Bob Costas and His Halftime Anti-Gun Rhetoric

[CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025]

The problem isn't the guns, it's the emotional make up of most of the country. Meaning we are entirely too emotional and irrational. Fear is paramount to this society.

 

Regardless, I don't value looking to fix everything like most people do. I'm a nature rules kind of guy. Nature always sorts itself out. Trying to play nature/god/whatever you want to call it by "fixing" everything never works in the end.

 

I also believe morals are subjective, and not black and white. Most people go nuts when I say this, because we live in a very judgmental, quasi-righteous society. No one's a saint, most know nothing about which they speak, yet most act as if they are/do. All civilization did was make sure we live longer and reproduce more, otherwise, it's a complete failure, and is always our own undoing.

[CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025]

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?

 

Seems to of worked in Mexico

 

[Thanatos 2,847]

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.

 

So, the skeet-shooting and the "accuracy" competitions that are extremely big in certain parts of the country are killing... what exactly? Guns can be used in competitions that have nothing to do with killing.

 

What another guy said on the radio, (I have no idea who it was), is spot on. He said that we are always about trying to prevent every tragedy that we possibly can, but that sometimes, there is something where no one could have done anything to stop it, and anything we might have done to stop it would cause numbers of tragedies elsewhere.

 

The standard liberal talking point that Costas was spouting is true, in a sense. Without guns, Jovan Belcher and many others might still be alive. Crimes committed in the heat of the moment may have not occurred.

 

But what he and the rest of the liberal media ignore is that many crimes that were prevented by a citizen owning a gun would have occurred without it. That is what is always ignored by them. We've had several break-ins in our community recently, and at least three times the person has been shot at/warned to get out by a person with a gun. Those also happened to be the only three times where he broke into the house while someone was in there. Who knows what would have happened to the elderly lady down the street if she didn't have a gun.

 

No one picks up those stories at the national level because it would go against the liberal "storyline"- guns are bad, and we should let the government control them.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Thanatos19

[CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025]

With me, I don't get caught up in the whole liberal/conservative war, politics, etc. I understand it all, but it seems very trivial to fight for (kind of like the War on Drugs.) Of all those groups, I side Libertarian, but I'm not going to preach and slander any other theory because people are who they are, and believe what they believe.

 

I'm more of the thought that no one knows better than the person themselves, what is best for them. If they don't? Then that's their fault, their loss, and they'll die off. One less unintelligent person on the planet. That's why personally I don't even believe in Democracy. I think it's a flawed system. I think it awards the mediocre — which is the majority — and harms the intelligent — the minority. You know, the whole rule of the mob dynamic.

 

That's why with everything I look towards nature, not in the sense of the environment or some hippie green peace deal. But in terms of survival of the fittest, in terms of balance, in terms of how this whole system (Earth) was made to function.

 

But to get caught up in human politics is a young mans game (which is ironic since I'm only 26.) But even now I can see how trivial it is. There's no finish line. Even total domination comes crumbling down and gets replaced. I'll just find ways to enjoy my stay. I just laugh now at people who are passionate about politics, it's cute.

[GA_Eagle 595]

Meh. All but one murder call I've ever worked was a knife. I know my sample size is small (I think its at 5 for me). They all started as domestic disturbances except the one involving a gun, which was a fight about a basketball game among teenagers.

 

I don't think Jovan and his girlfriend would be alive today if he didn't have access to a gun. There's a CHANCE she would have been able to fight him off, but not a great one. I think Domestic Violence is what we should be talking about and not gun control, I know its not polarizing in the same way gun control is but it's really what is at the root of this particular incident.

 

Most of the really bad calls I've taken involve domestic violence, including multiple suicides, murders, and near murders. It seems to be much less frequent that severe violence comes from someone you don't know, or even share a house with. Maybe I'm off because I live and work in the suburbs and don't have some of the experience with high population / low income areas that bring different crime challenges...

[CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025]

Yeah, crimes of passion tend to be the most lethal — and least thought out. Emotions gone haywire. Again, back to my emotional IQ point. In my opinion America has slowly drifted into a more feminine society, more emotional. Hence the politically correct movement. Feelings come first nowadays. Anti-bullying outcries, rampant forced apologies for mere words instead of actions like it used to be. Some call it "progress" or a "progressive society", while I disagree, it's just merely more feminine and emotionally driven. Whereas in the past we were more masculine of a society, more logic driven yet bull headed. I'm not saying either is the right way, like with a family, an equal amount of both is needed. View America as a macrocosm of the predominant family structure. Single mother households are at record numbers, hence, America is being raised by women. The latest generations are more feminine (I'm 26, so I'm included, although I obviously am aware of this and thus still have a significant amount of logic and rationale in me to be able to see this.) It only makes sense that we're becoming more and more feminine of a society, more in touch with emotions and feelings. For better and as in this case — worse.

Edited December 5, 2012 by CampinWithGoatSampson

[blotsfan 2,112]

I guess I should clarify, I don't think guns are 100% the issue here. Its obvious that Belcher had some sort of anger issues and yeah, that is the bigger issue here. If everyone would just be ok, then guns would not be a problem. I just think that too many people can not handle having an easy kill button.

 

And thanatos, to your two points: 1. If people really like target shooting that much, they should be able to go to a gun range, where the guns stay on premises the entire time. No need to own a gun to do that. Also, how many times has someone pulling out a gun made a relatively minor crime a lot worse? I've heard that pulling out a gun on a criminal can be the worst decision someone makes (GAEagle could probably confirm/deny this). I can't find any statistics to show how often someone pulling out a gun in defense made things worse, but I'm sure it happens.

 

And sampson, you just don't make much sense.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Well, looks like this argument is irrelevant as gun control is pretty close to being effectively impossible.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/futureoftech/3-d-printed-gun-fires-6-shots-then-falls-apart-1C7404226

[oochymp 2,393]

And thanatos, to your two points: 1. If people really like target shooting that much, they should be able to go to a gun range, where the guns stay on premises the entire time. No need to own a gun to do that.

what if you don't live near any decent gun ranges but own a large plot of land? why shouldn't you be able to do target shooting on your own land? (obviously I'm talking about land in a rural area)

[SteelersNation36 128]

And thanatos, to your two points: 1. If people really like target shooting that much, they should be able to go to a gun range, where the guns stay on premises the entire time. No need to own a gun to do that.

 

So what's to stop the owner(s) of the gun range from taking the gun(s) off range to kill someone. You want to make all these silly laws. People will get guns regardless, if there's a will there's a way. I'd be willing to bet there would be more deaths from guns if they were made illegal than there are now.

[WindyCitySports 407]

I know I am a bit late to the game right here, but I just want to say that this exemplifies one of the worst things about the media these days, and that is that they will use tragedies to make a cheap political point. On top of that, Costas was not doing a report or engaging in a conversation about the topic on the show. He was giving a shameless (although I would argue shameful) plug. What a joke.

[blotsfan 2,112]

So what's to stop the owner(s) of the gun range from taking the gun(s) off range to kill someone. You want to make all these silly laws. People will get guns regardless, if there's a will there's a way. I'd be willing to bet there would be more deaths from guns if they were made illegal than there are now.

So you're saying that less people would be able to have access to guns to kill with. Now instead of "anybody" we're worried about "gun range owners." That's a much smaller group of people.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Yeah, crimes of passion tend to be the most lethal — and least thought out. Emotions gone haywire. Again, back to my emotional IQ point. In my opinion America has slowly drifted into a more feminine society, more emotional. Hence the politically correct movement. Feelings come first nowadays. Anti-bullying outcries, rampant forced apologies for mere words instead of actions like it used to be. Some call it "progress" or a "progressive society", while I disagree, it's just merely more feminine and emotionally driven. Whereas in the past we were more masculine of a society, more logic driven yet bull headed. I'm not saying either is the right way, like with a family, an equal amount of both is needed. View America as a macrocosm of the predominant family structure. Single mother households are at record numbers, hence, America is being raised by women. The latest generations are more feminine (I'm 26, so I'm included, although I obviously am aware of this and thus still have a significant amount of logic and rationale in me to be able to see this.) It only makes sense that we're becoming more and more feminine of a society, more in touch with emotions and feelings. For better and as in this case — worse.

 

I agree with all of this. I have said it for a number of years and it was a favorite topic of an old 1SGT of mine.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

So you're saying that less people would be able to have access to guns to kill with. Now instead of "anybody" we're worried about "gun range owners." That's a much smaller group of people.

 

What stops that much smaller group selling them to others ? And I dont know how familiar you are with firearms but there are so many variables it is almost impossible to accommodate ALL people who want to shoot as a hobby even if you did restrict them to gun ranges.

