There are two significant issues here. First, what is asserted here and second what he said.

What he said was the only way to "end gun violence" is to eliminate guns. In that he is likely correct. As long as guns exist there will be violence which involves them. Only if and when we as a species entirely ceases any and all violence would we avoid "gun violence" - at which point we'd stop making them and likely destroy them.

In that regard your comparative statement is correct. However, regarding the title given the post here, your analogy would be incorrect.

Here is why your analogy fits the actual statement he made, and does not fit what was written here (for the benefit of those who *don't* click the link and read the story):

Violence exists w/o regard to firearms. Medication overdoses and medication errors only exist if medications do. So technically, if there were no medications there could be no errors and overdoses of them. As long as they exist errors will exist and overdoses are probably going to happen, therefore the only way to be sure would indeed be to eliminate medications entirely. Not that it is realistic to expect it could be done - even if we pulled back and nuked it from orbit survivors would undoubtedly find surviving medical stores.

Yes, that is what he was saying.

Thanks for pointing out he didn't say what he was alleged to say. I expect better from Gulchers than blatant misquoting. Judging by the other responses here, it would appear the article wasn't read and reasoned over by most of those responding.

Individual liberty is being killed by politicians.
Lets outlaw politicians.

No, that would have been far too honest a statement for a GOP adviser (grin)

Karl Rove wasn't advocating repeal of the 2nd Amendment here, it was taken out of context, he said the only way gun violence won't happen [in any] society is to completely remove all of the guns, basically, he is saying that evil exists in people. As long as there are people, and tools, some will kill others. There isn't going to be an 'end' to this.

The kid looks like a pussy though, if one of them had been armed (I'm not advocating we strap-up for church every day), but if one had a side arm, he would have definitely left the building without doing anything. He looks like the type that will only prey on the helpless.

Well said!

I get a slight inclination that possibly you don't care too much for Mr. Rove? And I'm not saying that Mr. Rove is not a blowhard either. He isn't particularly a fan of mine but the headline is taken out of context to generate excitement, otherwise would anyone have even bothered to read the article? By not actually listening to what Rove or anyone else has to say we fall into the trap where we jump to conclusions and make gross errors in our decisions. Take those that vote "D", because it's the patriotic thing to do. Exactly what facts can they recite to back up their positions on any subject? None!!!

These kinds of headlines are geared to generate emotion, and in some cases to further split the people in order to conquer. The president right now is again trying to insure there will remain a split between white and black, Christians and Jews, cops and the public, and any category where he can then tell them he is on their side. This will insure they vote as he tells them so he can continue to falsely support them in trying to overcome the dissention he has actually helped create. They will of course then vote for the big "D", it's the patriotic thing to do and he's on “our side”, we gotta vote for him.

It's like PC, it's what could destroy the American way of life if the people don't see through the trash talk. None of its even related to the issues of what we need for a leader to insure that we progress and make this country free again. It's just another gross distraction. What really happened in Benghazi? Did Hillary not defend our people, did she order the stand down, or was she totally oblivions (incompetent) as to what was going on until it was too late? Why did she push the offensive movie theory? Why did she continue to push the movie story even after the facts had some out? Is she just another politician, or was she an effective Secretary of State? What else did she “accomplish” as Secretary of State? Personally I think she had the title but was actually campaigning instead of tending to duty. She’s the kind of employee that has to be directed and watched all the time.

I also believe we all need to concentrate on educating our friends that are on the fence, our ignorant friends, those that we really like but that don’t have a political factual brain cell in their head. I know I’ve awakened a few, and I’ve totally lost a few (one in particular for life), but it will be more effective than just us relating the facts between ourselves. If everyone one of us can educate just one person, we’ll actually double our base. And then we’ve got to get all our political friends to do the same. We’ve only got a little over a year my friends. Get it on.