Bob Costas and His Halftime Anti-Gun Rhetoric

[blotsfan 2,112]

Ah. So if he was coming at her with a knife, she wouldn't have any chance to run away or fight back?

[Maverick 791]

Ah. So if he was coming at her with a knife, she wouldn't have any chance to run away or fight back?

 

Ah. 6'2", 225lb man against a 22 year old woman?

[blotsfan 2,112]

Probably just got to get away for a little bit before he realizes its crazy.

 

Regardless though, I'm sure situations like this happen that don't involve NFL players. So you admit that in that case a gun could actually be the difference between the people being alive or dead.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Do you people really think he would have killed her with something else had he not had a gun? Gun killings happen because triggers can be pulled from a distance, and the act itself is easy. Minor pressure from your strong hand's index finger. Otherwise, killing somebody is immensely difficult with another weapon. Let's get real, for a second here. No gun, no murder-suicide.

[Maverick 791]

Probably just got to get away for a little bit before he realizes its crazy.

 

Regardless though, I'm sure situations like this happen that don't involve NFL players. So you admit that in that case a gun could actually be the difference between the people being alive or dead.

 

I'm not admitting that at all. You're missing the point. You keep trying to paint a scenario that helps your argument when that is irrelevant, the problem is HIS AGENDA. He wanted her dead.

 

Regardless, I'll play along. So you're telling me an average human wants another average human dead, but doesn't have a gun. Okay, I'll just carry my knife and when they least expect it - slit.

[Maverick 791]

Do you people really think he would have killed her with something else had he not had a gun? Gun killings happen because triggers can be pulled from a distance, and the act itself is easy. Minor pressure from your strong hand's index finger. Otherwise, killing somebody is immensely difficult with another weapon. Let's get real, for a second here. No gun, no murder-suicide.

 

Another one that is changing the situation to their liking.

 

Why assume he has to take out a knife and charge at her? They were a couple. Obviously there's trust.

 

Ever hear of blindsiding somebody?

[Mathias 394]

Do you people really think he would have killed her with something else had he not had a gun? Gun killings happen because triggers can be pulled from a distance, and the act itself is easy. Minor pressure from your strong hand's index finger. Otherwise, killing somebody is immensely difficult with another weapon. Let's get real, for a second here. No gun, no murder-suicide.

 

OJ didn't use a gun, idiot.

[Maverick 791]

I've got a question for you, though, blots, bware, whoever...

 

Let's say you've come up with a scenario that has stumped me. What's your point? Guns should be outlawed because of those rare situations? Guns are more lethal than knives? Congratufuckinglations, you've made an extraordinary discovery.

 

Let the Samurai know when you get a chance, could ya?

[BwareDWare94 723]

No, I'm not in favor of outlawing guns, but I'm also not in favor of acting like not having a gun wouldn't have changed that situation. You people are being ridiculous. Absolutely, 100%, care-more-about-myself-and-my-right-to-own-guns ridiculous.

 

Quite frankly, this is absurd. This isn't quite to the level of the bullshit we saw after Aurora, CO, but it's irritating me just as much. Your guns don't matter more than two people's lives and a orphan left alone.

 

Acknowledge the likelihood that they'd both be alive if Belcher hadn't owned guns.

Edited December 4, 2012 by BwareDWare94

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Ahhhh yeah of course if you outlaw them then we will see a reduction in just about everything.

 

Anybody ever think about the prohibition ? Outlawing that sure did the desired effect right. The rate of alcohol consumption rose. The average age of people when they developed a drinking habit went down. Instead of having a bar at every corner they had a distillery in every house. Modern Organized crime began during the prohibition and Volstead acts and people became more creative on how they obtained, consumed, and disposed of alcohol.

 

What do you think would make this any different? People would just learn how to gun smith which all things consider isnt that hard. Then there would be fighting over who sells guns in what area and so on since it would be a lucrative business. And then we would just see a flood of more dangerous weapons as people overseas would probably try to peddle it onto our shores bringing Uzi's, FN-FAL's, AK's, Aug's, and much more dangerous guns seeing as how people are going to own them no matter what.

 

you can not stop people from owning them no matter if they outlaw them or not. People who want them will find a way just as they did in the prohibition. The only thing you would do by placing tighter restrictions is keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Some solution.

 

And before you say they are unrelated just know that HALF of all murders in this country involve alcohol. Then a QUARTER of suicides are so you can not say they are unrelated. Guns and alcohol are both killers both independently and when walking hand in hand.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Mav, this wasn't something that was planned out. They got in an argument, things got heated, he overreacted and shot her.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Ahhhh yeah of course if you outlaw them then we will see a reduction in just about everything.

 

Anybody ever think about the prohibition ? Outlawing that sure did the desired effect right. The rate of alcohol consumption rose. The average age of people when they developed a drinking habit went down. Instead of having a bar at every corner they had a distillery in every house. Modern Organized crime began during the prohibition and Volstead acts and people became more creative on how they obtained, consumed, and disposed of alcohol.

