General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBob Costas just did an anti-gun editorial during half time of Sunday Night Football
Last edited Mon Dec 3, 2012, 11:53 AM - Edit history (1)
Based on a Jason Whitlock article...
This is the part he quoted:
What I believe is, if he didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.
That is the message I wish Chiefs players, professional athletes and all of us would focus on Sunday and moving forward. Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/jovan-belcher-kansas-city-chiefs-murder-suicide-tragedy-girlfriend-self-leave-orphan-daughter-why-still-playing-sunday-120112
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TheMightyFavog
(13,770 posts)This was unexpected.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)just like he opined about Chinese oppression in the lead up to the 2008 games and at other times he has said compelling things --of all the commentators to make a statement like this, it's him that least surprises me.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)
SomeGuyInEagan
(1,515 posts)Haven't watched much football this season, but had this on while reading a really good interview with Jimmy Page in Rolling Stone (yes, I read RS ... because of Matt Tiaibi's political coverage, I have a subscription again for the first time in 25-30 years).
Even my wife looked up from her book.
Nice to hear Costas say it. And you are correct in identifying him as one of the most thoughtful commentators. And that extends beyond sports, IMO.
Warren Religion
(70 posts)Bob Costas could easily take the helm of any nightly newscast and kick ass!
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)and he would immediately make it a more relevant and newsworthy program than it is, and than it was.
his qualities of insight, observation and connecting whatever he's seeing to the larger culture, news and societal context make him an interesting reporter --for those interested in sports, but even for those who aren't. i think Bryant Gumbel's sports show on HBO has a bit of this element, where he and Frank Deford find stories of human interest within the subculture of sport, but what makes their show good is that the "human interest" story is what they lead with.
Costas is the same type of reporter --and they are all smart and astute observers of our nation's culture.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,016 posts)And I agree with him.
Response to NRaleighLiberal (Reply #2)
Post removed
NRaleighLiberal
(60,016 posts)
panader0
(25,816 posts)His rant against you was out of line.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,016 posts)
rDigital
(2,239 posts)NRaleighLiberal
(60,016 posts) 
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)
rDigital
(2,239 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)
rDigital
(2,239 posts)insult DUers. 
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Juden haben waffen! Juden haben waffen!*
* German scream when fleeing the first ambush during the Warsaw Uprising.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Capt.Rocky300
(1,005 posts)Charlton Heston was dead.
BainsBane
(53,038 posts)Response to NRaleighLiberal (Reply #2)
Post removed
Capt.Rocky300
(1,005 posts)How much do you get from the NRA to post your crap here?
DrDan
(20,411 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 3, 2012, 06:25 AM - Edit history (1)
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,481 posts)
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Post removed
Renew Deal
(81,866 posts)I'm paraphrasing. I thought the same thing as you. If he didn't have a gun, he might have done something else.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,481 posts)I came to the same conclusion.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)There is no turning back after that bullet is fired.
Renew Deal
(81,866 posts)Determined people will do what they want. Choice of weapon doesn't matter in those situations.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20651634,00.html
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)Hand guns, and most other guns, are made for killing human beings. That is what they are intended for. Sure, there are many many ways to kill people, but when you own a tool designed for killing people, why choose something else?
For the record, I don't think guns should be outlawed. I think we need to examine a culture in which the private ownership of killing devices is cherished.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Cigarettes, confederate flags, and worse were once "cherished."
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)I know they're no good for me, but they weren't designed to kill me. I don't smoke because it's like an extreme death-defying sport, but because I enjoy it... yeah, yeah, I've made other poor choices in life too, you don't have to tell me.
About both, it is the attitude that has to change - raising taxes and changing laws hasn't stopped me from smoking.
Just the word - gun - has become a stand-in for so many things related to our rights, our emotions, some peoples sense of identity and self-worth, etc. that discussion seems almost impossible.
However, if we all agree that the right to own guns exists as a moot point, couldn't we possibly start to have a discussion about this culture without people become so emotional?
I don't know. I don't have answers for these things.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)If so, you own "killing devices" and cherish them.
That's sick. 
