Bob Costas and His Halftime Anti-Gun Rhetoric

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

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

 

Well, at first I thought he was just being sarcastic / facetious / making fun of me, so I just ignored the first paragraph. Lol. But that is more of Blots' role, so, I guess that was a serious question? Haha.

 

[Guest Phailadelphia]

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

 

Haha, liberal shell? I've only lived 2 years of my life outside Texas/Arkansas/Oklahoma. I've been around guns my entire life and fired more of them than I can remember. I have plenty of family that collects hunting rifles to, yanno, hunt game. And the ones who have bought handguns or "assault" rifles bought them explicitly for the purpose of shooting someone should the situation arises.

 

I've already said in here I'm not against using guns for self defense. I just wanted to rant about how dumb the logic is of "if guns kill people so do steak knives."

 

 

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.

 

I've been around guns all my life and never met anyone who buys guns just to look at them. But whatever.

[Maverick 791]

Haha, liberal shell? I've only lived 2 years of my life outside Texas/Arkansas/Oklahoma. I've been around guns my entire life and fired more of them than I can remember. I have plenty of family that collects hunting rifles to, yanno, hunt game. And the ones who have bought handguns or "assault" rifles bought them explicitly for the purpose of shooting someone should the situation arises.

 

I've already said in here I'm not against using guns for self defense. I just wanted to rant about how dumb the logic is of "if guns kill people so do steak knives."

 

 

 

 

I've been around guns all my life and never met anyone who buys guns just to look at them. But whatever.

 

I thought the liberal shell was a decent dig.

 

There's plenty of people that own guns to, yanno, shoot at targets such as skeet shooting or silhouette ranges. Hell, there's even competitions for them.

[Maverick 791]

Speaking of which....just something I did last weekend:

 

 

That's an AK-47, in case you were wondering.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Speaking of which....just something I did last weekend:

 

 

That's an AK-47, in case you were wondering.

 

Two Questions.

 

Is that stamped ? I can not tell if it is stamped or milled from the picture and the lower receiver. It looks stamped but I cant tell for sure.

 

Second is that a Chinese or Russian. I am almost positive it is the Russian style but just want some confirmation because there are a few things that give me pause.

[oochymp 2,393]

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.

Exactly, the only way to get guns off the street is to uninvent them, and that ain't happening, as far as the issue discussed, I'll quote Larry the Cable Guy: if guns kill people then I can blame misspelled words on my pencil

 

Regarding Costas' commentary, I don't really have a problem with him using the stage he had to express his views, do we really expect the commentators to keep their commentary strictly to the X's and O's? The players are people and stuff happens outside of the field of play, the commentators are people and we expect them to discuss those things that go on outside of the field of play. So while I don't agree with the statement he made, I would never tell him not to make it

[BwareDWare94 723]

The fact that guns wouldn't be completely gone from society doesn't negate the fact that they'd be much less prominent. At least I think they would be.

 

On the topic of the AK-47 picture. This is one of the issues I have with guns. In what universe does an everyday citizen need an AK-47? Somebody explain that to me. (Not aiming this entirely at you, Mav. It's just a general question).

Edited December 4, 2012 by BwareDWare94

[Omerta+ 1,206]

The fact that guns wouldn't be completely gone from society doesn't negate the fact that they'd be much less prominent. At least I think they would be.

 

On the topic of the AK-47 picture. This is one of the issues I have with guns. In what universe does an everyday citizen need an AK-47? Somebody explain that to me. (Not aiming this entirely at you, Mav. It's just a general question).

 

Perhaps he hunts. What can you hunt with that you ask. Why coyotes of course. Assault rifles are some of the best rifles for hunting coyotes available. That is just one instance.

 

Now answer me one question. In what world does an everyday citizen NEED a hot tub, Blu Ray Players, and surround sound ?

[BwareDWare94 723]

Perhaps he hunts. What can you hunt with that you ask. Why coyotes of course. Assault rifles are some of the best rifles for hunting coyotes available. That is just one instance.

