Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, April 09, 2019

As of yesterday, there have been 10,000+ combined gun deaths and gun injuries in the United States this year.

Advertisement

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.

If would help if everyone stopped pretending to be against guns.

You're not.

All gun laws, every single one of them, now and in the future, are and will be enforced by men with guns.

Why would you want gun centralization for the fascist government that is running things?

#1 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2019-04-08 10:18 PM | Reply

"All gun laws, every single one of them, now and in the future, are and will be enforced by men with guns."

Does this mean there were no laws before guns were invented?

No.

So then what does it mean?

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-04-08 10:20 PM | Reply

Nerp.

It means exactly what it says.

Gun laws, every single law for that matter, are enforced by people with guns.

You're alright with guns, your issue(s) lie(s) with who should be allowed to have them.

#3 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2019-04-09 06:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

FNW, Silence

#4 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-04-09 06:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"You're alright with guns, your issue(s) lie(s) with who should be allowed to have them."

That has always been my position, I don't think idiots or crazy people should be allowed to have guns.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2019-04-09 09:24 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#5 I agree, but they also shouldn't be allowed to have kids...and until someone could show me how the government would define idiot or crazy person, I would tend to believe they would abuse it.

#6 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-04-09 09:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I can see the government schmucks laughing as they draft a Catch-22 definition of crazy as "anyone who wants a gun", so that the only people who can buy one don't want one.

#7 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-04-09 09:49 AM | Reply

idiot or crazy person,

crazy is temporal, though the period could be a long time, typically its very short.

#8 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-04-09 10:41 AM | Reply

Require gun ownership be limited to those that can supply a short list of references, including their spouse.

That should block most crazies and idiots and does not require government to choose gun owners.

#9 | Posted by bored at 2019-04-09 11:11 AM | Reply

Darwin.

#10 | Posted by getoffmedz at 2019-04-09 11:43 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

#9 I'm pretty sure gangsters can provide references....

#11 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-04-09 11:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Most of us don't fear gangs.

We fear the owners of guns designed to kill scores of innocents in a matter of seconds.

#12 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2019-04-09 11:57 AM | Reply

i.e. The Government.

#13 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-04-09 12:02 PM | Reply

#12 your hoplophobia is getting the best of you. You don't think a semiauto pistol in the hands of a banger can't kill scores of innocents in seconds? DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE? Statistically, of the 10,000 "deaths and injuries", 9500 were due to handguns.

#14 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-04-09 12:07 PM | Reply

With about 62% being suicides

#15 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-04-09 12:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Does this mean there were no laws before guns were invented?

No.

So then what does it mean?

#2 | Posted by snoofy

You could not be that stupid sno.

#16 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-04-09 12:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That has always been my position, I don't think idiots or crazy people should be allowed to have guns.

#5 | Posted by danni

They are not ddan. Because people are lazy, the people determined to be crazy are not put into the nics database.

#17 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-04-09 12:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Most of us don't fear gangs.

We fear the owners of guns designed to kill scores of innocents in a matter of seconds.

#12 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour

That is because you are not too bright. Your straw man does not exist except in a very few instances.

#18 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-04-09 12:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Guns aren't the problem. The militarized and interventionist culture is. It works both sides of the aisle. Their arguments are dually obnoxious.

I own two guns. A handgun and a rifle. Handgun is at at my Mom's house, keeping her safe. My rifle is over in Switzerland in a public armory. I have it by right of being a Swiss citizen thanks to my Mom, who was born there. We value gun ownership in Switzerland, but we do not value the militarized and interventionist ideology and the political manifestations that go with it. That is the difference.

#19 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2019-04-09 01:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#3
Are you against tanks or against grenades?
Or should everyone be allowed to have one?

#20 | Posted by eightfifteenpm at 2019-04-09 02:14 PM | Reply

I just want to be able to carry my Morning Star into town without the beta's feeling inadequate.

#21 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-04-09 02:28 PM | Reply

#19 I think there are some people for whom what you say is true, but the majority would disagree. The politization of gun ownership is bilateral. Gun grabbers want guns taken away and given to the political machine. 2A worshippers respond that tyranny was the reason for the 2A.

Your mom keeps a gun for protection. Noble. I get it. The question is "what's the difference between her gun and one owned because of a militarized and interventionist ideaology"? One pull, one bang, right? The differences are engineering: caliber, action, muzzle energy, etc... everything else is cosmetics.