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)The stated purpose of handguns IS to kill people. And act as penis substitutes.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Knives have been weapons for thousands of years. Obviously you misunderstand their primary usage....
"The stated purpose of handguns IS to kill people." Sez who?
"And act as penis substitutes." Oh, I thought you were here for intelligent conversation. My mistake....
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)And yes, the stated purpose of handguns is killing people. As John Stuart Mill said in another context, . I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Again... 'Sez who?'
Citation, please.
I have a handgun for defensive purposes. That is it's primary purpose. This can sometimes result in a death, but the death is not the primary purpose.
Secondary purpose of target shooting, of course.
Drale
(7,932 posts)Well hand guns are made for killin'
They ain't no good for nothin' else
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)
Drale
(7,932 posts)someone did say it. They may not be experts in the field but they did say it.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)You know what they say: He who first dealt it smelt it.
Try some less hateful and more truthful approaches.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Why else would the dickless wonders of the NRA be so anxious to have them?
But the main purpose of pistols is to kill people. Why else would the murderous thugs of the NRA be so anxious to have them?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)That the oft-repeated penis/gun comparison actually indicates an unsettled sexuality among those making the (dis)charge.
You seem to have a fascination with the NRA as well. Actually, pistols are used for self-defense; a small number are used by an even smaller number of repeat felons and whack jobs to intimidate and kill.
Note also that a self-defense hand gun is measured by its "stopping power," not its "killing power," a term of art not used by armorers or SD experts. Which might explain why fewer than 15% of those shot with hand guns actually die.
As difficult as it is for some in this thread to believe, the thugs and killers really are the problem. If one wants to deal with culture, perhaps a closer look at the fascination with, sympathy for, and yes, attraction to the thug/criminal element should be taken
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)harmonicon
(12,008 posts)I do it with devices designed and manufactured for cooking. I do not own any devices designed and manufactured for killing human beings, so I fail to see how you aren't reinforcing my point.
DearAbby
(12,461 posts)It's a hell of a lot better chance at survival, out running a knife, than a bullet.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)
PerpetuallyDazed
(816 posts)Unless you're bat shit insane, you're not going to go out carving yourself up. Gun was quickest method to make all the anger go away; you can be impulsive and not methodical as you would have to be with any other instrument meant to kill. It's actually very simple to understand.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Are you trying to imply that he was not "bat shit insane"? I rather think it's a prerequisite to do what he did.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)cop out to call anyone who does horrible things 'bat shit insane'. It's a dismissal of a larger problem. No one wants to think they are capable of doing what this guy did. Everyone has their breaking point. I think guns make it easier to act out when you hit that breaking point. As homicide investigators know, stabbing someone requires a slightly higher level of 'evil' (if you will) or emotion than does grabbing a gun and shooting. That's because it's much easier to aim and pull the trigger than it is to catch someone and stab them fatally. If I had to pick which scenario I'd prefer - someone pointing a gun at me or someone coming after me with a knife, the knife would win every time. With a gun, if someone does eventually snap out of it, it's nearly always too late. Better chance with a knife.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)in which the private ownership of killing devices is cherished." Beautifully said; and I couldn't agree more
pop topcan
(124 posts)One has to wonder about the potential market for little replica electric chairs if Jesus had been executed in the early 20th century in America...and how many lifesize ones would grace the rooftops of religious money-collecting buildings.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)but he probably couldn't do that to himself, so he would be taken to court and made to pay for his crime.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)After OJ Simpson fired his knife at them?
Walk away
(9,494 posts)not just large men who can wield a knife and subdue two people at the same time. Your example actually helps me make my point. Not many people could have had the strength to commit that crime with a knife. A ten year old girl could open fire on more than two victims and kill.
Guns...enabling everyone to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible with the least amount of effort!
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)would have no option but a gun, for commiting violence or murder?
Ummmm.... ri-i-i-i-i-ght.... 
The Doctor.
(17,266 posts)Oh, right...
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)to kill others.
It happens every day. But I guess shooting is easiest...it's more impersonal, and can do that from a greater distance.
alp227
(32,044 posts)Sensing something?
Renew Deal
(81,866 posts)
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Eyes of the World
(93 posts)I couldn't post without being challenged on things until I was over ten posts.
