Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Lawrence O'Donnell Blames Wayne La Pierre


  1. Just make sure you give him credit for the literally hundreds of thousands of lives protected each year by armed citizens in this country.

    The coin has two sides.

    1. Oh, are we down from 2.5 million to "literally hundreds of thousands?"

      Don't make me laugh. My stomach still hurts from your other comment.

    2. See, it is intellectual dishonesty like this that prevents any real discussions from taking place.

      There are many studies that estimate the number of defensive uses of firearms in the United States to be anywhere from 500,000 times per year to well over, as you hint, 2 million (most without ever being fired). But just because a firearm was used in self-defense does not necessarily mean that a life was protected or saved.

      So we are not “down from 2.5 million” when talking about lives protected. But you don’t seem to be the type who is interested in looking at the actual facts and applying critical thinking skills to reality. So you will probably simply continue to lob misleading grenades into the discussion. But for the sake of clarifying to any of your followers who might be reading; let me show why I can accurately say hundreds of thousands of lives saved each year:

      Even the CDC has published studies that estimate the number of defensive uses of firearms at 498,000 times per year. If you read the methodology of this study with a truly open mind, it is clear that the study most likely underestimates the number of such incidents.

      The famous (or infamous depending upon your POV) study by Kleck and Gertz in 1993 estimates the number of defensive firearms uses where "almost certainly would have been killed" to be around 162,000 incidents per year in the U.S. Now, hoplophobic individuals and groups take issue with the self-reported nature of that study and I understand those concerns. Yet the only studies such groups are willing to consider are ones that consider a usage of the gun to be one in which the gun is fired – which is absurd on its face.

      But let’s say for a moment that the Kleck study is flawed and inflated. Even if only one quarter of such incidents are such that lives were indeed saved, one has to wonder how many lives were saved by that single incident? How many lives were saved because the criminal was killed or captured and thus unable to prey again on other victims?

      The bottom line is that firearms in the US are many many times more protective than destructive on any given day. Honest discussion cannot even begin until those who say they want to save lives by implementing gun control acknowledge that guns save lives at least some of the time.

    3. I can assure you, FL, many of the pro-gun uninformed believe that 2.5 million lives are saved a year. They believe that because they've read it and have repeated it so often themselves that it's taken on an aura of truth.

      You're smarter than that. Great. Good for you. So how about this for an idea. Of the 162,000, since the poll was getting its info from the defender, how many do you think were really unnecessary and/or criminal? None?

      My idea is that, given human nature and the obvious temptation to paint the picture in its best light, anyone who describes a defensive use of a gun has about a 50% chance of being a liar. In other words, only half of the reported DGUs are really legit. The others are criminal acts disguised.

    4. You're guessing again, Mikeb.

  2. This idiot goes on and on about "thousands of bullets," but what he doesn't realize is that anyone who practices regularly goes through a lot of rounds in a year. Lots of us store ammunition, and many reload their own. Here's something else that we have in common: The vast majority of us kill no one.

  3. Such concern from O'Donnell. Is this part of an ongoing series of his? Next week will he point out the blood on Obama's hands? Or don't brown people count? Will he get the Executive Director of Planned Parenthood on very soon to discuss the stopping of 3,700 (per day) beating hearts they encourage and he finances through taxes?
    I think O'Donnell's modesty can be shown to be on par with the most modest of men. He is modest about his blatant hypocrisy and even more modest about his lack of moral integrity. No wonder he has a TV show for mental pygmies.
    orlin sellers