Lawrence O'Donnell Being Ignorant About Guns

[sterline80]

facts can be stubborn things.

[MidNiteR32]

Only faggots and sailors are called Lawrence.

[Subjugator1866]

@MidNiteR32 ....and niggers

[RadarGuidedVermin]

Lawrence O'Donnell is also advocating for smaller gas tanks on cars and trucks to save fuel and lives. In theory, according to O'Donnell, if every car was allowed only a single gallon of gas between refuelings, many lives would be saved.

[dch214]

Lawrence is either one of the most gun ignorant people in the country or intentionally lying to spread his anti gun propaganda. Either way Fuck you Lawrence.

[pudgenet]

@MatthewPalumbo If the killer is walking around and people are running away, he generally has time to change guns and magazines, as happened in this case at VT.

In the recent shooting of Congresswoman Giffords, that's one of the rare cases where magazine size can make a difference: there's so many people around in close quarters that stopping to change his magazine gives someone an opportunity to (as happened) grab the shooter or the gun.

[RadarGuidedVermin]

... and here we have it. Idiot, Lawrence O'Donnell, doesn't even understand the difference between semi- and full-auto, gets the facts of the incident WRONG on national TV, yet professes to be an expert on the topic. This tool has less credibility than Jerry Springer, who at least is entertaining.

[Drahthaar422]

How in the blooming fuck does this guy have his own show? This is an example of just being plain WRONG. At least with some things you can distort facts. You can't distort this! It was a SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPON. That is not debatable. And this buffoon wants to ban guns? Get fucking real!

[Moroboi]

What if he could squeeze the trigger so fast it could simulate automatic?

Beware of video gamers and their fast trigger squeeze.

[cldump]

Lawrence O'Donnell  asshole moron....

[Newspeakgeneration]

it always seems like the people who know nothing about guns are the ones who want them banned.

[WenchesOfRedemption]

What...an...ass.

Keep running your loud mouth O'Donnell. It's the only thing you seem to be really good at!

[floopydudeProduction]

there are fully automatic pistols out in the market but it wasnt one the guy in vtech was using

[MCammack762]

Well let's count the lies in this video. First he says that it was an "Automatic weapon that spray fires" in reality it was a Glock 19 semi auto pistol, that fires one bullet with each pull of the trigger. Then he says under Clinton the weapon and mags couldn't be bought. Wrong again. The ban only banned import of mags made after 1994. Not the sale or import of mags made before the ban. So it would not have stopped the shootings at VT.

[5canesNatcham]

look at the date the video took place. 4/20/2007. How much did O'donnel smoke before he got on air

[richamerican]

I know that you can pull a trigger and make a "bad man " go away. All they need to do is basically model a gun license after a car license, and have them registered. Nobody needs extended mags, or military-grade assault rifles.

[pudgenet]

@richamerican "Nobody needs ..."

Nobody needs rap music. We can ban therefore ban it, right?

[richamerican]

@pudgenet

you can't get killed by rap music

[richamerican]

@pudgenet

I should be more specific, rap music is not designed to kill people. I'm fine with people people carrying handguns or going hunting as long as they know what they're doing, but I wouldn't want people carrying around unregistered weapons that can kill large amounts of people, in the same way that I wouldn't want an indy car flying down a side street.

[pudgenet]

@richamerican Yes, my gun was designed to kill people. That is why I have it. It's also why the Constitution protects my right to have it. You act like that's a bad thing: I say it's a damned GOOD thing. It gives me the power to protect myself and my family, if necessary.

[pudgenet]

@richamerican As to "unregistered weapons," every legal commercial gun sale is recorded by the federal government already. What YOU said is that PEOPLE must be registered to have a gun, which is unconstitutional, just as it would be unconstitutional to force you to register with the federal government to post comments on the Internet.

[richamerican]

@pudgenet

I've been to gun shows, they don't exactly keep their records up to date. And, no the constitution doesn't say the government can't require the registration of firearms, it only says people can have them so that a militia can be formed if need be (very 18th century). And I'm going to stop now, because this isn't the best political venue, but realize people who are in favor of gun control are doing it because they are concerned about safety, even if you feel that they take it too far.

[pudgenet]

@richamerican "I've been to gun shows, they don't exactly keep their records up to date."

Commercial dealers do, yes, or they are committing a crime, and if caught will be dealt with very harshly. What more do you want? You are saying you want laws, and you have them, and now you're complaining because some people break those laws ... I don't follow your point here.

[pudgenet]

@richamerican You cannot put a prerequisite (registration) on a right; otherwise it isn't a right.

