon. And look. I just think it's misleading to go and imply that whenever you have a gun, you're going to have to result in the death of the attacker. Can that happen? Yeah, obviously, it's a gun.

But it ignores the fact that the vast majority of time that people use it, it's not necessary to actually fire the gun. Right. And I think that was the key takeaway in reading this article from you. was that, you know, that again, the defensive gun use that you and I have talked about ad nauseum on this program, that the vast, vast majority required not a single shot to be fired. And so just the mere present the mere presentment of a firearm was enough to stop the crime in process.

And I'm with you. I agree. And this is probably like a hot take. You know, this is probably a take that some people aren't going to agree with. And look, if that's all you can carry, somebody in the chat room just said, not everyone's allowed to carry or use a firearm. I understand that. And if that's the case, then the Berna is probably or something similar to it is probably a great alternative for you. But it shouldn't be treated as if.

It is, again, the mythical totem that will keep you protected without hurting anybody long term. And that, I think, is the biggest problem, that false sense of security. that some of these advertisements are making people feel to say, well, if you are uncomfortable with a real firearm or you don't want it, then just carry this and you'll be fine because you'll knock them down and you can run away and it'll be 40 minutes before they get up off the ground.

But we've seen it. We've seen people not be knocked down by tasers. We've seen people who've been able to struggle through tear gas or whatever else. And these launchers themselves, these non-lethal launchers themselves. They can still be dangerous if you hit somebody in a sensitive area, the throat, the face, things like that. If they have some other kind of preexisting medical condition, they can still be injured and they can still die from these kind of things.

Right. I mean, you mentioned tasers, for example. What people don't understand is that there are real limits to using a taser. If somebody's wearing rubber-soled shoes, for example. or if it's winter and you have heavy clothing which provides insulation, there's a reasonable chance it's not going to work. I have some data in the piece for nationally, but if you look at New York City, for example,

And they were using tasers pretty much before anybody else was using it. They found in New York City only about a third of the time that tasers were being used. Did they actually take down the person that they were being used? because, you know, you have cold weather for a good portion of the year. I'm sure someplace like Alaska, you're going to have those same types of obvious limits. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Somebody may wear heavy boots that have rubber soles on them that provide insulation.

You know, there are all sorts of issues, and I worry that those get glossed over. Yeah, well, we even know, somebody mentioned in the, we were talking about leather jackets, and up here, Carhartt is like the soup du jour for... outerwear we actually had an incident up in the interior of alaska a few years ago where somebody was actually saved

From a bullet by a Carhartt. I mean, it went through a front windshield and it struck the zipper of their Carhartt and deflected and didn't kill him. So again, there's no surefire way to stop a threat, even with a firearm. But this idea that you could rely on something that's less than lethal. and treat it with the same, I guess, weight as you would with a firearm is problematic. And I think that's your point. And that's definitely my takeaway on this is.

There's a place for every tool, no doubt about it, and non-lethal does have its place, but we shouldn't treat it like it is the penultimate answer as a substitute for a firearm. yeah look uh you have people who can't carry a gun as your uh As the person on the chat room was saying, you know, felons, for example, can't legally own a gun. They're concerned about their safety. They should be able to have some type of protection.

You have places around the country, definitely not Alaska, but you'll have like New York or New Jersey or California, where even after brewing, it's been very difficult for many people to get licensed to be able to go and carry concealed. And there are other situations where it could matter. So, for example, if you're talking about an aggressive animal, for instance, Brandishing a gun isn't going to stop an aggressive animal from going after it.

OK, you know, they know concept of the notion of brandishing there. And so having something that may be non-lethal could be useful in stopping an aggressive animal from going after it. Dr. John Lott is our guest. You can find him at crimeresearch.org. He's the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author of many books, including Gun Control Myths and More Guns, Less Crime.

We're going to continue with him here in just a moment. Don't go anywhere. The Michael Duke Show, Common Sense, Liberty Base, Freethinking Radio. We return with more. It's Firearms Friday. Back with more right after this. If you missed the show, you can listen to it on your time with Duke's On Demand. Oh, and it's free. Like... America used to be streaming live every weekday morning on Facebook Live and MichaelDukesShow.com.

Okay, we're in the break here with Dr. John Lott. Anthony says, and I think this is a good analogy. I think a good analogy. Anthony says, it's a hammer and screwdriver discussion. Lethal and less lethal options are just two tools for two different jobs. You don't hammer screws and you don't screw nails. And I agree with that 100 percent, Anthony. There's a there's a reason for it. And there is a place for.

the less than lethal alternatives. But I think that the main takeaway on this for me, and I think for Dr. Lott as well, I'll let him speak to it. is that that's fine if that's the light it's being presented in. And unfortunately, they've taken a marketing tack to say that this is just as effective. as a firearm, which we know is probably not the case. because for the variety of reasons that Dr. Lott just outlined.

In some circumstances, it's better than a firearm. As he pointed out, you're out jogging, a wild dog comes and charges you. A dog doesn't understand what a gun is, but a dog definitely understands what pepper spray is the second it hits it. And this has been a debate for years on the non-lethal issue, but I think Berna has brought it up to...

uh, brought it up to everybody's attention. You just interviewed with them. Did you bring this up with them when you were talking with them on the podcast? No, I mean, there's a link in the piece if they go to our website. at crimeresearch.org. There's a link. in the piece there to the interview. And I brought up these different points. In fact, they... basically conceded the fact with regard to the pepper.

gas type projectiles that they have. They themselves said that they didn't really rely on that, that they relied on the kinetic one. We didn't really get into the limit. on the kinetic ones there too, but there are limits there too. But when they go and talk about in their ads about, you know, making it so that somebody's incapacitated for up to 40 minutes. They're referring to the pepper gas, tear gas type options that they have.

And they themselves admitted that they didn't rely on that. The ones that they put in their chamber first were the kinetic rounds, not... not the pepper or the tear gas because of issues like weather, you know, whether it's windy or rain, or whether the person may have developed some type of resistance to it because they've been exposed to it before.

or whether you're in an exposed area, like a room in your house, you don't want to use something like that because you're as likely to be affected, if it's going to have any effect, as the person you're firing at. Yeah, it's an interesting thing because, you know, the problem is that especially we've seen case after case after case.

where they have been partially effective or maybe ineffective. And that's the thing. If I'm going to go forth and I want to make sure that I am protected or my family's protected. I want the most surefire way to keep myself protected on those cases. And when you lay out everything from The issue of defensive gun use with presentment where it doesn't require anything to be fired.

and some of the ineffectiveness of these other things, if I had to weigh both options on a scale, I would still go with the firearm if I was able to carry it. Again, the caveat here for everybody out there who's screaming at the radio. is that the caveat, if I can carry, if I can't, well, then Berna sounds like a damn good idea.

Right. If I can't carry a firearm for whatever reason, it it you know, it sounds like a good idea, but it shouldn't be treated again. And this is what we say about buying a gun. You don't buy a gun. And then just put it in your pocket or put it in your purse and put it in your truck and say, well, now I'm protected. You've got to get the training. You've got to understand the laws. You've got to do all these other things. It's not a magic totem.

And I think that's the biggest takeaway on this for sure. Dr. John Lott is our guest. CrimeResearch.org is where you'll find him. I posted links up in the chat room. for the article in the Washington Times, which I'll repost again right now. You can go take a look at it and take a read of it. We're going to continue.

We're 10 seconds out here, and we will pick things back up on this. And we're also going to talk about his latest piece at Town Hall, talking about reciprocity. The Michael Duke Show, Common Sense, Liberty Base. Freethinkin' Radio. Please like and share, subscribe, ring the bell, do all the online YouTube-y stuff. You know, if we could just figure out how to get all of the murder guns and the attack guns and not keep selling those to people and just sell protection guns, I think that would be...

great and solve a lot of problems. Does this mean that if we hurt your feelings, you'd consider The Michael Dukes Show assault radio? Okay, we can live with that. Here's Michael Dukes. Dr. John Lott is our guest from the Crime Prevention Research Center. He's the author of many different books, including More Guns, Less Crime and Gun Control Myths. He's written for many publications.

including the Washington Times where this piece comes out. He's been a contributor to Fox News and everything else. Dr. Lott. You were hesitant to publish this piece, I'm sure, because... I don't know if people would take this as an anti-defense stance or not, but I think you're just pointing out the... the issue of it's not necessarily the tool, it's the way that it's being marketed. Am I reading that wrong? What was your hesitancy in trying to bring this forward?