 

Now answer me one question. In what world does an everyday citizen NEED a hot tub, Blu Ray Players, and surround sound ?

 

That is an irrelevant comparison, because people aren't going to be killed by any of those things. Not in general, anyway, and a few anomalies don't destroy the rule.

 

Really? Hunt with an assault rifle? Coyotes? Seems like overkill, doesn't it? () It's unnecessary, it's incredibly dangerous, and there is absolutely no reason for an everyday citizen to own an assault rifle.

Edited December 4, 2012 by BwareDWare94

[Omerta+ 1,206]

That is an irrelevant comparison, because you people are going to be killed by any of those things. Not in general, anyway, and a few anomalies don't destroy the rule.

 

Really? Hunt with an assault rifle? Coyotes? Seems like overkill, doesn't it? () It's unnecessary, it's incredibly dangerous, and there is absolutely no reason for an everyday citizen to own an assault rifle.

 

Ok so why does the everyday citizen need a Chainsaw ? You can do the same thing with a saw. They can kill. Have been used to kill before. The point is that if you take guns away murder will not go away. People doing harm to others will not go away. What about Butcher Knives ? Equally adept at killing and are commonly used in fact. Taking guns away will do nothing except infringe upon peoples rights. I still cant believe people fail to realize that a criminal is someone who breaks the law, so telling them it is illegal is pointless. I just dont get how people arent catching this yet.

 

And yes. Coyotes usually go in groups and using an assault rifle will cut down on your time for a follow up shot and are much easier to mount sights that are reflexive such as Halo sights, M68's, and other sights like that. It makes it much more efficient and simple to use.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Ok so why does the everyday citizen need a Chainsaw ? You can do the same thing with a saw. They can kill. Have been used to kill before. The point is that if you take guns away murder will not go away. People doing harm to others will not go away. What about Butcher Knives ? Equally adept at killing and are commonly used in fact. Taking guns away will do nothing except infringe upon peoples rights. I still cant believe people fail to realize that a criminal is someone who breaks the law, so telling them it is illegal is pointless. I just dont get how people arent catching this yet.

 

And yes. Coyotes usually go in groups and using an assault rifle will cut down on your time for a follow up shot and are much easier to mount sights that are reflexive such as Halo sights, M68's, and other sights like that. It makes it much more efficient and simple to use.

 

Taking guns away would lessen violent crime to a great degree. Get real. I'm not in favor of it, but it would have an effect. You're acting like every criminal was inherently criminal from birth. There are many people who've committed gun related crimes who would have clean records if guns weren't readily available.

 

Hmm...murders--mostly gun or mostly chainsaw, knife, etc? The gun is the least messy and leaves the least DNA. The other weapons you listed require the killer to be up close and personal with the victim. Guns don't.

 

Using an AK-47 to hunt coyotes is absurd. I know coyote hunters. None of them would even consider it.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Exactly, the only way to get guns off the street is to uninvent them, and that ain't happening, as far as the issue discussed, I'll quote Larry the Cable Guy: if guns kill people then I can blame misspelled words on my pencil

 

You're quoting someone whose entire schtick is being an idiot. Doesn't that matter?

 

Now answer me one question. In what world does an everyday citizen NEED a hot tub, Blu Ray Players, and surround sound ?

How many people are killed by hot tubs, blu rays, and surround sound systems?

 

And as for the chainsaw comment, you can use chainsaws for cutting wood. All you use guns for is killing.

 

Oh, and maybe this should move to the politics forum.

Edited December 4, 2012 by blotsfan

[Guest Phailadelphia]

 

I understand the criminals don't follow laws arguments, but does anyone know if there are any studies out there examining how many gun-related crimes have been performed by legally acquired vs illegally acquired weapons? Based just on what we've the seen the last couple of years I'd bet you anything these guys are getting guns in a perfectly legal manner. I'm not saying they wouldn't still be able to get these weapons if a gun ban is instituted, but it presents at least one way you can argue such easy access to guns is indeed increasing gun-related crime vs the alternative method.