Whatever the reason why we have that individual right, we DO have it, as the plain words state: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

People who want to ban "hate speech" and various political speech doing so for concern over our national well-being. Violating rights is not justified by good intentions for doing so.

[pudgenet]

@richamerican Finally, as to high-capacity magazines: what if my home were invaded by multiple assailants? A gun is a TOOL, and I want the best tool I can get, which means having a high-capacity magazine.

As to "military-grade assault rifles," I have to think you don't know what you're talking about: there's no significant difference between a hunting rifle and an AR-15 (the civilian version of the M-16) in terms of ballistics, etc. It is mostly cosmetic differences.

[richamerican]

@richamerican

yes, that is why you should be allowed to have one, but there are people (terrorists) who can also buy unregistered guns, and aren't going to be doing much protecting.

[RealTime88]

@richamerican That's how I feel about guns. I don't want to take them off the street or away from law abiding citizens but certain people SHOULD not own a gun like a criminal or a mentally ill person. I also can't understand why people flash their guns like it's a trophy. That scares me.

[14spokin]

lightweight larry, at your service. Sister Rosie would need no explaination

[pudgenet]

@MrEatonbeaver Don't know what your problem is, but ... buh bye.

[walkermydawg]

If you have to make a disclaimer (don't watch MSNBC) then that's like saying you have a big cock; if you have to say it, chances are it's not true.

Did you ever think something along the lines of "gee, if they instruct me that they are fair and balanced, then, god damn, they must be, and therefore, I must comply. The "no spin guy is a fucking joke. Bill Maher dressed him down via satellite, and hides behind I wont do it live because they are not like me...bull shit.

[pudgenet]

@walkermydawg O'Donnell is an ignoramus.

[walkermydawg]

@pudgenet You forgot the ole standby, "fag."

[pudgenet]

@walkermydawg What are you babbling about? I was only pointing out the fact that your comment had nothing to do with O'Donnell, which is the topic here. Instead you chose to whine about Fox News, which has nothing to do with anything. Yes, someone else commented on that, but at least his comment was mostly about the topic. Yours was not.

And apparently I was too subtle for you and it went right over your head.

Grow up.



[OneD33pTX]

What a complete misinfo jackass. Then again he is on msnbc ( and no I don't watch fox either)

[BARCACROSSESTHEALPS]

Lawrence o'dumbass

[carlokrenzelak]

i've been watching these types of gun control advocate videos and i notice quite often the people know nothing at all about firearms. i wonder why someone would go on tv and try to make an argument about something they have no knowledge about. it's weird.

[jscottupton]

Semi automatic means you pull the trigger and one bullet is fired. You pull it again and another bullet is fired.

[bi0dude42O]

he couldn't shoot a daisy bb gun

[Arayziel]

This man is why we don't do drugs when pregnant.

[inademv]

Which shooting are they talking about?

[supermaucat]

What a shitheaded moron. Cho used a semi0auto Glock and Walther.

[KomradKlaus]

His ignorance of weaponry is still inexcusable. You don't need to know the difference between blowback and gas-operated but you should know the difference between semi and full auto of you'e going to comment on them. This is the issue with anti-gun (notice I didn't say liberal) politicians, they don't bother to learn what firearms jargon means or how different firearms/accessories are actually used. But gunowners don't always bother to explain either.

[Chslosers]

wow.. i didn't know that magazines can make guns SPRAY just spray em pat!!!!!!!!!

[Maxwedge12000]

Odonnel is a complete moron. He is as ignorant about guns as he is everything else.

[Chslosers]

lol.. wow. that was bad.

[nealx]

Win Buchanan.

[Chslosers]

lawrence is worse than o reilly

[OutragedPeople]

Why does Larry O remind me of a Muppet?

[borstalboy1981]

@OutragedPeople Don't insult muppets.

[1844Freddy]

guns kick ass

[riser185]

Facts? Knowledge about the guns that were ACTUALLY used? Who needs those.

[dgdfhfghgfhgfgffjhj]

It is NOT true that you couldn't buy high-capacity magazines when Clinton was president, you just couldn't [legally] manufacture new ones. And you would have to be an idiot to think that a box with a spring in it can't be modified without government approval.

[davethe10r]

I'd call Larry a moron, but that'd be an insult to morons everywhere.

[JBondski]

Larry O'Dumbell... does MS&MBC know how many viewers they have lost due to this Marxist, lying SOB? Do they care? When they are down to 2 viewers (one of Dobermann's hookers and one of Madcow's lesbian lovers), BHO will bail 'em out, right?