Now I can say some really stupid shit and no one cares.
This is a fucked up place towards new-comers.
"Welcome to DU. Enjoy Your Stay. Troll."
HIDE POST COUNTS NOW!
Doremus
(7,261 posts)If it makes you feel better we'd be happy to insult you til you hit 100. 
Logical
(22,457 posts)You will NEVER collect them. Even if you could find ANY politicians to ban them.
We cannot stop Meth or Cocaine from being distributed. They are illegal to possess and manufacture and purchase.
Guns are 100% legal to own, purchase and manufacture.
The murder rate in the USA has dropped even as more people own guns.
You cannot stop a crazy person from killing someone they want to kill.
Please respond with ONE possible way to ban handguns from the USA and collect them all and name 10 politicians that will propose the laws to do it.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It said he (Belcher) shouldn't have had one. And, that had he not had one, two people would not be dead today.
It reads to me that the gun culture is what needs challenged and changed. "Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it." All of that is true. We don't all need handguns. Those who think we do are clinging to fear.
Renew Deal
(81,866 posts)I don't agree with this. People determined to do bad things will do them.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)Please do tell - name another convenient weapon that would have killed her as quickly in an equally short amount of time.
It's not the guns that I object to. It's their convenience.
Renew Deal
(81,866 posts)It's about determination.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)Quick and dirty. It did the trick for him.
Now why anyone would believe that a young man recovering from a concussion and taking pain pills should even HAVE access to handguns is way beyond me.
alp227
(32,044 posts)Might as well gut the second amendment. 
alarimer
(16,245 posts)When someone has a rage problem and there's a gun nearby, others die, likely as not. My speculation, based on the fact that he killed himself after, is that this was something that happened in a moment of sheer rage, for whatever reason. People with anger management problems and guns kill other people, period.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)
lexw
(804 posts)He seemed like a very nice guy to us...
However, last November, he chased his girlfriend out of the house, shot her in front of a tree, went back into the house, dialed 911, reported it, and shot himself in the head. Nobody knows why he did it: he left behind a teenage daughter, a son and new a dog. After reading your post, I think it was rage.
sarisataka
(18,725 posts)his right hand and left hand. Have you seen the picture of them? He could easily have killed her with his bare hands.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)sarisataka
(18,725 posts)it is mostly bad because he could kill her quickly and conveniently?
without a gun she would be just as dead. We could debate if he would have committed suicide by other means or if someone would have stopped him. The question is only if the body count was 1 or 2.
In Wyoming three are dead and there is not a gun anywhere in the incident. Should that be cause for celebration?
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)Name a more efficient weapon.
I don't believe anyone is celebrating.
sarisataka
(18,725 posts)has been going on since shortly after day 7 of one record of human history.
I will not deny that guns are quite effective at delivering damage to the human body. That is why they are used by the military, police and criminals. To say however, that if the gun was not present, no one would have died is more than a bit naive. Given his size and strength, he could have caused lethal injuries with a variety weapons none at all.
I only mention the Wyoming tragedy since there are those who paint a picture of a gun free utopia where violent crime will not exist. IMO focusing on the tool used to act rather than the cause of the action merely wastes resources. Unfortunately, it is one off tragedies, such as these, which get the most attention, generate the most debate but are the rarest and least preventable incidents.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)Apparently he had a fascination with guns and had more than one.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Got links?
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)He was interviewed on local radio.
Quibble with him over his choice of words. I'm just reporting what he said.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)If you don't get it, I can't help you.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Renew Deal
(81,866 posts)Though I'm sure people will be happy to entertain you. I agree that it's not really possible to ban guns.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)I won't support a gun ban advocate in 2016. In fact I will actively try to defeat him/her in the primaries.
flvegan
(64,411 posts)I've already seen both arguments posed, each as idiotic as the other.
petronius
(26,602 posts)PPRs, and few spin-off Meta threads? We're not going to get a lot of light here, so lets go for the heat!
flvegan
(64,411 posts)And well explained.
Dr. Strange
(25,921 posts)And to a lesser extent, video games and circumcision.