#22 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-04-09 02:30 PM | Reply

"The politization of gun ownership is bilateral"

Which is why I said, "It works both sides of the aisle."

"what's the difference between her gun and one owned because of a militarized and interventionist ideaology"

It's my gun, not hers.

The difference is that she's Swiss. She is from a culture that has been long known for its impartiality, responsibility and tolerance.
She doesn't want to own it and she doesn't want to use it.
She does't want to use it to emphasize her "strength"
She doesn't want to use it as a symbol to promote her political goals.
She doesn't want to join clubs or subscribe to literature that celebrates and glorifies the killing power of the gun.
She doesn't want to buy into the culture that treats it as more than what it is-- a last resort of last resorts.
She doesn't want to use it to scare people or to make people think things about her that serve to stroke her ego.
She is not a belligerent loudmouth who thinks that might makes right, both here and abroad.
But if you come in her bedroom at night and think you are gonna make it out without at least one gaping hole in every organ of your body, think again.

She only agreed to have it at her place because she doesn't want me carrying it around in the city (Baltimore).
She used to worry that I'd get shot because I had it in my apartment. As if anyone breaking into my apartment would know that in the first place.
She probably also worried that I'd use it on myself. Not because I ever threatened to. All mothers think that way. They are just concerned to the point of paranoia. I don't blame her. She was raised Catholic so she has a little guilt complex.

In short, as I mentioned before, IT IS NOT ABOUT THE GUN. My mother has a 50 year proven track record of being able to handle powerful weaponry responsibly and humbly while a the same time respecting national sovereignty of other nations and cultures. She has been a crack shot since the age of 16 and she never had to threaten to blow a hole in anyone, or threatened to annihilate another country in the name of freedom. You won't see her taking trophy shots of her gun and a dead Rhinoceros, waving a flag. You won't see her going to watch and cheer films about war and organized crime and serial killers. But if she is in her house enjoying her tea and toast and you decide to come inside without permission, thinking that she'd make an easy mark for robbery or more, best understand that the last thing you'll ever see in your life is her face looking down over yours through a cloud of clearing smoke, slowly shaking her head in heartfelt pity.

#23 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2019-04-09 03:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

That was quite the anecdote, Scruffy.

Thank you for sharing it.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-04-09 03:36 PM | Reply

The difference is that she's Swiss. She is from a culture that has been long known for its impartiality, responsibility and tolerance.

#23 | Posted by NerfHerder

All swiss males are required to have a gun.

#25 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-04-09 05:27 PM | Reply

The Swiss Have Liberal Gun Laws, Too

But they also have fewer gun-related deaths than the U.S.
Krishnadev Calamur
Feb 16, 2018

Participants fire their infantry and assault rifles during the traditional "Ruetlischiessen" (Ruetli shooting) competition at the Ruetli meadow in central Switzerland on November 6, 2013.Arnd Wiegmann / Reuters

In February 2011, Swiss citizens voted in a referendum that called for a national gun registry and for firearms owned by members of the military to be stored in public arsenals.

"It is a question of trust between the state and the citizen. The citizen is not just a citizen, he is also a soldier," Hermann Suter, who at the time was vice president of the Swiss gun-rights group Pro Tell, told the BBC then. "The gun at home is the best way to avoid dictatorships -- only dictators take arms away from the citizens."

Apparently many of his fellow Swiss agreed. The referendum was easily defeated. Gun ownership in the country has deep historic roots and it is tied to mandatory military service for Swiss men between the ages of 18 and 34. Traditionally, soldiers were allowed to keep their weapons at home in order to defend against conquering armies. These fears came close to being realized during the Franco-Prussian War on 1871; as well as World War I, when the Swiss border was threatened; and World War II, when the country feared a Nazi invasion.

But guns are popular beyond the military, as well. Children as young as 12 are taught how to shoot as well as the rules of gun safety, and are encouraged to participate in highly popular target-shooting competitions. The country's cultural attachment to firearms resembles America's in some ways, though it has no constitutional right to bear arms -- it has the third-highest rate of private gun ownership in the world, behind the United States and Yemen. Yet Switzerland has a low rate of gun crime, and hasn't seen a mass shooting since 2001, when a gunman opened fire in the legislative body in the Canton of Zug, killing 14 people, as well as himself.