Well, there are multiple reasons, but I suppose one of the reasons is i've been on the show for all these guys who i'm mentioning they're taking these advertisements uh some of them a number of them i kind of regard as friends You know, they're getting big bucks from taking these ads that are there. I mean, anybody who listens to the number of ads that they have on it know that they're getting a fair amount of their revenue from this.

You know, I guess I was a little worried about how that they were going to take the criticism there because a number of them have gone out with kind of not just the regular ads, but with kind of personal endorsements for the product. And just the ads are so... exaggerated in terms of saying whenever you use a gun, basically implying that you're going to kill somebody and that there are legal problems with that and what have you.

I think not only the brandishing point that we've mentioned several times, but the vast majority of times it's not actually necessary to fire the gun. 95% is just brandishing. But also the fact that, you know, you're not going to get into the legal problem if you are justifiable self-defense. One of the things we got into in the interview that I did with the Burnett people. They were talking about the fact that you're going to face all these huge legal challenges, and I think that's wrong.

something referred to as the reasonable person standard, that you can use force that's commensurate to the risk that you're facing. And you can listen to the interview that I did if you go to my website and click on the Washington Times thing. Washington Times doesn't have the links that I have on the crimeresearch.org website. But the problem is that... When you go and you do this.

The vast majority of times that people actually use guns defensively, it's not a problem. Now, if you go and shoot somebody in the back. who's running away from you uh you know by the reasonable person standard you're not going to be in danger but if if uh you know the example that brian gave uh In a road rage instance, somebody came out of their car and was going towards you. If you brandish your gun, that's a commensurate response.

to uh to the threat that you faced at that point and there's nobody that's going to get you in trouble for doing that right now if you go and just threaten somebody who isn't threatening you at all then you can go and get in trouble or if you You go and fire a gun when there's really no reasonable standard that you would view as putting you in danger. Then you're going to.

like shooting somebody in the back who's running away, uh, then you're going to get in trouble. Right. And I, and I think that's, that's the biggest thing. There is a danger, obviously there is a danger of, uh, you know, of not a danger, but there's a fact that you're going to be have some kind of legal. If you get involved in one of these incidents, some one way or the other. But again, as long as you understand the laws and are using force from within the law.

You should be okay. Your life's going to be upended one way or the other. But again, I think the biggest thing... Go ahead. You know, one of the other things that's a little bit of pet peeve of mine are these ads for insurance for people who are caring. And I think those insurance policies are much more costly. than is justified. You know, if you use a gun defensively, in the cases that I look at, and people can look at our website, for example, as a defensive gun uses.

The vast majority of time, police don't even arrest the person to begin with. And even when they do, they're often let go very quickly. If you're facing somebody who's armed or if you're facing somebody who may be bigger and stronger than you are, you know, if you have a concealed carry permit, you know. It's often that the police will go and give the benefit of the doubt.

to the person who used the gun defensively. Right. Well, I think, again, I think you and I are both in agreement that this is a good tool, but it has to be used in the right way. and that the messaging is what's important here, and that's really what I think you're taking issue with is the messaging.

Right. And I and I agree with that. I agree. And it may be a may be a rough take for out there. But if I if that's a if that's an option that I needed to use burner, sure, that would be one of my first options if I couldn't use a firearm. But generally speaking, I don't have room to carry two different guns, two different defensive weapons. And so I will probably be, I will probably be. Look, the police have to carry both weapons. Yeah.

But they carry both weapons for a reason, because they know that they have to have a backup for the non-lethal weapon that they have. And Frank just said something in the chat room, which I'm going to basically take issue with, because he said, these articles and conversations just divide 2A advocates. It's a good tool of the left. And I disagree. The answer to speech you don't agree with is more speech. And if we're not willing to self-analyze ourselves.

in the gun, the two-way circle, or in the conservative circle, or in whatever bubble that we're in or circle we're in, if we're not willing to analyze ourselves and be self-critical of ourselves, Somebody else is going to do it for us. We need to have that self-analysis. I think that that's, that's Pouchois.

because any time we need to talk about it, if there's something like this that comes out, we should bring it up, and we should talk about the different issues of it. Dr. Lott, I know that that's probably going to be the reaction of some, is that this is just a way to divide us. Is it that my discussion is dividing? Yeah, that the article, the article, the article about this and the conversations just divide two way advocates is what he said. And they said they'll use it as a tool to divide it.

My whole involvement in this debate from the beginning has been to try to make sure that people are safer. And, you know, I go and point out the people who I think who benefit the most from owning guns are basically two groups of people. They're people who are relatively weaker physically, women and the elderly. And they're the people who are most likely victims of violent crime, and that overwhelmingly tends to be poor Black.

who live in high crime urban areas right uh but you know what's driven me what got me involved in this debate because i wasn't a gun person uh to begin with was just trying to figure out what makes people safer. The same thing here. As we say, there may be groups of people. There may be people who can't have a gun. It could be a felon or something. There may be people who are just unwilling to carry a gun. There may be other cases like with the animal attacks.

Brandishing just simply isn't an option. So anybody who reads the piece that I have there, can go and see i make those points that are there right but at the same time i think uh these ads that make it sound like these non-lethal ones are kind of a perfect substitute that you can just you know, incapacitate an attacker for 40 minutes. there while you're waiting for the police to arrive couldn't be further from the truth that there's a reason why the police themselves

have firearms as backups. And if you're going to carry, the ads never say, you know, carry this non-lethal device in addition to the gun. They make it sound like it's a perfect substitute for a gun. And I just think that you're endangering people's safety by giving them that information. Yeah, I would agree with that. All right. Well, we've got links up to this. I've also linked Dr. Lott's interview with the folks at Berna so you can see the discussion for yourself.

and read Dr. Lott's article over at the Washington Times. Uh, it's good stuff. Uh, we're coming up on the break and Dr. Lot has got a brand new piece over at town hall, uh, townhall.com that came out just a couple of days ago, talking about national concealed carry reciprocity. And surprisingly, this has been one of the things that I have been... I'm both happy about and a little leery about, and we're going to get Dr. Lott's take on this here.

In just a moment. Don't go anywhere. The Michael Duke Show. Common Sense. Liberty Base. Free Thinking Radio. We return in just a moment with Dr. John Lott from the Crime Prevention Research Center. You can find him at crimeresearch.org and of course all of his writings and posts and everything else. Go check it out right now. Back with more right after this on Firearms Friday. Running on 100% pure beard power. Oh, also some coffee.

We dip our beard in coffee. Ha, nice beard. The Michael Duke Show. I'm sorry, you said something, Dr. Lotta. I had you muted for a second there. What was that? How's life in Alaska these days? What's going on? You know, it's not too bad. As I mentioned earlier, I ended up buying some radio stations down here on the southern peninsula down in Kenai, lower Kenai Peninsula in Homer.

And we took over on January 1st. And so I spent the last... five or six months running around like a chicken with my head cut off trying to get all this put together and and rebuilt these stations brand new built them out with all new stuff and everything and uh So that's been my life for the last five months or so, getting ready for it and then moving down, moving my whole family down.

setting up the new stations and getting things rolling so it's been it's been an exciting time to say the least so it's been so how many how many stations is your your show on now uh so my station my show is on uh well we got three stations down here plus the stations in fairbanks plus something like 16 translators or something across the state so It's a bunch. We go all the way from Unalaska down in the Aleutian chain all the way up to...

Fairbanks in the interior. And then of course here on Facebook and YouTube. So we got, we got a good reach. It's been, it's been a, it's been a fun time. It's been a lot of, a lot of work. How about yourself? You've been, you've been doing well. Yeah, I moved from Montana to Utah. So I live in Salt Lake now. Oh, you do?

Yeah. You had that, one of the last, well, I guess it was a few months ago, you were on a deck, you had a deck behind you with a big view. Is that from Utah or is that in, was that in Montana? That's Montana. Oh, okay. So I lived in Missoula.

a house up on the side of one of the hills there and had a view across the missoula valley and what made you move to utah Well, my fiancée has... relatives that live in salt lake city right oh i forgot and i i i meant to tell you that i did i saw that you got engaged so congratulations uh on that um and on happy happy happy day when's the happy day

I'm not sure. It should be soon. Okay. See, got fitted for a wedding dress. I guess it's not going to be ready until the end of May, so probably sometime after that. Soon, soon. It'll be good. All right, well, good. Well, I mean, I love that you reached out to me with this because I, you know, because I'm in agreement with you. I love any tool that can help make us safer.

