Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, October 20, 2019

As multitudes of politicians, pundits, and talking heads demand gun control, they cite endless stats, often misrepresented, about the damage and destruction caused by guns. Noticeably absent from their arguments, however, is the number of lives saved by guns and gun ownership every year. It is very difficult to calculate how many lives are saved by guns. One reason being that proving something didn't happen is quite a challenge. Additionally, studies that defend gun ownership are often silenced and censored. Still, it happens every day; gun-owning citizens protect their families and the lives of others by legally and responsibly possessing a gun and using it when necessary. It won't make headlines, so you'll have to Google it. But the truth is out there.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Your pee shooter is safe dear.

#1 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-10-20 09:53 PM | Reply

rightwingfolks.com

#2 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2019-10-20 10:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Guns do save lives, no doubt.

They just don't save nearly as many lives as they take.

GracieAmazed doesn't cover it.

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-20 10:48 PM | Reply

Philando Castile?
A gun saved that cop's life!!!

Strong work, GracieAmazed.

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-20 10:58 PM | Reply

Guns kill a lot of people too

#5 | Posted by hamburglar at 2019-10-21 04:36 AM | Reply

Damn! The washington examiner has more credibility.

#6 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-10-21 05:51 AM | Reply

They just don't save nearly as many lives as they take.

That's subjective and you know it. When weapons are used, they are supposed to.

#7 | Posted by boaz at 2019-10-21 09:00 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

When weapons are used, they are supposed to.

Tell that to 25 kindergartners at Sandy Hook. You'll have to shout though.

#8 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-10-21 12:00 PM | Reply

The washington examiner has more credibility.

#6 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-10-21 05:51 AM | Reply | Flag

Than Gunpowder Magazine?

Surely they have NO bias when it comes to weapons.

#9 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-10-21 12:18 PM | Reply

Nearly 40,000 gun deaths every year, including 14,500 murders, and we're supposed to believe guns save lives.

And just who are these guns "saving lives" from? Why, other gun owners of course!

#10 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2019-10-21 02:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

4-year-old Milwaukee girl accidentally shoots father and herself www.nbcnews.com

Take a victory lap, GracieAmazed.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-21 03:07 PM | Reply

The important fact is that the most likely person to be shot by a gun is the owner.

We need more gene pool improvement volunteers.

#12 | Posted by bored at 2019-10-22 01:41 AM | Reply

You know, the fact that you have a right to do something (e.g., 2nd Amendment) doesn't automatically mean that it is a good thing to do. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it.

#13 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-10-22 08:47 AM | Reply

#13,

Are you really saying that it's not a good idea to protect yourself just because you have the ability too?

#14 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2019-10-22 04:35 PM | Reply

Most people (70%) don't feel the need to have a gun to protect themselves. Why do you?

#15 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-10-23 01:03 AM | Reply

Most people (70%) don't feel the need to have a gun to protect themselves.

Assuming that statistic is true, does that suggest the government should further control the legal choices of the remainder?

#16 | Posted by et_al at 2019-10-23 02:48 AM | Reply

Why do "legal choices" outweigh public safety? Isn't public safety (i.e., "Domestic Tranquility") one of the primary functions of any government? Also one must ask why the fear of "violent crime" is increasing while the actual incidence of violent crime is decreasing? Or the fact that half of the guns in the country are owned by 3% of the population? What's up with that and why is that good for any society?

The original Constitution protected slavery. It took a war before the evil that it was could be corrected. The 2nd Amendment (which was a compromise) is part of the same thinking that produced the 3/5 Compromise. The Constitution was not written by God, but by (fallible) men. It got some things wrong. It is extremely difficult to correct those wrongs with a process that was designed for a country that consisted of just the East Coast in a time where change happened at a snail's pace. Today, events on the other side of the world can change conditions in minutes. Our governmental processes can't respond in real time. The pace of change has been accellerating for the last 50 years. It's not likely to slow down. What's the answer? Sticking to assumptions made 230 years ago that are no longer valid in modern society (like the restriction of the franchise to white, male landowners or slavery). With half of the country on one side and half on the other, how, with our current structure producing "gridlock", can we even preserve the country?

#17 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-10-23 09:12 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort