Beck

Glenn Beck on NIH Studying Health Effects of Gun Ownership

Video by DustinsGunBlog
(October 21, 2009) in Society / Guns
The only person who will experience a health effect from my gun ownership would be a thug attacking my family. Congress told the CDC "No" to such studies a decade ago. Now the NIH is taking it up once again wasting our tax dollars. Glenn Beck recently discussed this issue on his program:

Comments (8) | (1) | Flag This
Regarding Video
Glenn Beck on NIH Studying Health Effects of Gun Ownership

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • bartolomeo7
    Isn't Life Strange

    In Florida, you can kill someone, shoot dead,who refuses to leave your house or apartment with no legal consequence. This increases a sense of personal security and right.

    - bartolomeo7US October 21, 2009 3:46PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • m46607
      Isn't Beck in Chicago?

      I believe that's where his show is filmed. In my opinion he should not live or work in a state which focuses itself against the Rights he is defending. In Chicago if an intruder breaks into your home and assaults you and you respond with deadly force it is the job of detectives and other law enforcement to try to convict you for possessing the self-defense handgun. I'd like to say that it's something along the lines of hypocritical but it's not quite that.

      While Beck might talk out of his ass at times, the opinion expressed in this instance is the opinion of many law-abiding citizens across America who use their firearms for self-defense.

      Florida is great for having the Castle Doctrine. Courts have even upheld that an attacker who is shot in the back while fleeing can be considered an excusable to justifiable homicide , meaning you don't have to "accept what's been done to you" or it "prevents a dangerous criminal from continuing to bring harm." While I can't recall the exact case study, I'd also suggest that every incident is unique.

      Even in the case of unarmed assailants entering one's Castle uninvited, you are authorized to defend yourself and your property. There's nothing unhealthy about such a decision; pulling the trigger, finding that you've killed an unarmed intruder, can be traumatic. However, it is much more comforting to know that your intentions were to remain safe while only guesswork can determine the intentions of one breaking in to a private property where they do not belong.

      -

      A friend who is against the idea of Armed Citizens said she's "horrified that I carry" and "prepared for the day that my own weapon is turned on me and used to kill me." In one study: Even though out of 4,100 instances of CC defenders only 7 had their weapons used against them (compared to nearly 200 criminals having theirs used against them!), I look at this as a realistic and potential hazard which requires training and confidence to overcome.

      I feel as though we're all walking cadavers just waiting to happen and while I can't always prevent myself from being struck by a car or bullet, there's risks we take to uphold our personal safety and the safety of others.

      - m46607US October 21, 2009 4:22PM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • mhphoto
        New York

        I think he films his show in New York. I could be wrong, but I know it's definitely not Chicago.

        - mhphotoUS October 21, 2009 9:34PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Don Earl
    What a bleeding idiot!

    If this clown's goal is to paint gun rights in the worst possible light, he did a wonderful job.

    It's amazing how many people have fallen for the whole "con vs. lib" thing. The media isn't liberal or conservative, it's corporate. It's in corporate America's interest to see citizens disarmed. It makes us a lot easier marks for the massive frauds perpetuated against us.

    The goofiest part is the hammering away at the silly notion that gun rights is a conservative issue. Throughout history, real liberals bear arms. Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, et al, were some of the most hardcore liberals who have ever lived. Beck is a poseur and a fraud.

    - Don EarlUS October 21, 2009 10:06PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • LagerHead
      The media certainly can be liberal.

      Look at MSNBC if you need an example. They spent 8 years bashing bush , but can't find fault with anything that Obama does. They also perpetrated a nice little hack job with the guy at the Arizona gun rally and talking about the racist overtones that were "obvious," while blatantly hiding the fact that the man was black.

      If you don't think the media can be biased in a liberal or conservative way, might I suggest that you help Beck get his head out of the sand? That is, once you pull yours out?

      - LagerHeadUS October 22, 2009 9:45AM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Don Earl
        It's a hoax

        I quit watching TV over 30 years ago. I'll repeat, the media isn't conservative or liberal, it's corporate. You figure NBC is liberal? NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the biggest defense contractors on the face of the planet, and a massive beneficiary of the Bush wars and deficit defense spending. NBC alone has a lock on over 35% of the US media.

        Think about it for a moment. Why is it that what you perceive as a "liberal" point of view is so offensive to you? Is it perhaps the way it's presented? If someone really wanted you to share their views, wouldn't they present their views to you in such a way as to make it at least somewhat tolerable? Would they shout absurdities in your face, or calmly try to argue their strongest points in a reasonable manner?

        I'll give you a mild example from your own comments. You appear to believe Obama is black. Where did you hear that? The media perhaps? He's not black. He's half black and half white. He may be America's first mulatto president, but to date, America has never had a black president.

        While you may find it hard to believe in a society where the vast majority of the population has been dumbed down by watching television , the clip attached to this thread is the first time I've ever seen Beck. I know of him from various written articles I run across occasionally, but I've never watched him. I've posted my views on the Second Amendment in enough places on OV to where you can see where I stand if you care to look. In a nutshell, my position is "shall not be infringed" means exactly what says. I found the so called "conservative" view expressed by Beck to be so fantastically offensive and disgusting that my first impression was one of being embarassed to be a supporter of the Second Amendment. My second and more objective impression is that was the intended effect.

        It's not me who has his head in the sand, my friend. Unlike most of the dumbed down population, I recognize the less obvious forms that truly sophisticated propaganda takes.

        If you want to get a little bit of a feel for what I'm talking about, this is about as good a place to start as any:

        http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main

        When in doubt, follow the money and ask the question, "Who benefits from this?".

        - Don EarlUS October 22, 2009 5:42PM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • m46607
          You Both Make a Valid Argument.

          We shouldn't take Olbermann or Beck seriously as they both exist to be polar opposites. If arms of the media swing in opposite directions they will certainly gather followers and promote divisive situations among us.

          I do listen to the media but the only side I'll ever really take to heart are those who produce non-biased or independent studies - fair statistics and good journalism . John Stossel does investigative reporting and a damn find job of it. Lou Dobbs might have his opinions as well but he at least gives both sides a fair say. Debate is healthy but picking a side so firmly that it blinds you is usually not.

          I don't mind Moderates as long as they can detail the ways in which they are moderate and the issues which they feel need moderation.

          Still, I should always take an elected politician's actions more seriously than a journalist's words.

          - m46607US October 22, 2009 11:31PM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • Don Earl
            Take sides?

            Ah, but that's more of the core propaganda. If someone can't stand Beck, or that doped up fool with boils on his butt, they must be liberals. Right?

            From a small cross section of Dobbs quotes I've seen, he's as big a fool as the rest of them. None of these clowns are objective, fair or balanced. In fact, balanced is the last thing they are fact wise, and mental wise, they're anything but. They're red faced raving lunatics whose sole purpose is to have half the population fighting the other half, while the chosen elite rob us blind during the distraction.

            Personally, I hate Democrats as much as I do Republicans. For those of us who own horses, it strikes me as ludicrous that anyone would prefer one gang of horse theives over the other. Do a little online research on the various fringe parties, such as the greens, socialists, libertarians, constitutional party, etc.. Although goofy in places (a lot of places in some cases) all of them have a platform. When you get done with that, check out the offical sites for the Ds & Rs. As incredible as it may seem to those who think one side is liberal and the other conservative, neither party has a platform. Zip, zero, nadda. They stand for absolutely nothing. Look at their voting records. On nonsense throw away issues, you may see some polarization. When it comes to spending several trillion dollars to bail out their rich investor buddies who made bad bets, or to invade some pissant little country with lots of heroin or oil , they're in lock step with each other.

            IMO, what this country needs is a viable third party that actually represents those who vote for them, as in mainstream America.

            - Don EarlUS October 23, 2009 4:24AM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Related Items

See Related...