Bill Frady of GOA Radio and I have this regular radio gig going. I’m trying to ease up on the pontificating and throw it back to Bill more often. In this episode we discuss the obligations of an armed civilian—or lack thereof—in an active shooter or armed robbery scenario. [Nick: also on the podcast. See? We do update it!]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

9 COMMENTS

  1. I am fairly well versed with podcasts and iTunes but I haven’t received an update in over a month. Forcing a scan and even deleting and reacreating the subscription result in no downloads…
    All my other podcasts are working.
    -sbaker

  3. Robert, I just listened to the radio show. You really have a good voice for radio, as does the host Bill.

    But, did you contradict yourself about the kid in the mask? First you said he came at the dad with a knife, which is exactly the part I’m dubious about, but later you said he meant the dad no harm.

    Bill was mimicking the main stream media saying that Holmes was wearing body armor and was impervious to bullets. I never heard that. If it was said by someone, it certainly didn’t characterize the main stream’s coverage.

    I find that to be a bit worse than spinning. That’s intended to give a false impression of what the main stream media was reporting. That’s wrong.

    I can’t believe you still say DGUs number 1.5 million a year. I honestly can’t believe it and I don’t think you believe it. I think you take liberties with the truth in the name of your holy cause.

    Getting angry is an interesting motivation for gun owners. That’s exactly where many so-called DGUs go wrong. In fact, I think the Dad in Connecticut was operating on that. He saw someone doing wrong, and blew his ass away and later said he was lunging at me.

    Did you really say you NEVER heard of one single civilian doing collateral damage? I think you’re taking liberties again.

    Your description of gun owners and concealed carry guys is great. It applies to most of you, but there are too many who are unfit and don’t qualify for your glowing description. That’s why we need tougher standards even for gun ownership.

    • “I can’t believe you still say DGUs number 1.5 million a year. I honestly can’t believe it and I don’t think you believe it. I think you take liberties with the truth in the name of your holy cause.”

      Got any evidence for that? We’ve got a peer reviewed study*, 13 other studies**, and a DOJ study*** saying that the number is between 800,000 and 2.5 million.

      There is one study that drastically differs from that range, the NCVS, which puts the number at 108,000 per year, and that study has significant methodological problems that would lead it to underestimate the number.

      *http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html Published in Northwestern University School of Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

      **http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html
      Citations contained within

      ***https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
      “Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. W”
      “According to these results, guns are used far more often to defend against crime than to perpetrate crime. (Firearms were used by perpetrators in 1.07 million incidents of violent crime in 1994, according to NCVS data.)”

    • Mike, I hate to differ with you, but on your website you put up a HuffPo link showing, as part of his equipment, a military issue IOTV. And in some corners of the MSM, they still refer to body armor when referring to Aurora.
      The DGU issue is a fairly settled one. During the Clinton Administration, as a response to the Kleck study, they commissioned their own study and found the DGU to be around 1.46 million.

      • Bill, I have sent an email to the NRA through their website that I went on to get a life membership and was saddened by their “statement” and silence in light of the recent events and until they take a strong stand, I will not be doing so. I couldn’t find your email address, so this was the only way I could find you.

Comments are closed.