 

Maybe the like Scopes on rifles, maybe some like scopes on carbines, maybe some like reflexive sights, maybe some like extended mags and laser sights, maybe some using wad-cutters for the perfect target hole, maybe some like jacketed rounds, maybe some like a lighter trigger pull, maybe some like a longer eye relief on their weapon, maybe some want a muzzle break, maybe some like to use wooden stocks over polymer, maybe some are left handed and have to have brass reflectors on their weapons.

 

See what I am getting at ? If you restrict them to gun ranges than that takes a lot out of the experience for many gun enthusiasts because of the custom options available. It would be a pretty shitty move and one that nobody even our almighty congress has the right OT do. You can not justify doing it.

 

This whole thing comes down to the wants of the many versus the wants of a few. It is also pretty stupid imo because if you buy a gun sit it on a shelf and nobody touches it for 50 years, odd are it is still going to be on the shelf is it not? So they are only dangerous when stupid and ignorant people have them right ? If that is the case maybe we should castrate those with bad genetics ? If that how we solve this. That is extreme obviously, but what is evident is that guns arent the problem. Idiots are. Why punish all of us for the actions of some.

[SteelersNation36 128]

So you're saying that less people would be able to have access to guns to kill with. Now instead of "anybody" we're worried about "gun range owners." That's a much smaller group of people.

 

Lol, the last comment of my last post was more about the people who would have illegal guns and do anything to keep someone from finding out they had it.

 

Example 1: Cop pulls man over he has illegal fire arm, shoots cop.

 

Example 2: Someone finds out person has gun is going to go to cops, gun owner kills person.

 

It's been said 12341241414 times in this thread, the people who want to have a gun will, whether they're illegal or not. You also act like if they're made illegal all current gun owners will just go "awweee shit better hand over our guns"

[blotsfan 2,112]

Maybe not all, but a lot would. And the people that don't can get punished.

 

And anyone that really needs a gun can get a license. I don't support banning them outright. We just don't need them to be as widespread.

 

Oh and ngata, if a gun is tied to a gun range someone is found with that gun could get in trouble as well as the owner of the gun range. And I don't think the details of people's hobbies to shoot guns is worth peoples lives.

[SteelersNation36 128]

Maybe not all, but a lot would. And the people that don't can get punished.

 

Haha, most gun owners are very adamant about it. You're wrong if you think that just going to give their guns up.

[Mathias 394]

I can't believe James Harrison said something reasonable..

 

“But the fact of it being part of the guns. . . . They want to say it’s guns and all this other stuff. It’s ridiculous. He did it. And he alone is responsible for it. It has nothing to do with the guns.

 

“Somebody goes out and kills somebody with a knife, you going to blame the knife? Somebody goes out and kills somebody by pushing somebody in front of a train, you going to start cutting off the guy’s arms? You going to start blaming people’s arms now? It’s the person who did it who is responsible.”

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/12/05/james-harrison-says-kc-tragedy-not-a-gun-problem/

[Thanatos 2,847]

I guess I should clarify, I don't think guns are 100% the issue here. Its obvious that Belcher had some sort of anger issues and yeah, that is the bigger issue here. If everyone would just be ok, then guns would not be a problem. I just think that too many people can not handle having an easy kill button.

 

And thanatos, to your two points: 1. If people really like target shooting that much, they should be able to go to a gun range, where the guns stay on premises the entire time. No need to own a gun to do that. Also, how many times has someone pulling out a gun made a relatively minor crime a lot worse? I've heard that pulling out a gun on a criminal can be the worst decision someone makes (GAEagle could probably confirm/deny this). I can't find any statistics to show how often someone pulling out a gun in defense made things worse, but I'm sure it happens.

 

And sampson, you just don't make much sense.

 

As to your first counter point- how do you think tennis players would like it if they had to use the rackets that were already at the court, and were not able to bring their own? People customize, mod, and fiddle with their guns so they get the perfect fit and it makes a huge difference on your accuracy.

 

If there is a criminal that breaks into someone's house, and guns have been made illegal, the criminal might still have a gun, but the law-abiding citizen won't. You're trying to make a law for the lowest common denominator, as a way of putting it, the idiots who can't control their own emotions enough to not shoot a gun when they're angry, and you're willing to take the right to self-defense, among other things, that other responsible citizens use guns for because of the few morons that might kill someone in the heat of the moment.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Too many of you are assuming that all criminals will still have guns. You don't need a gun to commit a crime, and many property break-ins don't even involve guns because the perpetrator believes the property owner to be gone.