[neechee5150]

Odonell, displays his ignorance of guns. First, the extended capacity clip argument is not valid. Ho would only have to bring more smaller capacity loaded clips to fire as many rounds as he did. Second, the Glock 9mm pisto and Walther .22 pistol that Cho used during his murder spree are not fully automatics. They are semi-autos which means that Cho had to pull the trigger once for every round fired. O'Donnell is either incompetent or a liar or both. Accuracy & truth are not his strong suit

[peabodymister]

what did kathryn harrold see in this bumblefuck......damn he's an ignorant bastard. this guy is the kanye west of politics....interrupting everybody.

[BRYAN351]

The vast majority of anti-2nd amendment, gun-grabbing douche bags don't know a fucking thing about guns. Anyone who doesn't know the difference between a semi-automatic weapon and an automatic weapon have no business in a gun debate.

[pudgenet]

JUST SPRAY THEM, PAT!

[mattyohe]

@pudgenet He didn't spray 'em.

[pudgenet]

@mattyohe Yes. That's the point. You watch the video?

[mattyohe]

@pudgenet Hahaha, sorry I was evoking Pat. "He didn't spray 'em"

I like Lawrence, but he was wrong here.

[ab1tchslap]

He's like a liberal Bill O'Reilly, but worse.

[bob12285]

I'm glad Pat shut that motherfucker down.

[joethebowler]

I remember this! This was the day that Lawrence O'Donnell became my least favorite liberal on tv. 2nd is Keith Olberman. He'll learn all he needs to know about guns when he faces an Obama-firing squad a few years from now.

[johnnondrowsyd]

o'donnell is a hack, a sacrosanct and pompous hack. A democratic lackey.

[RubesBYU]

Wether I agree with him or not, all he does is just yell over people when they disagree with him.

Blah Blah Blah.... yell yell yell ... you can't have a civilized argument with this guy.

He is acting like an imbecil.

[pudgenet]

Well, there's nothing to agree with him on, though. What he says about the weapons used, and the relevant law, is objectively false.

[beatballer12]

holy hell o'donnell just shut up

[pudgenet]

Yeah, he starts off bad and then it just gets worse. It's a train wreck.

[archstan8]

o'donnell is a buffoon, a man-child. that someone like him is even allowed on tv is a punchline. hey o'dummy, next time you're on tv talking about guns the least you could do is go on wikipedia for 2 minutes and do a little research. you know like a high school student would do for a high school debate with other high schoolers.

[faanunu]

If we all had guns then it wouldn't have been so many.

[srgriffith]

O'Donnell needs to check his facts on everything he says. He is a belligerent fool speaking half truths about everything.

[Winterstick549]

Spray? Only spraying is the diarehia coming out of O'Donnells mouth.

[videofp]

When you don't know what the hell you are talking about, the best thing to do is attempt to shout - down any reasonable, rational or truthfull comment. What a nut-job moron O'Donnell is!!

[liekomg12345]

what kindof gun was it? just say the type of gun it was and I'll know if it was semi auto or full auto.. enough of this bickering and arguing...

[pudgenet]

The shooter used a Walther P22 and a Glock 19. Both are semi-automatic. There is no bickering, there is no argument, there is no question. We knew at the time O'Donnell said this. There was never any question.

[sakemad]

The boy O'Donnell needs to be fired for ignorance. MSNBC is crazy to keep him around.

[thomasw78]

I don't even have to know anything about guns to know O'Donnell is being a dumbass.

[kolobkrunch]

yah more cops with hidden guns.... makes me feel safe!

[pudgenet]

Yeah, I know what you mean. What we really need is simply more regular citizens who are armed.

[AvgDude]

It wasn't an automatic weapon. It was a semi-auto. Lawrence O'donnell is a classic, ignorant, nanny state tool.

[pudgenet]

Yes, it wasn't automatic. Also, those magazines were legal under Clinton's gun ban. Also, even if they weren't legal for "mentally ill" people, that was a STATE problem in APPLYING the law, not a federal problem.

O'Donnell got pretty much everything wrong, especially that the students would have stopped the murderer if it were not fully automatic. It wasn't, and they didn't.

[jnatch]

Johnnycee that is a bumper sticker slogan with no substance. It is not part of any debate at all. try again.

[pudgenet]

jnatch: merely criticizing someone else's comment without adding substance of your own is ALSO not part of any debate at all!