But again, at the same time, the pretending that somehow it's the magical defense fairy that you just slip in your pocket and then you'll be safe. I think that's the biggest problem. And I agree with that. And on the insurance thing, I think Anthony makes a great point. Anthony said that insurance thing is also problematic.

He said, I'd have to find the article, but I remember reading about how one of these left-leaning states were using it as a criteria to pin premeditation on you or as a method to prove to the jury, I guess, that you intended to shoot someone because you'd gotten insurance. And I could see that. I could see that being used as an argument because you insured yourself. You were you were wanting to go out there and shoot somebody.

It's definitely problematic. Brian said those horror stories persist, which drives the sales of these insurance policies as well. I mean, you know what I mean? I may not be at liberty to say which insurance I know something about, but they've had it for a number of years, and they've never actually had a case that they paid out on.

you know because it's just not used uh at least by anybody legitimate there's been two cases that they've had over i don't know how many hundreds of thousands of people over how many years uh where somebody really committed a crime in using a gun and they wouldn't defend them but uh but legitimate self-defense cases were like zero and uh you know

It's just the odds of actually being in a situation where you're justifiably needing that insurance is just incredibly low, and the insurance premiums are much too high for what you get. I agree, and I agree with that, and I think that that makes a lot of sense. Jeannie just went all the way. She went full bore on the other direction when we were talking about lethal versus non-lethal. She says less than lethal is for law enforcement.

John Q. Public has no business carrying less than lethal tools. I disagree with that as well I think that there's a place for any of those tools. But again, as Greg said, it's I can't carry two choices. It's too much weight. And so he's right. I mean, you know, that's the thing. If I have one choice. and it's valid for me to be able to carry a real firearm, I will. But if I don't, then a less lethal choice, that works for me as well. There shouldn't be a restriction.

Law enforcement should not be able to say, oh, it's only for law enforcement. No, it's a right to carry and defend myself. So I think both of those are valid. I guess what I would say for Jeannie is that. you know there are people but to me it's the relatively limited uh you know people who can't get a permit uh you're talking about a few places in the country surely not alaska yeah um where your constitutional carry or the other 28 constitutional carry states

Hold on, Dr. Lutt. I'm going to let you finish that thought, but we're about to rejoin, so let's get back to it. Here we go. The Michael Duke Show. What the hell is an assault weapon? Does that mean that if we hurt your feelings, you should consider The Michael Duke Show Assault Radio? Okay, we can accept that. Here's Michael Duke.

Kind of a dick, but somewhat funny. Yep. Welcome back to the program. Dr. John Lott is our guest. More Guns, Less Crime is one of his most well-known books. Gun Control Miss. He's also the president of... the CPRC, which is the Crime Prevention Research Center. We've been talking about his article in the Washington Times on Less Than Lethal. One final thought on that article, because right before we came out of the break,

Jeannie had said that less than lethal is for law enforcement. John Q. Public has no business carrying less than lethal. And I disagree with that. I think they should be able to carry either one if they want or both if they have the belt space or the way to do it. And Dr. Lott was going to make a point on this before we jump to reciprocity. I mean, I agree there's a role for both, but I also think that Jeannie has a point in the sense that it's relatively limited what those other cases are.

If you're somebody who's banned from having a gun, That's a relatively limited group of people. somebody who doesn't refuses to have a gun that's another group of people um and there may be some other selective things like dealing with an animal uh their benefits from having uh you know because brandishing simply doesn't work as we've talked about. But my own belief is that for the vast majority of people, the point that she's making is correct.

Yeah. And I would just say that, you know, but if I have to go into a park where it's out, like in New Mexico, where they outlawed concealed carry and all the big parks and things like that, and I had to go out there and I wanted to comply. a less than lethal option on a civilian would be, you know, would be, would be valid to me. It shouldn't just be restricted on that.

All right. Well, let's move over to this story that you wrote in town hall talking about national concealed carry reciprocity. I am excited about the idea of reciprocity. I'm not as excited about the fact that the federal government would mandate. you know, something about guns. I'm always worried about the things that they can give as the things that they can take away. That's my, that's my one concern with this, but I would love to see

national reciprocity bill. There's already something like, what, 36 states, I think, that recognize each other's concealed carry permits. So this would just basically make it law throughout the whole nation, right, Doc? There's already a lot of reciprocity that goes on. It depends on what state permit you have. If you have Arizona's permit, it's recognized in 37 states. Utah is recognized in 36 states.

Florida, some other states also have permits that are issued that are recognized across the country. You also have 29 constitutional carry states, including Alaska, where it's not even necessary to have a permit to be able to carry in those places. So, you know, you can travel a vast majority of the country right now. The problem is, is they can't travel every place.

If, let's say, you're a woman who's traveling by herself and your car breaks down, you know, and you're having to travel through Illinois or California and New York or New Jersey or Maryland or some of those, a few other states. You may wish that you had the ability to protect yourself. If you drive a truck that's carrying valuable cargo, you may worry about somebody trying to steal what you have there.

And having to drive through some of these states that are very restrictive may limit your ability to go in and protect yourself and others. So I understand your concern about the rules. This is essentially what we have for driver's licenses right now. If you have a driver's license in Alaska, you could drive all the way from Alaska down to Miami or Key West.

And it would honor. Now, you have to go and realize that the traffic rules can vary across the country. In some places, you're allowed to turn right on red. For example, in other places you can't. You know, ignorance of the differences in the laws in the different places is no excuse. There's no protection that's there. But, you know, people seem to make it OK driving across the country when they travel. Right. And the same thing is.

true with reciprocity you have to go and and know what the rules are in different places but the bottom line is It's worked out really well. You just don't see. permit holders getting in trouble when they go and travel through other states. You know, one of the big ironies is, well, it looks like reciprocity will pass the House. in Congress, it seems extremely unlikely that it will pass.

the senate because democrats will filibuster it uh you need 60 votes in order to overcome a filibuster, and while all 53 Republicans will vote for reciprocity. it's pretty clear that there won't be any Democrats who will vote for overcoming the filibuster to even allow a vote on it. And, you know, the irony is, is you have a number of Democrats from states like, let's say, Virginia, where both the senators there are Democrats.

And they will fight tooth and nail against breast prosperity, even though Virginia recognizes permits from 48 other states. You know, a state like Vermont, which has two Democratic senators, recognizes people's ability to go and carry from all the other states in the country. There are no problems that the senators from those states can point to with regard to reciprocity. There's no move, even though the Democrats control the state legislatures in both of those states.

in either of those states legislatively to undo the reciprocity agreements that the state has with other states. There's no move at all. And yet the Democratic senators for those places will vote. I'm sure to withhold uphold a filibuster on this. So, right. Unfortunately, even though Trump says that he strongly supports this and would sign such a law, if it would go into effect. It's not likely to happen as long as the Democrats.

uh maintain the positions that they do well what this sounds like dr lott is a politician problem i mean it's obviously not a police problem you mentioned in the article that the vast majority of police like 90 of street cops and Eighty something percent of administrators and police chiefs are in support of a reciprocity law because they understand what it means on the street. This is not a police. This is a politician problem more than anything else.

Police and police chiefs are overwhelmingly supportive of reciprocity. You know, you may have had when states adopted right to carry laws to begin with, there was some concern, let's say, by police chiefs about what would happen, but they've learned over time. how incredibly law-abiding permit holders are right uh that there haven't been problems with it uh and uh and so their fears have been allayed and they know that not only aren't there problems for the permit holders in their state

But they're not problems for permit holders from other states either. Right. No. In fact, you've outlined the statistics that. Permit holders, generally speaking, are more law abiding than even police officers. They they end up doing crime more often than permit holders do. And that's and that's I think that's a good statistic to keep banging on because it shows that their fears.

are basically not well-founded. But this, again, comes back to the politics of it. They don't want to jump on board because they don't want to give, I don't know if it's not giving the Republicans a win. They just want to support their team. I mean, it's ironic that Vermont, of all places, where they have reciprocity already with all 50 states, but they're not going to support it because reasons whatever that is it's uh it's frustrating do you think there's unfortunately

I mean, up until recently, I was living in Montana, which is a pretty pro-gun state. But the Democrat Party in the state. is really no different than the Democratic Party nationally on the gun. uh and i think that's pretty much true across the country that you have there so yeah um I don't think, I think it's basically.

They've changed fundamentally on the gun control issue. Yeah. Well, I mean, Alaska, right? We were the second state in the union to do the constitutional carry. We've been more pro-gun than almost any other state in the nation. And yet our Democrats here in this state, they just put in another red flag law. They just put in another home invasion law or mandate safe storage and all this other kind of stuff. It makes no sense.