 

So we keep guns legal so people can defend themselves from a fictitious movie scene?

 

Yes, there are exceptions. Capote's retelling of the murders in In Cold Blood may be the best example, but let me ask you one question. How often must we defend ourselves in these kinds of situations? It's rare. Very very rare. The necessity of firearms in today's world is no longer self-defense. I feel no safer in my house with a stocked gun cabinet than I do in my apartment with no firearms.

 

But again, I'm not in favor of banning firearms entirely, but I most certainly believe that the general citizen shouldn't be able to own a gun without acquiring the proper licensing, have gone through a thorough psychiatric examination, and have used said weapon at a gun range where they've passed some sort of accuracy test (all of these things completely funded by said citizen, mind you. No taxpayer dollars).

 

I understand your hesitancy to get behind a ban, but there's no reason to not be in favor of greater regulations. We need to at least try to curb gun-related crimes.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Too many of you are assuming that all criminals will still have guns. You don't need a gun to commit a crime, and many property break-ins don't even involve guns because the perpetrator believes the property owner to be gone.

 

So we keep guns legal so people can defend themselves from a fictitious movie scene?

 

Yes, there are exceptions. Capote's retelling of the murders in In Cold Blood may be the best example, but let me ask you one question. How often must we defend ourselves in these kinds of situations? It's rare. Very very rare. The necessity of firearms in today's world is no longer self-defense. I feel no safer in my house with a stocked gun cabinet than I do in my apartment with no firearms.

 

But again, I'm not in favor of banning firearms entirely, but I most certainly believe that the general citizen shouldn't be able to own a gun without acquiring the proper licensing, have gone through a thorough psychiatric examination, and have used said weapon at a gun range where they've passed some sort of accuracy test (all of these things completely funded by said citizen, mind you. No taxpayer dollars).

 

I understand your hesitancy to get behind a ban, but there's no reason to not be in favor of greater regulations. We need to at least try to curb gun-related crimes.

 

No, we don't. You are trying to solve a problem that is unsolvable. There will always be crimes as long as there as humans. If they don't use guns, they will use something else.

 

The Second Amendment is still valid in this country, if you want to bypass it, then do it the legal way- with another amendment repealing it. Until then, going around it with laws put in by the judiciary is simply a subversive attempt to get a particular idealogy in place over the Constitution.

 

How many crimes per year are caused by a person with a gun shooting an innocent person? I'm willing to bet the vast majority of gun crimes are things like gang wars, or drug transactions, etcera, which would not be stopped in the slightest by outlawing guns, or even giving all sorts of strict regulations to owning one, nor do I really care to save people from the consequences of their own actions. If two morons want to shoot each other over cocaine, then let them do it. That seems harsh, but it's not the government's job to pass all sorts of laws to try to stop idiots from screwing up. In so doing, you infringe on the rights of the rest of the people. Do you have any idea the number of people that responsibly own and use guns?

 

Your argument is eerily similar to the crackpots that want to ban violent video games because a few people who have played violent video games go out and kill someone because of something they saw. The problem is not with the video game, or with the gun. It is with the person.

 

Criminals do not follow the law. Outlawing guns will simply create another "war" the war on guns, like we have the "war" on drugs. We already know the war on drugs is a horrendous time and dollar sink, and the war on guns would be far, far worse.

[BwareDWare94 723]

No, we don't. You are trying to solve a problem that is unsolvable. There will always be crimes as long as there as humans. If they don't use guns, they will use something else.

 

The Second Amendment is still valid in this country, if you want to bypass it, then do it the legal way- with another amendment repealing it. Until then, going around it with laws put in by the judiciary is simply a subversive attempt to get a particular idealogy in place over the Constitution.

 

How many crimes per year are caused by a person with a gun shooting an innocent person? I'm willing to bet the vast majority of gun crimes are things like gang wars, or drug transactions, etcera, which would not be stopped in the slightest by outlawing guns, or even giving all sorts of strict regulations to owning one, nor do I really care to save people from the consequences of their own actions. If two morons want to shoot each other over cocaine, then let them do it. That seems harsh, but it's not the government's job to pass all sorts of laws to try to stop idiots from screwing up. In so doing, you infringe on the rights of the rest of the people. Do you have any idea the number of people that responsibly own and use guns?