 

What do you think would make this any different? People would just learn how to gun smith which all things consider isnt that hard. Then there would be fighting over who sells guns in what area and so on since it would be a lucrative business. And then we would just see a flood of more dangerous weapons as people overseas would probably try to peddle it onto our shores bringing Uzi's, FN-FAL's, AK's, Aug's, and much more dangerous guns seeing as how people are going to own them no matter what.

 

you can not stop people from owning them no matter if they outlaw them or not. People who want them will find a way just as they did in the prohibition. The only thing you would do by placing tighter restrictions is keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Some solution.

 

And before you say they are unrelated just know that HALF of all murders in this country involve alcohol. Then a QUARTER of suicides are so you can not say they are unrelated. Guns and alcohol are both killers both independently and when walking hand in hand.

 

It takes one well placed bullet to kill somebody.

 

The majority of the time with alcohol, it takes far too much of it. They are not comparable in this situation. Are they in general, from a greater perspective? Sure, but guns kill people much easier than alcohol does. The only difference is that the majority of adults in this country have some sort of affinity for a hard drink. Not everybody loves guns.

[Mathias 394]

Cars kill people. Should we ban those too?

[blotsfan 2,112]

The difference is that the main point of guns is to kill someone/something. That is a side effect of alcohol. A secondary use for knives and chainsaws. Yes, people use guns for decoration and target shooting, but when they were being designed the manufacturers thought was "how can I make it easier to kill with this."

 

Now, I don't think guns should be 100% outlawed. Maybe AK-47s are good for killing coyotes. Let ranchers in Arizona have them then. There is no need to own something like that when you live in suburban America.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

It takes one well placed bullet to kill somebody.

 

The majority of the time with alcohol, it takes far too much of it. They are not comparable in this situation. Are they in general, from a greater perspective? Sure, but guns kill people much easier than alcohol does. The only difference is that the majority of adults in this country have some sort of affinity for a hard drink. Not everybody loves guns.

 

The hell they are not. You are just discrediting things to support your own conclusion with no facts. 88 % of the country owns guns. 67 % drink.

 

And the fact you say that guns kill easier is incredibly misinformed. Alcohol kills more people than guns by a staggering amount. 35,000 people died from just the effects of alcohol alone last year, that does not include the other 40,000 that die from alcohol related incidents. Number of deaths from guns. Less than 10,000.

 

Alcohol kills more than AIDS, HIV, Murder, and Suicide almost every year by clockwork.

 

So should we ban alcohol? Wait we tried. Trying to amend the second amendment or curtail firearm use is just as feeble and useless of a cause, and just as stupid.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Ngata_Chance

[Omerta+ 1,206]

The difference is that the main point of guns is to kill someone/something. That is a side effect of alcohol. A secondary use for knives and chainsaws. Yes, people use guns for decoration and target shooting, but when they were being designed the manufacturers thought was "how can I make it easier to kill with this."

 

Now, I don't think guns should be 100% outlawed. Maybe AK-47s are good for killing coyotes. Let ranchers in Arizona have them then. There is no need to own something like that when you live in suburban America.

 

So people dont know alcohol can kill just like guns and are probably just as if not more dangerous. If they dont than they are not intelligent enough to do either.

 

That is the problem. Do you discriminate based on geography? Lets say you can get that passed and people don't riot (they would). However after you do that, then what keeps them from selling them to others in metropolitan USA ?

 

It is as I said there is no feasible way to restrict guns that wont cause massive resistance. And at that there is no reason for it.

 

One selfish guy shoots himself and his girlfriend and now all of the sudden this is a problem the entirety of the gun owning world should have to bear the mantle for ? How is that fair or even logical ?

Edited December 4, 2012 by Ngata_Chance

[blotsfan 2,112]

The hell they are not. You are just discrediting things to support your own conclusion with no facts. 88 % of the country owns guns. 67 % drink.

88% of people don't own guns. There are 88 guns for every 100 people. About 27% of households actually own guns. When the average gunowner has 5 different guns, it tends to mess with the number.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/index.html

 

Theres about 70k deaths per year from alcohol. About 30k deaths from fire arms. So thats 2.3x the deaths from alcohol vs 2.4x deaths from gun ownership. Given that like I've said, alcohol's primary purpose isn't killing, its not a good metaphor.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

88% of people don't own guns. There are 88 guns for every 100 people. About 27% of households actually own guns. When the average gunowner has 5 different guns, it tends to mess with the number.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/index.html

 

Theres about 70k deaths per year from alcohol. About 30k deaths from fire arms. So thats 2.3x the deaths from alcohol vs 2.4x deaths from gun ownership. Given that like I've said, alcohol's primary purpose isn't killing, its not a good metaphor.

 

Again, bullshit. I am tired of doing this circle where people want to blame guns for one asshole. Fuck that. Alcohols purpose is what ? To alter your state of mind? It damn sure is not for nutrition or sustenance of any kind. What is alcohols primary purpose? Most people would agree that at its core it is to alter your state of mind. Whether that be good or bad.