[jnatch]

Johnnycee I did add substance. I pointed out how all you do is recite hackneyed conservative talking points. How these reductive comments like "without someone to pull a trigger" is old and meaningless. I have debated people who speak in one word sentences countless times in my life and quite successfully. Sometimes its just fun to tell you guys what you are doing. Funny how you can speak in bumper sticker slogans but when its used against you you dont seem to get them

[pudgenet]

I am not Johnnycee. And no, you didn't add substance, you just attacked his lack of substance. That is not substance about the issue of O'Donnell being completely ignorant about guns, or about guns at all, that is a meta-discussion.

[jnatch]

I did a heck of alot more than attack, your reading skills are lacking in this instance

[pudgenet]

Um, yeah, uh, whatever. In fact, no. You did not address the actual point at all: O'Donnell is completely ignorant about guns and acting like his ideas have any merit whatsoever. All you did was attack. You're wrong, and you are terrible at debate, and if you respond with more comments that do not address O'Donnell's statements, you will be blocked. Cheers!

[johnnycee888]

Without someone to pull the trigger, a gun can kill no one.

I Cr 13;8a

[LeoTheBoy]

Nobody has successfully answered my question: If it is true that societies with gun restrictions enable criminals to kill more innocents, then why are there actually *fewer* criminal homicides-by-gun in societies with gun restrictions?

[pudgenet]

I did "successfully" answer your question, by pointing out your flawed premises.  If there are no guns, there will be no gun crime. The question is whether eliminating gun crime is a good enough reason for eliminating gun rights. The answer, in the U.S., is No.

[LeoTheBoy]

As you know, I never forwarded any argument about "gun rights". I'm only pointing to the inconvenient fact that it is clearly not true, as gun nuts would have you believe, that gun deaths decrease when more guns are carried.

[pudgenet]

Except it clearly IS true in certain cases. You can deny the many studies proving it, but it only makes you look uneducated.

[LeoTheBoy]

? But why look at "certain cases" when you can look at something that is much more statistically meaningful: the *aggregate* data? In the aggregate, the data clearly shows that more guns = more firearm fatalities, both by criminals and non-criminals.

[pudgenet]

Aggregate worldwide data is not more meaningful to the people of Texas than the data for Texas is. Again, every place is different. In Texas, there were more gun crimes than there are now that they have concealed carry. Why should Texas not do what is best for Texas? Do you hate them that much?

[LeoTheBoy]

Aggregate worldwide data absolutely *is* more meaningful than any anecdotal data when we're arguing about the relationship between guns and firearm homicides *in general*. The gun nuts do *not* claim that their theory about more guns = more safety is only true for Texas. They say it is a general truism.

[pudgenet]

I wasn't talking in general. In fact, I stated many times, that I was not. And your straw man attack against "gun nuts" only makes you look even sillier.

I am not going to bother responding to you anymore, since your intentional misrepresentation of me process you don't care about discourse, and please do not spam the discussion further.

[LeoTheBoy]

ok, well at least now we're getting somewhere. You explicitly disagree, then, with what the NRA takes to be a general and universal truth: that we'll have fewer gun homicides if we put more guns into more peoples' hands.

[pudgenet]

Again: you are lying. That is a straw man. You are misrepresenting the facts.  And now you continue to spam this discussion, as I asked you to not do.

[LeoTheBoy]

Yes, I know some Americans like to believe they are unique in the species, but it ain't true. This delusion, in any case, doesn't explain why people in other countries are not gunned down repeatedly by the criminals who own guns -- which is what the NRA theory on the matter would require to happen, no matter the country.

And what is the difference, exactly, between the proliferation of one death machine (guns) and other (anthrax grenades)?

[pudgenet]

I never said anything about being unique to the species. But we are culturally unique, certainly, as every culture is.

And your question about the difference between guns and anthrax is, literally, retarded.

[LeoTheBoy]

A question -- words on a screen -- can be "literally" retarded, can it? (Perhaps the question mark has a genetic disorder?)

Apparently it's this level of critical thinking that got you where you are on the question of the gun industry and its dissemination of death machines across the landscape.

So why, exactly, am I *not* at "liberty" to own and disseminate anthrax grenades, according you your theory?

[pudgenet]

"Retarded" is an adjective that can refer to a person who is retarded, but also characterize actions as being of someone who is retarded. I meant it in the latter sense, obviously.

And for someone who double-posted the same questions several times, and who doesn't even understand the difference between anthrax and guns, you have a lot of gall attacking my thinking ability.

I've answered all of your questions that were worth answering. I'm done.

[LeoTheBoy]

As you know, I was making fun of your understanding of the term "literal", not "retarded".

I understand completely why you can't answer the simple question: Why should I not be at "liberty" to carry and disseminate anthrax grenades? What principle is that based on?

