I read the comments before seeing the video. Given the circumstances and opinions, I think Franks did well and did the right thing. I think the "God" talk was very minor here. I know this bothers some people and Franks could have gotten his points across just as well without it. Some people talk about "God," and some people talk about "Civility." His choice. Our choice. His position was unfairly criticized by O'Donnell without bringing God into the picture.
A Dilbert quote comes to mind after seeing this video:
"Never argue with idiots, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
Mr. O'Donnell was trying to hide his weaknesses by being louder about Frank's weaknesses, or maybe a better way of putting it is the weakness that were being defended. He was already trying to misquote Franks on having more guns there that will, per O'Donnell's "facts," miss their targets at the scene, before he was trying manipulate Franks to agree with his 10 round magazine arguement.
Are we that foolish to think that people like O'Donnell will stop at the "hypothetical" as he put it? And of course it was presented in such a way that if Franks said disagreed with the question he would have been trapped, labeled, called a nazi, etc. Franks did the right thing by avoiding the "straw man" arguement, which O'Donnell was giving at full force, going to the unrealistic extent of assuming that because police often miss their targets that private citizens will do so as well. What nonsense!
With regards to reloading, Franks did allude to the reloading issue, but was quickly shut down on the issue. Loughner's inexperience, not magazine capacity, may have saved a few lives. I'm comparing this to the Fort Hood shooting here. Of course, the so-called expert O'Donnell does not realize that with accurate aim, a 9mm FMJ round can wound and/or kill more than one person, so his 10 round magazine limit theory is further blown out of the water. Even if Franks had all this information at his fingertips, I doubt he would have been given the opportunity to say it.
I think we all know that if this was done with a 10 round magazine, then people would want them banned as well. If Giffords was shot with a subcompact handgun that fits in a pocket, people would want them banned as well. Do you really think Representative McCarthy and other anti-gun advocates are going to say, "Well, it's OK because he/she was killed by a gun with a 10 round magazine." That will never happen, but they're spinning it that way. People shouldn't be OK with this on either side of the arguement, but they need to put the blame where it belongs.
It was arguements like these that Franks was successfully trying to avoid, but they were presented in such a way that only one correct answer was possible, and of course, the emotional electrical charge was used to make Franks appear wrong about the situation, regardless what he said.
Franks was correct and smart by not feeding into O'Donnell's anti gun arguements.
O'Donnell, like may others, is a pro at politicizing tragedies.
Also if you are pleasing everyone you are doing something wrong or need to write a book tell the rest of us how it is done.:biggrin:
