Duane Lester finds the latest example of S.O.S
Business Insider is soooo happy with themselves over finding what they think is a embarrassing bit of hypocrisy on the part of the Susan G. Komen Foundation.
The Foundation recently decided they would stop donating money to Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in the country.
In 2010, Planned Parenthood performed 329,445 and dispensed 1,461,816 morning after pills.
Komen is taking a lot of flak for ending the donations to Planned Parenthood, and Business Insider apparently felt the need to look at the financials of the foundation. They discovered something they consider scandalous:
What could it be you ask? Why it seems Susan G Komen
So the Komen Foundation doesn’t want to be associated with the nation’s largest abortion-provider. But they don’t mind partnering up with a handgun maker.This gun is a beauty.
And a portion of the sale of each P-22 Hope Edition will be donated to the Seattle Branch of the Susan G. Komen Foundation.
Isn’t this perfect? The things that outrage Liberals amaze those of us who have common sense. Abortion kills innocent babies, and that, it seems is no big deal for the folks at Business Insider. In fact the Komen Foundation is ostracized for NOT giving money to Planned Parenthood for mammograms that they do not even do. Yet! Any partnership with a gun maker, on Komen’s part, is considered evil? Yep, that is Leftist logic for you. Of course the saddest thing here is that the Komen Foundation has surrendered to the political correctors, and will continue to fund the butchers at Planned Parenthood. So, I suppose that now Business Insider will praise the Susan G Komen Foundation once again? Or maybe the Foundation will cave further? Maybe they will stop any association with the evil gun makers? Time will tell on that.
Back to the Leftist hypocrisy here though. Duane Lester did some research, and finds that those evil gun makers make guns, that save MANY lives!
That’s right. Guns save lives:
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year — one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone “almost certainly” would have died had the gun not been used for protection — a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone “probably” would have died if the gun hadn’t been used in defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first — disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn’t make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn’t be called “newsworthy” by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare — well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers — and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm — martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns — gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)
In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occurred in places away from the defender’s home.
Of course those facts will never dent the head of a Liberal. Liberalism is an ideology of convenience. And it is convenient to ignore evidence and embrace raw emotionalism. It is easier to overlook, or in fact not even consider the number of defensive gun uses, and simply go with the “guns are bad” lie.