 

Your argument is eerily similar to the crackpots that want to ban violent video games because a few people who have played violent video games go out and kill someone because of something they saw. The problem is not with the video game, or with the gun. It is with the person.

 

Criminals do not follow the law. Outlawing guns will simply create another "war" the war on guns, like we have the "war" on drugs. We already know the war on drugs is a horrendous time and dollar sink, and the war on guns would be far, far worse.

 

If they don't have guns, they'll use something else--you're overlooking how simple it is to fire a gun versus use a knife/other sharp object or whatever the hell you're thinking of. It's not so much about the gun itself as it is about how easy it is to use.

 

I. don't. think. crime. or. gun. crime. would. disappear. Stop assuming that, but I do think if we regulated firearms a bit that gun crime would take a noticeable dip. It works in other countries. Why not here?

 

I agree. Let coke addicts kill themselves for all I care. Gang members, too, but I'm not from a big city or anything. How often are innocent people caught in the crossfire? My guess is not as much as some think.

 

In my experience, most people are careful with guns, but the one out of ten who goes skeet shooting in rural neighborhoods pisses me off. We obviously have enough people who abuse their right to gun ownership that we should be looking into ways to curb that number. Christ. I've said nothing about the problem going away, but a problem lessened is better than a problem left alone.

 

Personally, I think certain violent video games ought to be banned. I find it insulting to our soldiers that war games even exist. The mere fact that such a horrendous, difficult life is made into a game scenario is, to me, completely disrespectful to those who actually serve our country and actually might die. Maybe this is just me, but that's how I feel about war games.

 

I never said there'd be no revolt if guns were banned, because I'm not in favor of banning guns. Your war on drugs point is irrelevant when you're trying to counter an argument that isn't in favor of making something illegal.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Bware, a word to the wise.

 

As much as you want to talk about restrictions remember this because it is the truest statement about guns you will ever here.

 

Gun safety is taught not legislated.

 

You can dance around all ya like but laws wont do dick all for this problem. Instead of trying to blame it on a gun blame it on the idiot picking up the gun. It is not the guns fault Belcher killed himself, it is his. He was the coward that pulled the trigger and it is pathetic that hiim dying is making people think that tighter gun laws would have saved anything.

 

Again remember. Gun safety is taught not legislated.

[Thanatos 2,847]

If they don't have guns, they'll use something else--you're overlooking how simple it is to fire a gun versus use a knife/other sharp object or whatever the hell you're thinking of. It's not so much about the gun itself as it is about how easy it is to use.

 

I. don't. think. crime. or. gun. crime. would. disappear. Stop assuming that, but I do think if we regulated firearms a bit that gun crime would take a noticeable dip. It works in other countries. Why not here?

 

I agree. Let coke addicts kill themselves for all I care. Gang members, too, but I'm not from a big city or anything. How often are innocent people caught in the crossfire? My guess is not as much as some think.

 

In my experience, most people are careful with guns, but the one out of ten who goes skeet shooting in rural neighborhoods pisses me off. We obviously have enough people who abuse their right to gun ownership that we should be looking into ways to curb that number. Christ. I've said nothing about the problem going away, but a problem lessened is better than a problem left alone.

 

Personally, I think certain violent video games ought to be banned. I find it insulting to our soldiers that war games even exist. The mere fact that such a horrendous, difficult life is made into a game scenario is, to me, completely disrespectful to those who actually serve our country and actually might die. Maybe this is just me, but that's how I feel about war games.

 

I never said there'd be no revolt if guns were banned, because I'm not in favor of banning guns. Your war on drugs point is irrelevant when you're trying to counter an argument that isn't in favor of making something illegal.

 

I'm not sure how war games can be offensive when the Army made one of them, (America's Army), specifically to help train soldiers.

 

The way to curb the number is to teach, not to pass laws against all gun owners because of a few crazy people, same thing with video games. Maybe we should add in a basic psych evaluation if that's not already in there, prior to owning a gun. But so many of these would not have stopped. The Dark Knight shooter? Wouldn't have done a thing. Belcher? Maybe, maybe not. No one seemed to know there was anything wrong.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Edited December 7, 2012 by Favre4Ever