[LeoTheBoy]

The first "fact" you cite is completely contradicted by the fact that, when you compare countries all over the world, gun deaths decrease -- criminal or otherwise -- where gun ownership decreases.

And according to your logic, we should all have the "liberty" to mass produce and own anthrax grenades.

[pudgenet]

No. You cannot compare countries. America is not Brazil or France. We are different, and it is an entirely false logic to assume that the same causes will have the same effects for different people in different places.

Even in the U.S., whereas increased gun ownership (incl. increased concealment) has seen correlative violent crime decreases, that doesn't necessarily mean the same decrease would happen in every American city.

And my logic implies nothing about anthrax or grenades.

[LeoTheBoy]

Funny how his use of the term "automatic weapon" gets all the attention -- which allows you to completely ignore the fact that O'Donnell is obviously correct in the point he's making.

[pudgenet]

Which part was correct? It was not the biggest case of gun murder in U.S. history. Changing clips did not slow the shooter down, so the capacity is irrelevant. The shooter DID have to pull the trigger once per bullet, and did not "spray" them. O'Donnell was wrong on every point.

[LeoTheBoy]

er... well that's 2 (irrelevant) points in the narrow clip you've selected for that purpose. The larger point about the murders being enabled by a gun culture that gives the power of death to cowards -- the only important point -- is pretty obvious

[pudgenet]

That wasn't actually his point. His point was about specific gun features. In fact, he even said that the murders would been stopped if he had to pull the trigger once per bullet, so for you to say he thinks the problem is the "gun culture" is utter nonsense.

[LeoTheBoy]

If you had watched the whole discussion, as opposed merely to the fragment you have an argument against, you'll see that his point is precisely about a gun culture that gives the power of death to weaklings and cowards

[pudgenet]

I did watch the whole segment (indeed, the whole show, as I do every week), and that wasn't his point. You're quite wrong. His point was about specific gun features. That is why he started off calling it a "high-tech" problem (even though the essential technology in his guns existed about 100 years ago). I put a link to the entire transcript (and video) in the description. Feel free to peruse both.

And, of course, gun culture is far less of a problem than lack of gun liberty would be.

[LeoTheBoy]

right... gun deaths would go *down* if everybody walked around with concealed weapons. I can't believe that anyone besides 8 year-old children believe this. Who doesn't know that, all over the world, societies with fewer guns have -- by a vast margin -- far fewer total gun fatalities, including far fewer fatalities committed by criminals with guns?

[pudgenet]

Gun deaths actually DO, in fact, often go down when there are more concealed weapons, in fact. Your ad hominem aside, the research actually shows it.

But it misses the point anyway: we value, in this country, liberty more than safety. Citing gun deaths means nothing, because the liberty to own a gun is more important.

[LeoTheBoy]

The first "fact" you cite is completely contradicted by the fact that, when you compare countries all over the world, gun deaths decrease -- criminal or otherwise -- where gun ownership decreases.

And according to your logic, we should all have the "liberty" to mass produce and own anthrax grenades.

[sdhubbard]

It's always amusing to see people make an ill informed ass of themselves.

[Beastialman]

*Sigh* I hate politic talk shows.

[fluffowz]

The majority of the comments made by people on these shows demonstrate that the commentators only have a vague idea about reality. It's the same thing when it comes to Iraq or most other issues. What is it that makes them experts on every single issue?

[klard]

How far would this shooter have gotten if that campus were populated with law abiding gun carrying citizens? Suppose the minute he started shooting dozens of people pulled out their guns. The answer is more not less guns. We have not been able to use laws to stop criminals from getting anything in this country. They will continue to get guns.

[LeoTheBoy]

... and all you have to do to believe this is ignore the fact that every city and country on earth confirms the statistical fact that the fewer guns are in circulation, the fewer gun deaths exist -- criminal and non-criminal alike.

Who but a moron actually believes that gun deaths go down if everybody is carrying concealed weapons? Doesn't it bother them that it flouts all relevant data that has ever been unearthed about this issue?

[pudgenet]

Heh, I didn't see this comment before. That's a lie too: in fact, many studies show gun deaths DO go down in certain areas when concealed carry is introduced.

[IdahoDigital]

hahahaha. what a moron. Automatic weapon huh? Go to Iraq to see one of those.  The Media keeps saying there were "kids" on that campus as if they aren't adults. Oh no! Protect the adults from.... oh wait. They are adults. And the two magazines Cho bought on ebay? Legal even under the Clinton gun ban.

[tevonx]

It's amazing how a camera makes people think they have a right to make things up as if it were the truth.