But they're just I guess they're just going to do what they're going to do in that regard. Final thoughts. We're down to the last two minutes here, Dr. Lott. Is there anything that we can do to help? increase the chances of this reciprocity passing? Or are we just at the mercy of those seven Democrats at this point? I mean, I suppose if people live in the state where you have a Democratic senator, you can contact them. Obviously, that's not the case.

uh in alaska even though murkowski is not the strongest on these types of issues um but uh you know If you know friends in other parts of the country that have Democratic senators, you can reach out to them, I guess, and talk to them. People basically, politicians care about their own constituents' views, not people from other states letting them know about things.

Well, it will be an interesting discussion, if nothing else. And especially again, just the hypocrisy of Vermont. You were just that that really blew. I didn't know that specific statistic or that that fact that. They already allowed reciprocity from all the states, and yet they would vote against this. That seems to make no sense whatsoever. Dr. Lott, about a minute here. What else are you working on? Anything we should be looking forward to?

Well, we recently did a study on active shooting cases, kind of for the first time doing a deep dive comparing. Instances where police have stopped active shootings versus concealed carry permit holders. And it was pretty eye-opening. It's right up at the top of our website at crimeresearch.org. But for example, you find that

permit holders stop these attacks at a greater rate than police officers do. And the police officers are actually more likely to get killed or injured when they're trying to stop these attacks. A lot of it just stems from the fact that police in uniform have an incredibly difficult job and we should be thankful for the work that they do but if you have somebody in uniform

And he's identified for sure as a person who's going to have a gun and you're an attacker. You have real tactical advantages. You can wait for the officer to leave before you attack. We're out of time here. Dr. John Lott, our guest. The Michael Duke Show. Yeah, no, I mean, that's exactly it, Doc. The visibility. I mean, if you're just playing a what-if scenario...

And you've got a room or a gymnasium full of people and you're an attacker and you want to go in there and shoot as many people as possible. or do as much bad stuff as possible, the first thing you look for is somebody in uniform, right? You take them out. But the concealed carry holders, of course, they're stealthy because it's concealed. They have no idea. I'm going to go out and read that because that. Plus it's just the number of police versus the number of permit holders.

you have about 21.5 million concealed carry permit holders in the united states right uh we have 29 constitutional carry states where it's not necessary to have a permit you have Over 7% of American adults carry all the time, they say, and another 8% carry some of the time. You know, compare that to police. You have like 670,000 police officers in the United States. you know, let's say a third are on duty at any time. You have 200 and some thousand that may be on duty. 200,000 police officers.

going to go and protect 340 million Americans. It's just the odds that they're going to be there. And then the fact that they're in uniform means that even if they are there, they're either going to... The killer will either move to another target or they'll take out the officer first. Yeah, no, absolutely. I mean, and that's, that's always been the axiom that, you know.

When seconds count, police are minutes away, you know, kind of thing. And why do I carry a gun? Because carrying a cop is too heavy. It's just it doesn't make any sense. They can't be there. I know it says protect and serve on their cars, but what was it? USV Rose that basically said that the police don't have a duty to protect you. Their job is to basically clean up after the fact. I mean, it's just.

It is what it is. I'd say this. Anybody who's read my academic research knows that I think police are extremely important. I think they're the single most important factor for reducing crime. But people have. have to recognize what an incredibly difficult job police have when they're in uniform for stopping these particular types of attacks.

they have kind of like a neon sign above them that says shoot me first right if if an attack is going to be occurring in those places and and we have to appreciate the very difficult job that they have but i mean i'll just put to you this way If you are looking at air marshals, how many people think that air marshals ought to be in uniform?

Right. I think air marshals, that'd be good to have air marshals in uniforms. Why don't we put any air marshals in uniforms? Right. Yeah. It's a good question. I mean, it's a valid, and you're making your point again, the neon flashing billboard that says shoot me first. That is the ultimate case right there. Your research on this does not surprise me because like you said.

If they're the first ones to be taken down, then it's up to the concealed carry holder or the concealed carry holder. If they're the only one, they can get the jump and they have the element of surprise, which I think is important. All right. If you want to see, excuse me, if you want to see Dr. Lott's research, crimeresearch.org. He's got all the posts up to his various articles and links, plus his academic research and their new study.

on the stopping of mass shootings by concealed carry holders. Dr. Lott, as always, my friend, it's great to talk with you. Congratulations again on your engagement. And we look forward to talking to you again here in the future. Okay. All right. Well, thanks. It's good to talk to you. We'll see you soon. Thank you so much. Dr. John Lott, our guest here on the program, The Michael Duke Show.

Okay. Um, we're getting up to it. We're getting up to it here. What do we got here? Uh, got it there. All right. Whew. Um... I'm going to go through here and see. Well, I suppose I should turn all this folder all off. Let's turn all this off, shall we? There we go. Back to the home turf here. Let's go back through the comments.

Totally off topic, says Brian. And he could ban himself. MEA is having board elections. There seems to be more money this cycle than in the past. Be wary. Be very wary of who you support. Yeah, we're having that conversation down here because there's an HEA board election going on here until May the 1st as well, Brian. So I hear you. I hear you on that. It's been a very interesting time.

um i see genie and genie and chris christopher over on youtube are going back and forth on training uh and women and the elderly uh and everything else look we've talked about this in the past the gun and maybe we should pick this up as a topic after the top of the hour here the gun is the ultimate equalizer Right? Doesn't matter if you're old.

If you're infirmed, if you're a woman of smaller statue, if you are in a wheelchair, if you're blind in one eye, only have the use of one hand, I mean, whatever it is. An attacker, the gun is the greatest equalizer there is if you're trained with it and you know how to use it, right? If you're prepared. And I, you know, the that's why I've always said that the people who should be most supportive of gun rights.

are historically some of the groups like the National Organization of Women and things like that that have been against them. I mean, it makes no sense whatsoever. I'm all for equal rights for women, except for being equal in a fight. You want to have equal rights? You want a woman to be equal to a man in a physical fight? That firearm is the great equalizer. 100% for sure. 100% for sure. Jason's out here being an advertisement for Berna. No lethal launcher will stop an attack like Berna.

Okay. All right, here we go. We're jumping back into it. The Michael Duke Show. Common Sense, Liberty-based, free-thinking radio. Back with more. Don't go anywhere. Let's do this. Hour two is right now. Whoa, buddy. Put that thing back in its holster. We haven't gone anywhere. I don't understand. Check out themichaeldukesshow.com for information on how to get access to the podcast. Welcome to the party, pal. I have two guns, one for each of you. Firearms Friday. As Thomas Jefferson stated.

It is the right and duty of the people to be at all times armed. I say that the Second Amendment is, in order of importance, the First Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows rights to exist at all. Firearms. From my cold, dead hands. Friday. Firearms Friday. Good morning, my friends, and welcome back to hour two of the big radio program. We are ready to go.

Here in this second hour, and we're talking about a lot of different things. We just finished up with Dr. John Lott from the Crime Prevention Research Center. You can find him over at crimeresearch.org. And we had a great conversation with him about less than lethal options and how there's a place for them. But we shouldn't pretend or they shouldn't be marketed as if they're the magical unicorn of self-defense.

which I think is kind of what's going on right now in a way. Maybe that's my jealousy talking because, you know, companies haven't come to me to try and hawk their less than lethal alternative. But I think, I mean, I would still take the same stance that there are places and it's a tool. It's a tool like any other. And I don't try and do joins with a chainsaw. And I don't try and cut down a tree with a table saw, right? I mean, there's a place for everything.

And each tool has to be used in the right way. And you have to understand, you have to know your limitations. Know your limitations. That's what it's all about. So we just had a great conversation with him about that and national reciprocity as well. One of the interesting things that came up in the discussion of reciprocity. And there is, again, there are many states that recognize.

the concealed carry permits from other states. I think the average is something like 36 or 37. In some cases, like Dr. Lott made a point of talking about Vermont, Vermont recognizes concealed carry permits from all 50 states. They recognize the right of the person to carry regardless of where they're from. Alaska does, too. With a constitutional carry, you can carry there regardless of what's going on.

And I think he makes some interesting points in this article, which is over at townhall.com. Oh, I forgot to post that. Let me post that link in the chat room for those that want to go out and read Dr. If you want to read this article about reciprocity. And he makes a very, very valid point about. The equalization, how the firearm is, you know, gives you the ultimate in equalization. He talks about.

women, the elderly, and in some cases, people who are the likeliest victims of crime, poor blacks in high-crime urban areas. They are the two groups that the women in the elderly and the poor minorities in high crime urban areas, they're the two groups that would most likely benefit. from something like this because they have seen the largest percentage of concealed carry handgun permits in the last decade.