#26 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-04-09 05:30 PM | Reply

#23 You made my point, Nerf. Yhe gun is the same. The person wielding it is different. It's the same answer when I ask "what changed between now and when I had a rifle in my truck at school in the 80's"? People. People changed. We portray the gun as the problem, but it's not.

#27 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-04-09 07:41 PM | Reply

"All swiss males are required to have a gun."
.
And now you know why my other gun is in a public armory over in Switzerland. I guess both you and Mustang didn't read my posts too well before commenting.

#28 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2019-04-09 09:07 PM | Reply

Mustang, I said guns weren't the problem in my #19. Do try to pay closer attention.

#29 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2019-04-09 09:10 PM | Reply

well, as you all have heard

if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns

that's as true as it gets

#30 | Posted by Maverick at 2019-04-09 09:31 PM | Reply

#29 No, I read it. You blame the culture. I blame the person. My question is "what happened"? 15 years after I left school, Columbine happened. Things snowballed after that. Why?

#31 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-04-09 09:42 PM | Reply

if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns

You could say the same thing about spoons.

#32 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-04-09 09:49 PM | Reply

#32

Ok...

Spoon!

#33 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-04-09 10:21 PM | Reply

We fear the owners of guns designed to kill scores of innocents in a matter of seconds.
#12 | POSTED BY OLDWHISKEYSOUR

I doubt there's that many full autos out there.

#34 | Posted by jpw at 2019-04-09 11:55 PM | Reply

I doubt there's that many full autos out there.
#34 | POSTED BY JPW

Define "many"

Things snowballed after that. Why?

The beginning of the internet ....

At a meta level easier to communicate, empathize and organize.

Like to dress up as a baby .. just throw it up in the Google...
www.youtube.com

#35 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-04-10 12:07 AM | Reply

What an idiotic statement. Successful gun legislation in Canada, Australia and Western Europe were passed by politicians, not men with guns. I suppose those are fascists states!! Enforcement is and will always be handled by men and women carrying firearms because these people are trained to use them and is part of their work tools.

#36 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2019-04-10 04:52 AM | Reply

Enforcement is and will always be handled by men and women carrying

#36 | POSTED BY CRISISSTILLS

All gun laws, every single one of them, now and in the future, are and will be enforced by men with guns.

#1 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD

Ummmm.

That's exactly what I said in my "idiotic statement."

Look, reactionary violence has become embolden by a violent state.

White supremacy is taking the wheel.

If you do not conform, if you do not look the other way they will come for you.

I'm not going to be driven from freedom.

Buy a gun.

#37 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2019-04-10 09:16 AM | Reply

I'm not going to be driven from freedom.

Buy a gun.

#37 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD

As long as it is "well-regulated".

Enforcement is and will always be handled by men and women carrying firearms because these people are trained to use them and is part of their work tools.

#36 | POSTED BY CRISISSTILLS A

So what you are saying is we hire people and train ("well regulate" them) and then we give them guns so they can protect us from people we allow to have guns who we do not want to required that they be well regulated at all. Which requires we hire more people that we train("we'll regulate" them) and then give them guns...

Yeah. Ok. I think I have it. 👌

Nothing Can Be Done. (we already done stuff!)

#38 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-04-10 09:39 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

With about 62% being suicides

#15 | POSTED BY SNIPER

With Drumpf being the worst most evil hateful president in history.

This is a disaster people!!

People are killing more American people than the zombie immigrants from the Caravans of Doom are killing!!

🧟‍♀️ 🧟‍♂️

It's a National Emergy!! (But we will deal with it after the elections)

#39 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-04-10 10:12 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

You know, #36 and #38 are correct. I've been converted. Seriously.

Nothing would ever happen if only the only people who had guns were the highly trained, Honorable, noble, honest, decent, infallible men and women of the police forces from sea to shining sea.

www.google.com

You brainiacs ever read a newspaper or turn on your television?

#40 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2019-04-10 11:12 AM | Reply

My mother has a 50 year proven track record of being able to handle powerful weaponry responsibly and humbly while a the same time respecting national sovereignty of other nations and cultures.

So have I.

She has been a crack shot since the age of 16 and she never had to threaten to blow a hole in anyone, or threatened to annihilate another country in the name of freedom.

So have I.

You won't see her taking trophy shots of her gun and a dead Rhinoceros, waving a flag. You won't see her going to watch and cheer films about war and organized crime and serial killers.