 

It is valid you and Bware just dont want to say it because you have some disdain for guns instead of doing what most would do and hold that singular person accountable. I have an assault rifle, never thought about shooting anybody outside of combat. Never had the urge, never wanted to, and could not imagine doing it to an innocent civilian. Why should I and so many other be punished because of one guy ? Or even a group of people.

 

The number of responsible gun owners far outnumbers the amount of dumbasses who decide to use it to end lives for no other purposes than some middle school dick measuring contest.

 

God forbid we bring to light how the responsible gun owners enjoy them as a hobby and no man in this country has the right to strip them of the hobby. It is just so much more convenient to point the finger at guns saying well if he didnt have them it would not have happened. That is so stupid I cant even fathom how that logic comes into play. The only method of killing is guns? Really ? Since When? They are not, if people want to kill people then they are going to find a way to do it.

 

I have yet to see you or Bware answer the questions that have been presented other than giving generic answers such as not comparable, different situation, this is ludicrous, blah blah blah. You guys have excuses like every other person who wants tighter gun laws. You didn't bother addressing Chris Benoit, much worse situation. Did not use a gun. However since Belcher decides to now, it is the guns fault. No. The dude made a choice and it was a tragic one but that was not the guns fault he decided to be selfish. It is his.

 

People need to start taking some personal responsibility and holding people accountable for their actions instead of being a bunch of sympathetic sad sacks that would rather offer up excuses and platitudes on why this poor guy is the victim and the gun is the culprit.

 

God I hate selfish asshole who commit suicide and shoot up theaters because these things start being discussed when 98% of the time nobody cares and is all hunky dory with how things are.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Ngata_Chance

[GA_Eagle 595]

Costas picked the wrong topic to talk about. Domestic Violence is the issue, not guns.

[Vin+ 3,121]

You can hear the interview, if you wish, in the link.

 

 

http://www.danpatrick.com/2012/12/04/bob-costas-explains-why-he-made-gun-commentary-at-halftime-of-sunday-night-game/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Costas explained why he chose to make a statement on gun control at halftime of Sunday night’s Eagles-Cowboys game. Costas said that Dan and the rest of the NBC crew had covered the news angle on the Belcher story. Costas said that he wanted to spin the story forward and explore the stories that come out of this. He said the main problem was he just didn’t have enough time to explore a controversial topic.

 

“My mistake is I left it open for to too much miscommunication,” Costas said.

 

Costas said he wished he could have had a more in-depht conversation on several topics: “A discussion should ensue about the football culture, the gun culture, domestic violence … those issues should be discussed if we’re looking for some kind of elusive perspective.”

 

Costas said it’s “beyond absurd” to suggest everyone we disagree with should be fired. And he said the people who disagree with him are the ones who are saying he used the wrong platform, talking at halftime.

 

Costas clarified he doesn’t want to see the second amendment repealed. He thinks people should be able to have guns for protection or hunting. But he feels the proliferation of guns is the problem and people shouldn’t be able to collect too many guns and people don’t need semi-automatic weapons.

 

Costas said he was trying to talk about gun culture. “Among young people, there seems to be too cavalier an attitude toward guns.” Costas said.

 

[Maverick 791]

Mav, this wasn't something that was planned out. They got in an argument, things got heated, he overreacted and shot her.

 

What's your point? They got in an argument, things got heated, he overreacted and stabbed her to death. All you can throw at me is technicalities on the scenario. That's it. I'll shoot each one down as I have been doing.

 

You don't see a need for a person to own an AK-47 in suburbia America. Newsflash: Most hobbies include items that are wanted not needed.

 

Shall I throw this statistic at you again?

 

2 million crimes a year are prevented by law-abiding gun owners.

 

I'll keep saying it, too. I've yet to see you or BWare put up a decent argument against SteVo's picture. But no, let's take the guns out of the good guys because a few assholes ruin it since criminals won't be able to get their hands on them either. That's a great idea.

 

Stick to your suggestions for consolidating forums instead of fucking with the Constitution.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Ah didn't see that 2 million part. Good thing that came from a credible survey.

 

Oh wait.

http://www.stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pdf

[Maverick 791]

Ah didn't see that 2 million part. Good thing that came from a credible survey.

 

Oh wait.

http://www.stat.duke...b/103.myth0.pdf

 

That article's not biased at all.

 

Come up with anything for SteVo's picture yet?

Edited December 5, 2012 by Maverick

[blotsfan 2,112]

I'd say Duke University is a pretty credible institution. More than the NRA.

 

And it would make them harder to get. Just like with drugs. Yeah people still do them, but it's definitely less than if it was legal.

[Maverick 791]

I'd say Duke University is a pretty credible institution. More than the NRA.

 

And it would make them harder to get. Just like with drugs. Yeah people still do them, but it's definitely less than if it was legal.

 

I've done a little research and I'll gladly admit I was wrong on that number. As you can see from my first post, I originally said I had just heard it from Sirius XM anyway and thought it was high. Besides, it doesn't really affect my argument.

 

Your second statement is laughable. So let me get this straight. You're OK with taking guns out of the hands of responsible owners because while criminals will still be able to get ahold of guns, it won't be as bad when they were legal?

 

If that's what goes on in blots world then we're finished here.