The concealed carry handgun permits for women have increased at 112% faster rate than men. And that permits for minorities has increased 284% faster than for Caucasians. And so they're the ones that would mostly benefit from this reciprocity issue. And that led to a discussion in the chat room back and forth about, you know, women and the elderly and all this kind of stuff. And let me just let me just say it to you this way. There is no greater equalizer in the terms of self-defense.

between any peoples, men, women, black, white, yellow, old, young, whatever else, there is no greater equalizer than the firearm. Period. Full stop. Now, with the caveat that whoever has the firearm has taken the time to understand the laws, to get the training, to do the practice, to do what they needed to do, that's the caveat. But other than that, there is nothing else out there that makes you more equal in a fight than a firearm.

It doesn't matter if you're a 98-pound soaking wet lady facing some 250-pound guy brawling in there. It doesn't matter if you're in a wheelchair, blind in one eye. 80 years old, if, you know, nothing gives you more of a chance in a fight than distance and the ability to defend yourself from that distance. And so one of the things that has always shocked me is and I've never been able to understand is why organizations that should be some of the most strident supporters of the Second Amendment.

And I'm thinking about groups that for years have been anti-gun and they're not necessarily relevant these days, but the National Organization of Women now, remember the now fight? What was the gal's name? I've forgotten the gal's name. Anyway, they've been vehemently anti-gun. This is an organization that was dedicated to forcing, you know, making it equality for women. The National Organization of Women now, they wanted equality for all women.

I never understood why an organization that ostensibly stirred for the equality of all women would want women to be disarmed when the greatest equalizer in their kit for self-defense was a firearm. Again, with a caveat that you trained and you understand and it's not just sitting in your purse and you bought it and put it in there and thought now you're safe. With the proper training and the mindset and the information for the laws and everything else.

And going back to this reciprocity thing that... Dr. Lott was talking about what we have here, folks, and I've said this for many different topics and many different things. What we have is a politician problem. So the reciprocity bill is going to pass the House. Then it's going to get stuck in the Senate because the Democrats are going to try and filibuster.

And there's only 53 Republicans in the Senate who will vote for it, and they need 60 to break the filibuster. Again, seven of those states... or seven of those senators, Democratic senators. could come up there. Six of the states from the 12 Democratic senators recognize concealed carry permits for the rest of the country, Arizona, Georgia, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia.

All those states recognize concealed permits from the rest of the country. They all recognize, but they're not going to move to try and support a national. It's what they do in their own state. But they're not going to do it. Why? Well, because apparently the National Party said that they shouldn't. Because it's more about politics than it is about principle. Dr. Lott talks about that's really the biggest problem here. I mean, it's not the police officers.

Police officers, despite all the fears from the gun control folks, 86% of police chiefs and sheriffs support national reciprocity. And over 90% of the street cops, over 90% of those on the street support concealed carry handgun laws. They know because they've done polling and talked to these folks. These are the folks that are down in the trenches and they see firsthand how that reciprocity and how concealed carry works. They know that the police are important in deterring crime.

But statistically, they know that the police always show up, almost always, almost always show up after the crime has been committed. overwhelmingly. Dr. Lott and other research has shown that letting people carry concealed handguns reduces crime because it gives people the ability to defend themselves. And that's, that's, that's the goal. I mean, that's the golden ticket, folks.

Being able to defend yourself, being able to be responsible for your own self-determination and the defense of yourself and your family, this is a fantastic opportunity. Now, is it going to go anywhere? I don't know. I... I'd love to say yes, but again, we're not in Arizona, Maine, Georgia, New Hampshire, Vermont, or Virginia. has got its own problems right now.

Right. With some other things, which we'll talk about here in just a bit. But again, I would love to see a national concealed carry reciprocity. And look, if you had told me 20 years ago. that... If you told me 20 years ago that there would be constitutional carry in 39 states, Because 20 years ago, it was just I think it was us in Vermont and maybe one other state.

And it was such, there was so much caterwauling that went on over this across. I mean, it was so much, so much screeching and, and outrage over, you know, we're all going to die. Right? It's going to be shootout at the OK Corral. I mean, we heard this everywhere. But Vermont was the first. We were the second. I think maybe 20 years ago, there was one more. But here we are today with only a dozen states that don't allow concealed national or excuse me, constitutional character.

We are making a difference. We are moving ahead on this. If we don't get the reciprocity in this go around, maybe we can in the future. But man, if you have friends or relatives or family that live in Arizona, Georgia, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Virginia. I mean, they only need seven. We only need seven. to be able to jump on board to stop the filibuster. Now, we're assuming that the Democrats will filibuster. Maybe not, but I think it's a pretty good bet when it's all said and done.

So we'll see what happens. And again, I don't understand what the fear is. revocations of firearms license amongst concealed carry holders, like doing a crime that's strident enough and stringent enough to have your concealed carry permit revoked. That revocation happens at one twelfth the rate. that police officers are convicted of similar crimes. One twelfth. Concealed carry permit holders are 12 times more law-abiding than police officers.

I mean, I'm not saying we don't need police. I'm just saying if you are worried about any sector of the populace, it would seem that concealed carry permit holders should be at the lowest bottom of the list at that point. You know, one twelfth the rate that police officers are convicted for firearms related crimes. Police barely commit, they rarely commit crimes, right? But concealed carry permit holders are even more lie-bodied.

Which ought to stop, I mean, it ought to stop all the fervor over this whole thing. All the jaw jacking and the hand wringing. Okay, we're up against the break. We got more. I got a couple stories to talk about. I don't have any phone lines today, and I apologize. I know Fred probably in Rhode Island is waiting to speed dial us in.

we don't have any phone calls today because i had something broke and i've got to go fix it but i didn't have time this morning so sorry fred you just have to join us in the chat room and tell us what your thoughts are in there But we'll be back with more, some stories, and then, of course, finishing up with Willie Waffle from wafflemovies.com. It's all dead ahead. The Michael Duke Show. Common Sense, Liberty-based, free-thinking radio on Firearms Friday.

We're broadcasting live through a series of tubes. Allowing all of these entities to provide streaming stuff going on the internet. Well, it's kind of hard to explain. Sorry. Streaming live. weekly morning on Facebook Live and MichaelDukesShow.com. Okay, hello my friends, how are you doing today? You ready to jump in and... Get things going? You ready to jump in and make the world a safer place for democracy?

Right? Let's do it. Let's do this thing. We're making the world a safer place for democracy. All right. Sorry. Let me go over here to the comments. Let me go over here to the comments and see what you guys are saying. Let's see. I've never meant, Rob says, I've never met anyone against the right of self-defense, but you can't be pro-self-defense if you prohibit the tools you need to defend yourself.

Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Gloria Steinem. Thank you, Teresa. That was the now lady. I couldn't remember. Gloria Steinem. And she did change some of her attitude when she got older. I do remember that as well, Teresa. Thank you. Yeah. Um, new word alert, caterwalling, caterwalling. Um, We all remember this story. 85 year old woman shot, killed intruder after he handcuffed her to a share and threatened to kill her. Yeah. I vaguely remember that story, Brian. I can't follow the link, but you know.

Did you see the report, says Charlie, about the Nashville mass shooter? No, I didn't. Charlie, if you want to drop me an email with that info, I'd love to see the story, what it's talking about. Chris says, I have been liking a less lethal method of using a high-powered taser.

I mean, again, there is a place for less lethal, for non-lethal or less than lethal alternatives. There is a place, so long as you understand the limitations. I think that's the important part. We're not poo-pooing less than lethal options. I think what Dr. Lott and I were both basically agreeing on is that the marketing of them is if there's some kind of mystical laser shield that protects you from everything.

And then by using it, you'll incapacitate the assailant for 40 minutes, guaranteed or double your money back. That's part of the problem. Yeah, that's part of the problem. Again, there is a place for less than lethal and non-lethal options. Absolutely. The rub was the way that they're being portrayed. I think that's the rub. Jason said, Okay. Well, and it does happen. And there is a place for, again, there is a place for non-lethal.

But if I have to choose between lethal or non-lethal, and it's legal to go where I'm going, I will choose lethal every time. Why? Because I can choose to be lethal or non-lethal with my lethal weapon. If I so choose. Either through presentment, what a lot of people call brandishment, I call presenting, presentment, presenting the firearm. Or if I have to...

