Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Favre4Ever

Bob Costas and His Halftime Anti-Gun Rhetoric

Recommended Posts

To get this out of the way, to be slightly fair to Costas, he was practically parroting an article written by Jason Whitlock (Fox Sports writer and former writer for the Kansas City Star).

 

Whitlock basically went on a rant about how if gun laws were stricter and Belcher couldn't get a hold of one.. Both he and his GF would still be alive.

 

Anyway, as we all know. Costas took the time to parade Whitlock and his article during halftime of SNF.

 

I want to know what you think. Do you agree or disagree with the main point? Do you think it appropriate or the stage for Costas to rant as he did? Or were you barely phased by it? Just a guy stating his opinion, nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll keep my opinion on guns to myself, but you're there to discuss something directly football related. Very out of place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rarely watch halftime but to do something like that on that show is just inappropriate. Had he been invited to talk about the incident on another show or radio whatever. That's fine. But halftime Sunday Night Football isn't the right place to do it.

 

Also, with what must have been going through Belchers mind to do what he did, I don't think the lack of a gun would have stopped him. "I'm going to kill my girlfriend then I'm going to kill myself. Oh wait, I don't have access to a gun. Nevermind. I'll forget about it."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia

There are plenty of legitimate discussions to be had about opinions on firearms, but curating that argument at half-time of SNF is not the time nor the place in my opinion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns don't kill people. People kill People.

 

 

Doesn't matter what weapon a person uses. If someone wants someone else dead, they'll find a way. Guns just happen to be a quick out for most.

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he was fine to say it. He doesn't have to talk soley about football. This is no different to me than talking about a football players charity work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NBC’s Bob Costas used the halftime segment on “Sunday Night Football” to sound off on gun control. After the murder-suicide involving Kansas City Chiefs player Jovan Belcher, Costas invoked the words of Kansas City-based writer Jason Whitlock, saying “If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”

 

So, was this an instance of the liberal media using a tragedy to push a political agenda?

 

On FBN’s Varney & Co. this morning, Judge Andrew Napolitano weighed in on the issue, saying that Costas and Whitlock have “no basis” for the conclusion that Belcher and Perkins would still be alive if he did not have access to a gun.

 

“We all use steak knives to help us enjoy our meals, but they can also be a dangerous weapon. So is the government going to ban them? They’re far more easily attainable than guns,” said Napolitano.

 

FBN’s Sandra Smith pointed out that what was “more problematic” was Costas using the halftime show “as an opportunity” for that purpose only one day after the tragedy took place.

 

The judge responded by pointing out that, “(NBC) used a premier, primetime slot with tens of millions of eyes to promote gun control. They’re not supposed to use their corporate assets for that purpose.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand exactly where they're coming from. I doubt this was something that was planned out far in advance. It was most likely an act of passion. I could completely see that if he didn't have the gun right there, he hesitates enough that he has a chance to get help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty hard to believe that this guy was driven so far off the edge to kill his GF and mother of his child, then to head over to Arrowhead, thank Pioli and tell him "I love you"... Then proceed to shoot himself because he had access to a gun. The guy was going to accomplish what he set out to do, IMO, gun or not.

 

Oh, and Jamaal Charles released a statement. Belcher's GF was actually the cousin of Jamaal's wife. Talk about a twist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia

I really wish people would stop comparing guns to steak knives and other potentially harmful accessories. One was made EXPLICITLY to kill people at a more efficient volume while the other was not. It's a fucking stupid comparison to make. And this is coming from someone who is fully in favor of using guns for self-defense.

Edited by Phailadelphia
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wish people would stop comparing guns to steak knives and other potentially harmful accessories. One was made EXPLICITLY to kill people at a more efficient volume while the other was not. It's a fucking stupid comparison to make. And this is coming from someone who is fully in favor of using guns for self-defense.

 

That's far from the point. And everyone who owns a gun doesn't own one explicitly to kill.

 

It isn't about steak knives or scissors or stakes... Talk about a ball point pen if you want. The point is that the gun itself didn't perpetuate Belcher to take two lives.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty hard to believe that this guy was driven so far off the edge to kill his GF and mother of his child, then to head over to Arrowhead, thank Pioli and tell him "I love you"... Then proceed to shoot himself because he had access to a gun. The guy was going to accomplish what he set out to do, IMO, gun or not.

 

Oh, and Jamaal Charles released a statement. Belcher's GF was actually the cousin of Jamaal's wife. Talk about a twist.

 

I'm sick of the "if he wanted to kill her, he was going to kill her anyway" argument. That is complete bullshit. Don't you think that many situations such as this one, when a gun is the weapon used, the murder happens at the height of emotional instability because the gun is readily available and that pulling a trigger is much easier than killing someone with another object?

 

Not to bust your chops on this one, man, because you're usually spot on, but the whole "he'd have found a way to do it anyway" argument is baseless.

 

This obviously wasn't a planned murder and suicide, which would make that argument valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Phailadelphia

And everyone who owns a gun doesn't own one explicitly to kill.

 

Word? They buy them just cause they're shiny? By the way, I didn't say people buy them explicitly to kill someone or something. I said that was the purpose for which they were invented and are continued to be made. People don't use a 9mm to hunt anything, so if you're not using it to shoot someone, whatever the case may be surrounding the circumstances, why exactly do you own a gun?

 

It isn't about steak knives or scissors or stakes... Talk about a ball point pen if you want. The point is that the gun itself didn't perpetuate Belcher to take two lives.