Good. That's her CHOICE. But we do have those in OUR country here.

But if she is in her house enjoying her tea and toast and you decide to come inside without permission, thinking that she'd make an easy mark for robbery or more, best understand that the last thing you'll ever see in your life is her face looking down over yours through a cloud of clearing smoke, slowly shaking her head in heartfelt pity.

You've said nothing in your entire post that says me as a citizen cannot own a weapon. But you made sure to put your mom on a high horse, but still managed to say she should should own her weapon.

#41 | Posted by boaz at 2019-04-10 04:01 PM | Reply

Here's a great idea: Since there are about 70k overdose deaths a year in the US, let's just outlaw the drugs and voilà PROBLEM SOLVED!

... and another: For 2016 specifically, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data shows 37,461 people were killed in 34,436 motor vehicle crashes, an average of 102 per day. Let's just outlaw the vehicles and voilà PROBLEM SOLVED!

Excerpt from: www.drugabuse.gov
National Drug Overdose Deaths -- Number Among All Ages, by Gender, 1999-2017. More than 70,200 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2017, including illicit drugs and prescription opioids -- a 2-fold increase in a decade. The figure above is a bar and line graph showing the total number of U.S.

Excerpt from: en.wikipedia.org
For 2016 specifically, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data shows 37,461 people were killed in 34,436 motor vehicle crashes, an average of 102 per day.[1]

#42 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-04-10 04:54 PM | Reply

Note on my post above: Neither vehicles, nor drugs are a RIGHT under the Constitution, so outlawing then would be easier for 'you-all' to accomplish ; )

#43 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-04-10 04:57 PM | Reply

Almost all car deaths are accidents.
Almoat all gun deaths are intentional.
Apparently this isn't supposed to matter.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-04-10 05:00 PM | Reply

handle powerful weaponry responsibly and humbly while a the same time respecting national sovereignty of other nations and cultures.

"So have I."

So let me get this straight.

You SAY you were an officer in the US ARMY?

And you actually think that the US ARMY (you say you were a part of) respects the sovereignty of other nations?

Ok.

Wasn't the US ARMY also involved in the Irag War? (maybe the Marines did all the actual sovereignty "violations")

Was that one of the other Mexico's or maybe one of the other America's?

What about all the other sovereignty violations? It wasn't us?

#45 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-04-10 06:32 PM | Reply

Oh, and ---- #41 & #42.

#46 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2019-04-10 07:42 PM | Reply

"Almost all car deaths are accidents."

In 2016, 10,497 people were killed as a result of someone driving drunk. I couldn't find data on the number of injuries related to drunk driving, or the total number of crashes. But whatever the number, it's going to be higher.

And drunk driving is not an accident. It's intentional. As far as I know, alcohol can't affect a person without that person first ingesting it.

And that's just drunk driving. Speeding caused nearly as many deaths. And about half as many people died in motorcycle accidents. Does anyone really NEED a motorcycle?

Total cost per year for drunk driving is around $44 billion dollars.

#47 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-04-10 09:44 PM | Reply

"And drunk driving is not an accident. It's intentional. As far as I know, alcohol can't affect a person without that person first ingesting it."

Your logic leaks like a sieve.

Drunk driving may or may not be "intentional".

Drinking at first IS intentional. Later it may not be.

As far as I know you can't shoot someone or yourself without a gun.

Carrying a gun is an intentional act.

Shooting them can be unintentional. (How Conscious are we of our own actions? Not enough room or brain power here for that discussion)

There are many factors that lead to a shooting death. Some of those factors we do not control.

But let's go with your faulty logic.

It's simple then.

Remove the alcohol and drunk driving cannot occur.

Remove the gun and a shooting death cannot occur.

No more hard thinking required !!

#48 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-04-11 10:56 AM | Reply

"Does anyone really NEED a motorcycle?"

Who are you to decide what I "need"?????????

You will take my Harley from my cold dead hands. And even then I may not let go!!

#49 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-04-11 10:59 AM | Reply

"As far as I know you can't shoot someone or yourself without a gun."

Nor can you kill or injure yourself or someone else without a car.

"Carrying a gun is an intentional act."

So is misuse of a car. Or motorcycle. Or ATV. Or baseball bat.

"Remove the alcohol and drunk driving cannot occur."

That's true.

I don't think there were many drunk drivers in the Islamic State.

#50 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-04-11 07:55 PM | 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