 

Just something to think about.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[Milla4Prez63 678]

The fact that guns wouldn't be completely gone from society doesn't negate the fact that they'd be much less prominent. At least I think they would be.

 

On the topic of the AK-47 picture. This is one of the issues I have with guns. In what universe does an everyday citizen need an AK-47? Somebody explain that to me. (Not aiming this entirely at you, Mav. It's just a general question).

 

Guns would be less prominent. With people who want them to protect their family from the people who want them for wrong reasons.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

For perspective, the perpetrator in the Aurora movie theater shootings out in Colorado was a Ph.D student at the University of Colorado with no history of mental illness and no criminal record. If laws were in place to prevent him from getting a gun, none of us could get a gun, and as some have mentioned in this thread, that just ain't happening.

[oochymp 2,393]

You're quoting someone whose entire schtick is being an idiot. Doesn't that matter?

I don't think so, just because his schtick is being an idiot (which I'm not entirely sure I want to grant, but for the sake of brevity I won't address for now) doesn't discredit everything he says, just because he plays an idiot doesn't mean he is one, and that quote in particular is one that makes a lot of sense

[Omerta+ 1,206]

You're quoting someone whose entire schtick is being an idiot. Doesn't that matter?

 

 

How many people are killed by hot tubs, blu rays, and surround sound systems?

 

And as for the chainsaw comment, you can use chainsaws for cutting wood. All you use guns for is killing.

 

Oh, and maybe this should move to the politics forum.

 

Ever heard of skeet shooting ?

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Using an AK-47 to hunt coyotes is absurd. I know coyote hunters. None of them would even consider it.

 

Yeah because hte ones you know have to be the only ones that hunt coyotes....makes sense to me.

 

Now if you are willing to read here is a link.

 

Field and Stream

 

This shows you that many people use "assault" rifles to hunt coyotes because of its low recoil, flat trajectory, and quick follow up. It is from Field and Stream so I think it would be safe to presume these guys are avid hunter.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Yeah because hte ones you know have to be the only ones that hunt coyotes....makes sense to me.

 

Now if you are willing to read here is a link.

 

Field and Stream

 

This shows you that many people use "assault" rifles to hunt coyotes because of its low recoil, flat trajectory, and quick follow up. It is from Field and Stream so I think it would be safe to presume these guys are avid hunter.

 

Bware's back hills redneck buddies are better sources than your link. Just messin with ya Bware.

 

And do people ACTUALLY believe that taking guns out of peoples hands would lower crime?

[Glanvilles Grits 142]

Regardless of the laws in place, it doesn't matter. Even if there were even stricter laws, he would have been able to attain a gun. Nothing noted that he was going to go nuts.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Ever heard of skeet shooting ?

Practicing killing.

 

And Favre, crime might not go down, but I bet deaths would. How many gun deaths in the US are accidental?

 

Heck, if a criminal is trying to kill someone with a knife, I'd say that its a more desirable scenario than them using a gun.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

And do people ACTUALLY believe that taking guns out of peoples hands would lower crime?

 

Of course. These are the same people who believe government can pay for health care for everybody, unemployment benefits for the unemployed, college education for all students, and not go bankrupt.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Well, this article makes it look like it was a crime of passion that he regretted almost immediately. Maybe if he didn't have a gun he would've been forced to think things through a little more, or maybe just hit her (which would still be bad, but both would probably be alive).

 

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/12/04/3947425/chiefs-tried-to-help-jovan-belcher.html

[Maverick 791]

Well, this article makes it look like it was a crime of passion that he regretted almost immediately. Maybe if he didn't have a gun he would've been forced to think things through a little more, or maybe just hit her (which would still be bad, but both would probably be alive).

 

http://www.kansascit...an-belcher.html

No blots, for the millionth time he just would have used a knife.

 

Ngata, to answer your questions it's Russian and I'll have to get back to you on the other question.

 

It all comes down to SteVo's picture. It's really as simple as that. I've yet to hear a decent argument against it.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Maverick