NRA Commentary Admits The Odds Of Needing A Gun To Defend Yourself Are Infinitesimal

Now I know that conservatives have an allergic, knee jerk reaction to Media Matters. But they'll be hard pressed to prove how a Mr. Colion Noir's little ditty makes rational sense as he CONTRADICTS HIS OWN LOGICAL CONCLUSION IN FAVOR OF OPINION!

I would advise all to click the highlighted links within the story, as they lead to valid documentation that discredits Noir's convoluted "logic".

This is a classic.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/10/21/nra-commentary-admits-the-odds-of-needing-a-gun/206313

 

http://bearingarms.com/racist-thinkprogress-asserts-colion-noir-must-manufactured-nra/

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3here's what was actually written in Think Progress:

http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2014/05/08/3435744/nra-new-show-noir/

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 5

But I will ask the same question. Duplicity connotes deceit/deception/dishonesty. Where is the deceit in what Colion Noir is saying here?

Suppose I tell you that there is very low likelihood that you will ever need a fire extinguisher in your home. After all, I am an old guy, have had fire extinguishers for years, and have never once needed one. But suppose on the other hand I tell you that if you don't have a fire extinguisher, you should get one ASAP. Borrow the money if necessary. Is that duplicity on my part? That is exactly analogous to what Noir is saying here.

 

I did read it and it's an opinion piece; containing the opinion that Noir is a phony based mostly on his choice of hat.....the one fact was Noir's real name.

 

Only the far left pays attention to anything Media Matters and Stink Progress has to say. Partisan crapola all the way.

 

The deceit is trying to pass of opinion, supposition and conjecture as a legitimate comparison (or substitute) for fact.

Fire extinguishers are used to combat fires. Fires do NOT make a conscious effort to kill another human being.....unless being set by an arsonist. In that case, you have a FIRE DEPT. to combat the fire, track down the arsonist with the police. Substitute fire for guns in all the accidental deaths, domestic homicides, mass shootings, stray bullet hits, etc., and you should see the absurdity in your comparison.

 

So by your "logic", anything the NRA sponsors is immune to the same criticism you aim at Media Matters and Think Progress? Bit double standard, that.

 

A bit of gibberish there. But I think I understand enough of what you are trying to say. If so, you have not shown deceit. You would have to show that he knew what he was saying is wrong, and that he said it anyway. Trying to pass off opinion as fact (which I don't think he did anyway) is not necessarily duplicity/deceit. It could be just a mistaken analysis. But you evidently feel the need not just to try to correct the analysis, but to accuse him of a moral failing, namely dishonesty. Why is that? Why not just debate the issue?

You're not getting the comparison. Fire extinguishers are a tool for fighting fires. They are rarely needed, but when they are, they are all-important. Similarly guns are a tool for fighting criminal violence. They are also rarely needed, but when they are, the need is critical. This is why police carry guns: as a tool to combat criminal violence. Most police officers go their entire career without ever firing their gun. Does that mean they should give them up? No. It's no different for the average citizen.

I've had guns for most of my adult life, and only really needed a gun once. In that case I used my Glock 19 to stop an armed robbery. No shots were fired. But the armed robbery was stopped. I've also had fire extinguishers most of my adult life, and never needed one even once.

 

Not at all, criticize away only the anti gunners are listening.

 

There should be a three day waiting period & a background check before posting after reading anything by Media Matters.

 

Not quite, as the piece has links to valid, documented studies which contradict the "opinion" of Mr. Noir. As in this excerpt:

The NRA seems to think that the right way to address the lack of enthusiasm for guns among young people, African-Americans and women is to just dress up two young hosts—one female, one black—and assume that this will “solve the problem,” when the real, underlying reasons these demographics aren’t flocking to the NRA have very little to do with optics and everything to do with the concern that the NRA has no interest in common sense gun regulations that would make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to have easy access to firearms. The majority of gun violence victims are people of color. https://www.americanprogress.org/is...-about-stricter-gun-violence-prevention-laws/ If a gun is present in a domestic violence situation, a woman is 500% more likely to be killed. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...lence-five-facts-about-how-women-are-murdered

Noir says this is a gun show “for my generation.” Noir’s generation, not so coincidentally, is the one upon whom the pain of gun violence falls most of all. 54% of people murdered with guns in 2010 were under the age of 30.3. https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/CAP-Youth-Gun-Violence-report.pdf

 

See above responses. Your personal experience non-withstanding does not validate your comparison, as a fire would continue regardless of the mere presence of an extinguisher, as with the robber who made the conscious decision to stop WITHOUT you firing a shot.

 

You're not making sense, because YOU are taking time and effort to try and debunk something that YOU haven't even read. If you did, then please point out where you can logically and factually disprove the content. If not, then you're essentially operating out of willful ignorance.

 

Doesn't discredit anything.

The odds against being killed by a mass murderer is even smaller so the need for senseless gun control laws proposed by democrats is clearly non existent

 

As to your first sentence, please read how this was addressed earlier. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=429585&p=1065512787#post1065512787

As to your second sentence, please explain how passing laws for stricter background checks for every gun sale is "senseless" given the number of mass killings in the last 10 years.

 

addressed earlier or nothing does not change the fact that nothing in this story discredits anything.

Because such draconian big brother efforts to intrude on our right to privacy would serve no purpose or achieve no benefit.

 

You misstate what I said. Please don't do that. Don't shove words into my mouth. First of all you don't appear to know the definition of "moniker." I didn't use that word, and certainly would not misuse it the way you have. Instead of trying to reword what I said, why not just quote me directly, and then respond to the quote? As any high school debate teacher would advise.

Secondly I did not mention anything about "ignorant innocence." It's not anywhere in my post. My point is just that supposing you are right, for the sake of argument, that Noir is wrong, you must eliminate other possible explanations as to why he might be wrong before you accuse him of duplicity.

Bottom line you have not proven your accusation of dishonesty, and an honorable poster would withdraw it at this point.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/13/right-to-bear-arms-gun-grabbing-sweeping-nation/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/14/buffalo-police-search-for-firearms-at-home-after-funerals/

I could provide other examples, but this is enough. Now by the standards that you apply to Colion Noir, you are clearly guilty here of duplicity, i.e. dishonesty.

 

YOU didn't address anything earlier. So either you can logically and factually defend your position and answer my question, or you're just blowing smoke and empty mantras.

 

I'm for private gun ownership.

That said, I do think the NRA has gone way overboard in the way they paint guns as if they are
a panacea for the country's problems.

 

I could deconstruct any presented examples your biased myopia regarding your reading comprehension of the material you present, but what I've done above is enough. The standards I applied Noir stand valid, as I've rendered your silly fire extinguisher comparison useless and have demonstrated your generalizations regarding gun confiscation above. Now, all YOU have to do is logically and factually demonstrate where I have been duplicitous or dishonest. Given your demonstrated confusion regarding definitions and applying them, I dare say I'm in for mere repetition. But hope springs eternal. Carry on.

 

Coming from an undoubted expert on that form of communication, I will take your advice under advisement

 

I did answer it logically and factually you are lying to deny that I did

 

OK, I'm getting a headache just reading your gibberish. I think you have made my point for me. I'm leaving this rabbit hole.