 

I never said it did. I'm simply stating the "if you ban guns you have to ban steak knives too cause you can kill people with them as well" is absurd. Napolitano made the guns to steak knives comparison in the article you posted and I wanted to rant about the stupidity of that logic.

Edited by Phailadelphia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sick of the "if he wanted to kill her, he was going to kill her anyway" argument. That is complete bullshit. Don't you think that many situations such as this one, when a gun is the weapon used, the murder happens at the height of emotional instability because the gun is readily available and that pulling a trigger is much easier than killing someone with another object?

 

Not to bust your chops on this one, man, because you're usually spot on, but the whole "he'd have found a way to do it anyway" argument is baseless.

 

This obviously wasn't a planned murder and suicide, which would make that argument valid.

 

Either side is pretty "baseless". Unless you can tell me exactly what Belcher was thinking in his final moments on this Earth there really is no definitive answer.

 

You, I, and everyone else can explain what we THINK happened. But nobody will ever know. Thinking you do would be a bit silly.

 

It's all speculation and talk at this point, and will continue to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wish people would stop comparing guns to steak knives and other potentially harmful accessories. One was made EXPLICITLY to kill people at a more efficient volume while the other was not. It's a fucking stupid comparison to make. And this is coming from someone who is fully in favor of using guns for self-defense.

 

I think the point is more so that guns aren't sold to the public to be used to murder others, they're sold to the public so the public can protect themselves, feed themselves(hunting), etc. The comparison comes in that a knife is made to use in eating, preparing meals, etc, though can be used to kill someone.

 

To put it simply, people using an item for what it isn't intended for is no reason to get rid of that item, that's the defense most use, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word? They buy them just cause they're shiny? By the way, I didn't say people buy them explicitly to kill someone or something. I said that was the purpose for which they were invented and are continued to be made. People don't use a 9mm to hunt anything, so if you're not using it to shoot someone, whatever the case may be surrounding the circumstances, why exactly do you own a gun?

 

 

 

I never said it did. I'm simply stating the "if you ban guns you have to ban steak knives too cause you can kill people with them as well" is absurd. Napolitano made the guns to steak knives comparison in the article you posted and I wanted to rant about the stupidity of that logic.

 

Again, the point isn't the stupidity of banning steak knives. It's about banning guns. He made the comparison on purpose to point out exactly what you are saying. It's absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wish people would stop comparing guns to steak knives and other potentially harmful accessories. One was made EXPLICITLY to kill people at a more efficient volume while the other was not. It's a fucking stupid comparison to make. And this is coming from someone who is fully in favor of using guns for self-defense.

 

What does that have to do with anything? We're not talking about what weapon would be better to kill an army with. The situation is Belcher wanted his girlfriend and himself dead. That's it. A gun, knife, whatever - the job was getting done regardless of the weapon.

 

Regarding Costas' dumbass: The reaction to his ridiculous, out of place statements are pretty mild. I'd love to hear the uproar if his comments weren't so far left and politically correct.

 

Plus, I heard this statistic on Sirius XM so take it for what its worth (from what I've searched on Google it's true), but apparently 2 million crimes a year are prevented by law-abiding gun owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the double post but to be honest, I'm more upset that he was able to spew his bullshit and now people heard it.

 

I'm sure he collected some more sheep to stand for gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word? They buy them just cause they're shiny? By the way, I didn't say people buy them explicitly to kill someone or something. I said that was the purpose for which they were invented and are continued to be made. People don't use a 9mm to hunt anything, so if you're not using it to shoot someone, whatever the case may be surrounding the circumstances, why exactly do you own a gun?

 

lol umm...ever hear of gun collectors? or perhaps a hobby?

 

Come out of your liberal shell and you'll see a lot of people are into it. I can't believe you really just asked that...actually nevermind, I can lol.

 

Triple post: Oh shit, the mods are gonna be on me now. O_O

Edited by Maverick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word? They buy them just cause they're shiny? By the way, I didn't say people buy them explicitly to kill someone or something. I said that was the purpose for which they were invented and are continued to be made. People don't use a 9mm to hunt anything, so if you're not using it to shoot someone, whatever the case may be surrounding the circumstances, why exactly do you own a gun?

 

Absolutely. I have friends who buy guns just for show. Never been fired before, never will be. I completely understand what you said and what you meant. I wasn't even trying to disagree with you in regrd to why they were invented. But that was quite some time ago, was it not? Times have changed. Not everyone buys a gun these days to take life. Just the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. I have friends who buy guns just for show. Never been fired before, never will be. I completely understand what you said and what you meant. I wasn't even trying to disagree with you in regrd to why they were invented. But that was quite some time ago, was it not? Times have changed. Not everyone buys a gun these days to take life. Just the way it is.

 

It's no use, JD. I commend you for your effort. But the fact that he seriously asked that question just baffles me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with the idea of making guns illegal to own or whatever is that people using them for the wrong reasons will still find ways to get their hands on them. If you plan on breaking the law to kill someone, breaking the law and getting a gun probably won't stop you. It isn't like every gun on the planet magically disapears if you make it illegal.

 

As for the situation with Belcher, he may not have done what he did if he didn't have a gun. He may have still with a different weapon. Who knows, but it isn't a good argument for an anti-gun agenda because by taking them away you're only taking them away from people who want them for good reasons. Those who want them for the wrong reasons will still find them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own a gun just in case some ghetto motherfucker decides to enter my place of residence and help himself to some free shit.

 

Never have fired it before, don't plan to unless i'm provoked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×