And I need, you know, whatever the case, I mean, if there's a reason why I should have to wound somebody, which is not how I train. That's not how you train to stop the threat. Wounding them does not necessarily stop the threat, but. to be less than lethal and again contrary to what you see in a lot of the movies getting shot is not a hundred percent lethal i mean unless you're shot you know in a vital the t air you know you know what i mean people have survived a lot of shooting

So we're not saying don't get less than lethal, Jason. So if you missed the show, you'll have to go back and listen to it. We're not saying don't get less than lethal. We're saying, don't pretend like it's the thing that's going to save you no matter what, and it's better than a firearm for it, which is kind of the reaction.

What the hell is an assault weapon? What isn't? If I assault you with a penguin, doesn't that make it an assault weapon? Does this mean that if we hurt your feelings, you'd consider The Michael Duke Show assault radio? Okay, we can live with that. Here's Michael Dukes. Okay, no assault weapons. No assault penguins were harmed in the making of this radio show. I just wanted to let you know that right off the bat, just in case you were worried about the assault penguin.

They're vicious, vicious creatures. Oh, there's so many things that I want to talk about here this morning, but we don't have a lot of time. I guess what I will start with, because we are here facing some similar discussions here in the state of Alaska about red flag laws and gun confiscation, etc. I will pick up this article from Tom Knighton over at Bearing Arms. where he talks about, you know that red flag laws are tough when the best arguments for them turn out to be...

A lie, blatantly a lie. Now, a lie wrapped up in truth. So again, maybe this is all about messaging, just like we were talking about with these less than lethal options. Maybe this is about messaging. But we know, you know, we know about red flag law. You know, we've all seen stories. We've heard the horror stories. I've talked about the stories, the bad ones. I mean, one of the first red flag instances after the red flag laws went to effect led to the death of the person who was.

being served and it turned out that the whole thing was about a family feud it wasn't really about them being dangerous but they got killed When they were being presented with this red flag order at 430 in the morning or something at their house, which why you would need to roll up on somebody at 430. Did you think that that was going to make the situation more safe? Right.

And we know all the arguments for red flag laws. And they're not, the thing is that they're not really doing that good a job. I mean, they're not really painting the picture for people. People aren't buying it is what I'm saying. Because people, when it's explained to them, that you're basically abrogating due process. and you're suborning their rights.

and that there's other laws on the books already that deal with this, they're not super thrilled about that idea. I mean, that's kind of the thing. Now, Nevada has got a red flag law up right now. And one of these lawmakers got up there and made a very. What do I want to say? The mental gymnastics required to go through this are pretty interesting. Tom Knighton goes out and says, the best way I can phrase it is to call it an outright lie.

And here's what they said. Gunright advocates spoke Wednesday against proposed legislation meant to keep weapons away from people experiencing a mental health crisis. It's a murky area of Nevada law that even makes some police officers uncomfortable. The situation can come up when a person is threatening suicide. Now, that's not a crime. And so police don't have the same things they do when a person is being placed under arrest. They can't do the same thing.

Senate Bill 347 would allow police to confiscate guns from people who could be a threat to themselves or family members. Police could hold the firearms for up to 30 days. The bill is sponsored by Democratic Senator Melanie Schiebel, who represents District 9 in the southwest Las Vegas Valley. Schiebel said...

A mental health crisis hold comes at kind of this intersection. The person's not being arrested, so they're not losing the same constitutional rights they would lose if they were going to be incarcerated. And so law enforcement officers do not have the same ability to simply remove a firearm the way they would if someone was being arrested.

Now, what she's saying is accurate but the way she's saying it gives you a false impression and this is As far as verbal jujitsu goes, she's got a black belt in verbal judo, right? Yes, someone being arrested will have their gun taken by police. But, Tom Knighton points out, they're getting due process along the way.

Their rights, while they are being arrested and their gun is being confiscated and taken away, they'll get their guns back if they're found out guilty. And they don't have to prove that they're innocent. There is a presumption of innocence. In a red flag hearing, the automatic presumption is that you are guilty. They also, in that same process of being arrested, have the right to an attorney. And if they can't afford one, they'll get one anyway, which means that at least...

Someone is going to defend them with their best interests in mind. If you get are subject to a red flag order. That's all on you. The court is not going to provide you with an attorney, even if you can't afford one. And we've already heard some of the stories that getting your guns back and getting those things reversed, those red flag orders reversed. It's going to be $10,000. Break out the checkbook. It's going to cost you $10,000 to get it done. They go around all those things.

And by the way, the worst part about this is that when you're arrested by a police officer, it's because they either have evidence of a crime or they witnessed you perpetrating a crime, right? But red flag laws are almost exclusively from actions and claims made by a third party. Somebody you don't know.

It's a civil action. There's no right to a court-appointed attorney. And because of the fact that it is a third party, There have been instances over and over and over and over again of abuse of that system. You know, spouses and ex-lovers and family members who are, you know, were mad about something. And so they essentially swatted their loved ones and put it in. And now.

You know, the full brunt of the government is being brought down on this person because you got bent out of shape of them about something. And in some cases with deadly consequences, as I pointed out earlier. There's other problems as well. There's a lot lower standard of evidence needing to take somebody's guns versus making an arrest. If somebody says in the presence of a police officer that they wish they were dead.

I wish I was dead. That's not enough for the officer to make an arrest or anything else in and of itself. So now the officer has to dig deeper and may learn that it's just a vague feeling, but at the same statement. That could get their guns yanked immediately if these red flag laws were on the books. If you make that statement, that could be all a police officer needs to say, whoa.

You know? Or if you're like, oh, I could just kill him. You know? You're mad at someone. Oh, I could just throttle him. Ooh. Ooh. Ooh. Now, the one thing that they always ignore at every level, it seems like in this discussion. is that every state in the nation has a law allowing someone who presents as dangerous to themselves or others to be held for 72 hours in a psychiatric facility. And if these people that you're talking about are truly dangerous to themselves and others,

why would you let them walk around on the streets? Why would you simply, well, we'll just take their guns and then everything's fixed. They have cars. They have knives. They have chainsaws. They have rope. They have gasoline. They could do, I mean, are they, is it really? about that person harming themselves or somebody else? Or is it really a way to just disarm the populace? Because again, you already have laws on the books that if they are a danger to themselves or others,

You can get a psych hold on people. You can get involuntary commitment. But we saw it happen up in the member up in the mat. Sue, that teacher that I hope she's suing the state over that, by the way, that they had her locked up. So you're telling me if they really are that dangerous, so dangerous that you have to take their firearms, why are they still on the street? Why aren't we talking about that 72-hour hold?

Because we know that machetes and rented trucks and and and Molotovs and, you know, kitchen knives, they could all be very dangerous. It just makes no sense. We got to go. The Michael Duke Show. Coffin said it's liberty-based, free-thinking radio. Love, baby. Streaming live every weekday morning on Facebook Live and MichaelDukesShow.com. Okay. Sorry. I just looked up at the time and realized, Oh man, we're going to go, gotta go, gotta go. Um, Okay, let me get caught up here. I gotta...

I had a technical train wreck this morning. We had some problems this morning with some of the things that were going on. My computer kept rebooting and blah, blah, blah. Anyway, I won't bore you with all the details, but a little stressed out this morning. so uh i think we got everything up phones up ready lights are done that's all good um i got that i got that making sure everything is all

Good to go. Three, four, three, 25. It's all good. Okay. All right. So you already, uh, let me go back into the chat. Okay. Jason also went on to say, I know several people, including myself, that have presented a weapon in self-defense, and that was enough to deter the attacker. Yes. which may not be the case if you pull out a plastic gun or launcher or something that doesn't look like a firearm, which in and of itself leads to a bigger problem.

I think Greg mentioned it earlier. If the, if you're less than lethal option looks like a firearm, it can also get you shot. Right. So, I mean, there's trade-offs in all those things. Okay. Red flag laws are low-key swatting. That's exactly what they are. Yeah. What will convict you faster than anything?

Uh, Catherine says, what will convince you, convict you faster than anything, uh, is having anything on your social media stating you'll shoot, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Yeah. You know, um, I have had my firearm confiscated and was not arrested. It was a traffic stop. I mean, that's a stretch, Frank. I also have had my firearm taken into custody during a traffic stop. but not in many, many, many, many years.

And it's not to the same level. I don't think they're in that's that's in statute already that you have to at there. You can you have to surrender your firearm at the behest of the. We used rubber shot on an aggressive moose guarding our horse hay. My neighbor has tried for two years to get his guns back. His ex called him in with mental issues. No history at all. Two years trying to get his guns back? And I imagine probably several thousand dollars, you know.

Yeah, in Alaska, if you're confronted by a police officer in the state, you must tell them you have a firearm. Guess what happens then? Your firearm is confiscated and sometimes dismantled. without being arrested. Yeah. I thought, you know, that's always kind of a dick move. Uh, I had one officer do that to me. Like I I'd been pulled over and I haven't been pulled over in years, but, um,

I was pulled over, told the officer that I was armed. He said, I'd like to secure it for my safety. I'm like, okay, fine. I give it to him. He takes it back. to go run my stuff and he comes back with this my pistol disassembled i mean not just disassembled like down to the bits and bolts

with every cartridge out of the magazine in a Ziploc baggie. I'm like, you carry a box of Ziplocs around with you to be able to dismantle firearms? And he's like, I'm going to put this in the bed of the truck, and you're not going to get out and get it until I leave. And I'm like... What the actual hell man is wrong with you?

But most officers that I've ever dealt with in those situations, they treat it a lot differently. Their answer is, just keep your hands where I can see them at 10 and 2 and we'll all be fine. We'll all be fine. That's what they say. The government agency's main objective is to take your Second Amendment rights away from the people. Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't, you know, I wouldn't disagree with that.

Going to purchase a new gun. Any recommendations, Mike? No. Whatever makes you happy, Miguel. Whatever makes you happy. It depends on what you're, what are you buying a gun for? For self-defense? For home defense? For target shooting? For bird hunting? I mean, what are you, what are you buying it for? Yeah. Yeah, it's a thing. It's a thing. Yeah, what kind of gun? Buy a new caulk gun.

Got a lot of cocking to do around here. Um, When dealing with fish and game out in the field and not once have they asked me about my weapons or to hold them. But I have had a people police hold my weapon and even dismantle them and said not to get out of my car to retrieve it till they were out of sight. Yeah, it's a douche move. It's a douche move, man.

Home defense. Miguel wants to talk about a gun for home defense. I've only got 15 seconds, Miguel. Don't buy it till next week. We'll talk about it. We'll bring it up. We'll get all the particulars. We'll figure it out. How about that? All right, we're coming up on it. We got to go. The Michael Duke Show. Common Sense, Liberty-based, free thinking radio. Like, share, subscribe, ring the bell. Woo! Let's do this.

here uh all right let's uh let's get to it here willie waffle from waffle movies.com comes on board i gotta stop saying the website dang it man i just uh i can't stop seeing it it's just you know uh I don't even think it's still working. Anyway, Willie Waffle. It's dead. Movie critic extraordinaire. I've been saying it for so much. What has it been? 10 years, Willie? 11 years? Something like that. And it was alive for a long time. It was a whole lot of fun. And then, you know.

Life got in the way, man. You know what I'm saying? I know what you're saying, man. I know what you're saying. I feel you. I just, you know, once you get in a groove, it's hard to step out of that groove. And so that's what it is. Willie Waffle, no website.

Um, so there you go. Willie Waffle, a movie critic extraordinaire. All right. Um, Willie, we got some stuff and you were teasing me, uh, earlier yesterday. You teased me yesterday was like, I'm going to, you kept me on pins and needles all night, all morning.

There's a sequel coming out. Are you going to wait till the end of the news? Are you going to give it to me up front? What are we doing here? Let me give it to you now. Let me give it to you now. I'm really excited about this. This is a sequel I never thought would ever happen in a million years. Okay.

It was announced on April 1st, and my immediate reaction was, oh, dude, this is a bad April Fool's prank. Right, right. But no, it appears to be true. It appears to be happening. It is a sequel to... Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Really? Wow. Yeah. I didn't expect that Tarantino is not known for the sequel. And I thought he was done. I thought he was done doing movies because he wanted it. What's going on?

well what's going on tarantino wants to do one last movie okay and for a long time there was talk that it was going to be this movie called the critic which was going to be a story about a movie critic and allegedly based on this movie critic who used to write for pornographic magazines. And Tarantino was all into it And the whole deal just kind of fell apart

So now he's been working on a play that he wants to do. And then he says, I'm going to do one more movie when my kid is a little bit more grown up and he can be on the set and we can have those memories together. But he wrote another script, my friends, one that he has handed to director David Fincher. And yes, it is a sequel to Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Whoa. It will be on Netflix and it will be starring.

Wow, that's big news, man. So he did it, but he's handing it off. He's handing it off. That's got to be hard for him. That's not his usual jam. Usually he's involved in every step. That's got to be hard. Yeah, I think it's going to be really, really hard. And I have a feeling the reason he's handing it off is because he's just kind of made up his mind that he wants to do the play, and then he wants to do one more movie, and that's it.

So he had this script that he apparently really likes, that Brad Pitt has allegedly read and really likes, and David Fincher, the director, has read and really likes. And Fincher has a deal with Netflix. And so they're going to be putting it out on Netflix. It's going to be really around the character that Brad Pitt played.

in the movie, Cliff Booth, the stuntman. Right, right. And so we'll have to see what happens. Now, will this turn out to be the greatest April Fool's prank when they announce next week, ha ha, we got you?

I really hope not. I think we would have found out by now. I think it's happening. I think it's happening. That would have been tough. All right, well, I mean, it's good to know. He still can write. Maybe he should just write movies and then turn them over to other people. We'll see what happens there.

You know, back when he was first getting started, he wrote other things. Uh, you know, he wrote a Robert Rodriguez movie, uh, that I'm blanking on right now that had George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino in it. Yes. So, and that was a good, good ax and shoot them up. So that's okay. All right. Well, let's, uh, let's go and talk about movies that I'll never watch. Four movies about the Beatles.

This is a really great idea. It is. That I think it should be on streaming. I really do. So Sam Mendes, the director, has previously talked about this. He's going to make four movies about the Beatles. One movie for each member of the group. and telling the story of the Beatles from their perspective. What did they think about the big moments? Where did they get started? How did their lives change after the band broke up?

And this week, and the reason we're getting a lot of these announcements this week is there's a big convention out in Vegas called CinemaCon, where all the studios kind of, you know, try to get all the theater owners excited about their movies. And in the past...

this is where they would start making the deals to carry the movies for the summer. Right. And since, you know, since that's kind of all corporate controlled now, now it's become a way to roll out announcements about stuff that's coming in the future. Hence the, the, the movie with Brad Pitt. Hence this Beatles movie. And they announced today, or not today, but this week, the four people who will be playing the Beatles. And we have Paul Mescal from Gladiator 2 is going to play Paul McCartney.

Harrison Dixon from Baby Girl and Molescent 2 is going to play John Lennon. Barry Keegan from Saltburn and Sabrina Carpenter's former boyfriend is going to play Ringo. And Joseph Quinn, our favorite guy from Stranger Things, is going to play George Harrison. They're going to release all four movies in April of 2028. They may release them all on the same day because Mendes has been talking about, well, this is the ultimate binging experience. Just go to each movie.

I think they'll probably like do maybe the McCartney movie one week, Lennon another week, Ringo another week, because that's asking a lot to, to put all four in at the same time. Hence why I thought it should have went to stream. Yeah. It would have been better to be able to binge it over the weekend or whatever, but.

All right. Well, it's definitely an interesting take. I think that's interesting. And I just I just don't find the Beatles that interesting. So I wouldn't waste eight hours of my life watching it. There you go. We'll figure it out. This is a movie that I probably would watch, which probably shows you my intelligence level. Coyote vs. Acme. It's been saved.

The fact that you want to watch it makes you a very brilliant man. I am in that boat with you because this is a brilliant idea. So there's a lot of tumult going on with the Looney Tunes. Sounds like they're trying to get out of the Looney Tunes business. They have been the home of the Looney Tunes forever, and they're starting to sell off pieces.

And that's what happened here. This group called Ketchup Entertainment has purchased the rights to the live action kind of animated hybrid that Warner Brothers tried to kill off a few weeks or a few years ago as a tax. I don't want to call it a text dodge. That's a little bit negative. It was a write-off. It was a write-off, right? A text write-off, yeah.

What's really exciting here is that, you know, this is a movie that when it was first canceled, there was outcry. People who were involved with the movie, people who had seen the movie said, this is really good. Like they should release this. They should find somebody to buy it and take it to the theaters. And that's what ketchup entertainment's going to do. Now they don't have a release date yet. And for people who don't know what the, what the, uh, the story is, this is what sold me.

It's Wile E. Coyote, so fed up with all the failures of the Acme Corporation products that he decides to sue. It's like Boston legal. That's going to be great. It's like Boston legal for, you know, Looney Tunes. And it's got John Senna in it. It's got Will Forte in it. I mean, it's got some funny people because John Senna, I don't care what you said, John Senna, that guy, he is funny. He's very good. You watch Peacemaker or some of these other things. He is so funny.

But I, yeah, I mean, I will watch this. I will watch this right away. And like you said, it was already done. It was in the can. It was ready to go. And they killed it. And they just said, no, we're not even going to. Nope. Sorry. We're done. And they wrote it off as a loss. So bad for them. Good for us. I can't wait. No release date yet. But what do you think? Next year sometime? Yeah, I would think next year. I mean, if I was Ketchup Entertainment, I'd try to get it out this fall.

I would rush this out as fast as I can. I think that they've got a lot of positive momentum. I think that, you know, people know of this. They are going to want to see it. I mean, I say go for it. I think the only thing that's going to kill them for trying to get it out in the fall is that, you know, these release dates are lined up so far in advance.

We're talking about a Beatles movie in 2028. I mean, they're going to have to find a weekend that works where they're not going to have massive animated competition. And that may be hard until we get into next year, but we'll see. All right. We'll see. Uh, finally, the one, the other movies that I will go see John wick. Now here's the thing. I'll be, I haven't watched John wick for my wife actually gave it to me last Christmas.

But I've been so busy this last year that I haven't actually even watched it. We were talking about watching it this weekend. And then I read your little blurb that you send me. And I'm like, what do you mean John Wick wasn't really dead? Anyway. Oh, I'm so sorry. I thought you saw it already. No, no, I haven't seen it yet. All right. So give me the details of two more John Wick movies without spoiling it for anybody who hasn't seen John Wick 4.

Okay, so we are going to get two more John Wick movies, and Keanu Reeves is confirmed for both of them, my friends. So one is going to be an animated prequel. Okay, so this is going to be an animated film where we see John Wick trying to complete the impossible task of killing all of his foes in one night. to fulfill his obligations to the high table. And then we're going to get a live action John Wick 5.

They haven't released a story. They haven't released a production timeline. But this is huge because... You know, when they brought out four, they were saying, this is going to be the last one. Right, right, right. Daniel Reeves says, hey, man, I can't do this forever.

Well, he's going to do another one because money talks. Well, yeah. And if you love the character and you're doing well, and I think he really loves the character. He does. Plus, if he can stretch the animation thing to doing other things. I mean, you know, you don't have to work out a lot to go do the animated voiceover. Right. So this is some great. And now they've got ballerina and now they've got all these other things.

It's a whole universe, baby. It's a whole John Wick universe. And I'm looking forward to it. Yeah, they had a streaming show about the hotel. Oh, that was good. Yeah, the Continental. That was good. And I do not want to besmirch the name of Keanu Reeves as wanting to do this for the money. Because if there's one guy in Hollywood...

who has been extremely generous with his time and his money and trying to make the world a better place. It is Keanu Reeves. So you know what? If he wants to do this for the money, he's probably do something really nice with that money. So go for it. That's good. All right, well, let's move over to the movies.

a minecraft movie the pulse and the and the bondsman uh we got about we got about four minutes here so give it to me okay i'm gonna start with the pulse okay so you know my love of the TV show The Pit, which is on Max, which is the best medical drama I have seen in years and years and years and years and years. This is Netflix's answer. This is their story of

of these pretty little emergency room residents in a Miami emergency department as a hurricane is coming in and there's all sorts of soap opera stuff going on with the characters. And here's how I best describe it, okay? Here's how I best describe it. Okay. I'm waiting. If you took away the pits, really good writing, really good acting, really good characterization, really good storytelling. You've got the pulse. Okay, so it's a...

Okay, so it's great, is what you're saying. No, it's horrible. Okay, horrible might be too strong of a word. It's extremely... mediocre you know it's more in the Grey's Anatomy kind of story of it's more of a soap opera and they happen to work in a hospital and we're all involved in their personal lives as opposed to i think the more medical procedural that we get with the pit i'm at like one waffle i'll give it Some credit, but not a lot. All right. Okay. Some credit, not a lot.

Two more left. Where do you go? Okay. Let's do The Bondsman, a new Amazon Prime series. Eight episodes. Each one's about 30 minutes long. It's Kevin Bacon is a Murdered Bounty Hunter. And he's brought back to life. He makes a deal with the devil. He has to chase down escaped demons that are all running around his hometown in rural Georgia. And it's kind of like his redemption. It's his punishment. It's his penance. It's his chance to make good on all the bad things he did in life.

and give us a horror with lots of gore and lots of bloody, bloody action. You know, there are times when it's really funny. Yeah. And there's times when, you know, they're really trying to be a little bit more contemplative, and they're trying to be more serious, and they're trying to really examine the pain in his soul. And all that mixed together, it's just mixed together at all the wrong levels.

But I'm at Two Waffles. It's a solid show. It's a solid show. It sounds like, I love the premise. I mean, I think that's a great premise. I mean, I can get behind that for sure. And Kevin Bacon, I mean, that guy, he does some good work. Which leaves us with... a minecraft movie which i'm just my mind is kind of blown that we're going to do a movie about minecraft but go ahead and give it to me Yeah, I'm blown away too. I mean, it's in theaters if you dare go out and see it.

Oh God, it's so bad. It's so, so bad. this theme of you know imagination and being creative and and that's really nice and it's buried under like 20 pounds of garbage so the whole thing is that like you got jason momoa This dude who's kind of like an 80s relic who really has never gotten past 1989 and the highlight of his life.

You got Emma Myers, a young gal whose mother died. She had to adopt her younger brother. They're trying to make a start over in Idaho. And these three get, oh, and a real estate agent, all get sucked in. to this cubish world. Steve, played by Jack Black. And there's something about an evil being that's trying to take over the underworld or the overworld or whatever world it is. and she's really mean and now they all have to fight her and keep some magical crystal away from her. Ah!

It's not that funny. It's half a waffle. Half a waffle. I mean, I read this and I thought four people get pulled into a mysterious land and need to fight their way back. That's Jumanji. I don't know what you're talking about. All right, we got to go. I'm sorry, man. But yeah, I read the synopsis and I'm like, Are they ripping off Jumanji? I mean, again, Jack Black and, you know, the Enderman and Steve and all this kind of stuff. And I'm like, well, what what's the what's the.

It just sounds like a bad idea. I would love to have been in the pitch meeting for this. I just want to know what happened here. It's painful. I mean, just, you know, it's not that imaginative. All the money they poured into the animation, I mean, stylistically, okay, you're doing the cube thing. I guess that's, that's Minecraft, the, the, the game, you know, but like the characters are just bland and boring. There's nothing exciting about them. You know, Jack Black, God love them.

He is doing everything he can to try to get any little ounce of laughter out of anything that's going on in this horrible movie. Emma Myers, who I really like, if you want to see something good from her. She did a Netflix series called A Good Girl's Guide to Murder, where she's trying to solve a murder. She's a high school kid trying to solve a murder.

she's fabulous and then she's stuck in this thing where they try to give her all the emotional stuff and and there's just no substance to it because you've spent most of the movie watching jason momoa act like a moron And he's okay at that. But there's nothing tying it all together. There's no good story here. They're just running from place to place, and there's this antic action.

It doesn't seem to matter for anything. Oh man. And I just, I just, I couldn't get out fast enough. Couldn't get out. The little girl three rows in front of me was crying. She couldn't take it anymore. Oh man. Okay. Well, then I won't waste any time on that one. I guess I'll just be watching Amazon Prime and The Bondsman. We'll see where that goes. I will tell you that I am four episodes deep into Reacher. Oh, my.

Goodness. Go watch it right now. Go watch it right now. It's so good. It's going to be good. You still have to get caught up, right? I have to get caught up. I've been all in the pit. And a few other things. And, you know, I want to get caught up on The Last of Us before it premieres in April on Max and HBO.

So I feel like that's going to take a lot of time. But I like Reacher. I mean, I watched a lot of the first season. I thought it was very, very good. Matter of fact, you know who's in that Pulse show? Who? Willa Fitzgerald, who is in Reacher. Uh, she was one of the pretty, pretty blonde. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. All right. Well, we'll have to watch that. I'm sure for, all right. Uh, okay. Uh, what are we doing next week, Willie? Real quick. Next week, the amateur with Rami Malek.

okay and and and drop which kind of looks kind of cool somebody is terrorizing a young woman who's out on a date but like not not you know that way but like And now we are slimy lizard internet people. It's the Michael Duke Show.