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Post removed
Renew Deal
(81,866 posts)That's the old NRA argument. I think that Whitlock has a point that if there are less guns, less spontaneous or convenient violence will take place. But it goes the other way too. People determined to harm each other will do so no matter the weapon.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)a people issue.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)now.
Whovian
(2,866 posts)We were third in the world with Russia running a close 4th.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)on that nation master page.
Notice the only stat on that link is murders by youth, not total murders.
We're nowhere near the top.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_per_100_peo-murders-per-100-000-people
We're at 5.9 to Russia's 29.7
Whovian
(2,866 posts)in the sense that your figures are from 2005 and min from 2009.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Whovian
(2,866 posts)This is an argument that could go on for decades and I don't have that much time and I doubt that either of us would change other's views on the subject.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)But we can't say so, because our gun fans might be concerned.
valkenator
(1 post)Get real Bob, do you really think that if this football player wanted to kill his girlfriend he wouldn't have been able to accomplish it without a handgun??? How naive can you get?? Are we going to outlaw every item that could possibly be used to kill someone....baseball bats, knives, rifles, handguns, belts, nylon stockings, etc., etc., etc. He could have put her in his car and ran it into a bridge abutment at high speed. Get real!! Handguns don't kill people......PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!
patrice
(47,992 posts)seen hardly anyone proposing a ban on handguns. People are just stating the problem. I think there's something to the point that this football player would have done something else, if he had not had a gun, so it IS his own problem with himself that this happened, but it is also because of the gun that this guy's problem with himself resulted in the death of this mother and his own suicide, because were it not for the gun, and had he done something else by some other means because he was a messed up person to begin with, whatever else he might have done with whatever would have had a significantly less probable chance of resulting in death.
So what we have here is a personal flaw magnified by a specific instrument in a manner that is hard to replicate by other means. One thing, the personality flaw, or the gun, would NOT have been as significant as it became without the other.
Now, what all of that means solution-wise, I. don't. know. - because it IS apparent that there will be no ban on handguns, but that fact does not mean that we can just continue to pretend that gun ownership does not have the very serious and significant consequences it VERY VERY often, way TOO often, does have.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and not outside
Nobody take away the gun
and like bowlers keep their bowling balls locked in a locker at a bowling alley, gun shooting galleries can have lockers to keep them there
in fact, when one goes to play mini-golf, they don't come packing their putter and golf ball
they get one there
Same could be done
therefore, a gun fancier can collect their gun, put it on their mantle, display it, have it for protection, go to a shooting gallery or range and practice and they can still hunt-
only with a bow and arrow.
If a bear comes to a house, well, then the gun in the house can be used
so nobody wants to ban a gun in ones home
Just to get rid of illegal guns, one needs to get all guns off the street
that way, any gun on the street is illegal and there can be manditory punishments for said guns.
It takes a little seed decades to bloom to majestic redwoods
it will take some time for this
but people retrain their ideals...remember how many people used to smoke?
Nobody banned cigarettes, all still legal, yet most people no longer smoke like they used to.
society has change.
change is a good thing.
and one can easily do this and still have a legal in the home gun for their private use or protection in their home.
and with guns off the streets,there is no need to need protection outside the home perimeters against someone with a gun, is there?
patrice
(47,992 posts)of this and then head toward support for mental health parity in universal insurance coverage.
To me, solution-wise, the real issues are about reducing the effects of root causes, so people can own guns without kiiling one another for not good reasons whatsoever.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)1. Crushing Poverty
2. Racial/Ethnic Inequality
3. Mental Illness
4. The War on Drugs
I know that's a short list, but those are some big ones.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)So refreshing to get a view from our general membership on this rather than the heavy pro-carry bias in the Gungeon. Keep up the good work Graham.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)the republicans know the lower the number of voters, the more chance republicans/tea/libertarians will win, like in 2010
but if everyone got their "CONSTITUTIONALLY ALLOWED" vote in, democrats would win 100% of the time
so they stiffle debate and don't want people hearing the REST OF THE STORY
It's like when people attempt to call Sean H. up on the radio,and once a day they will put a liberal on, only to let them speak 1/2 a sentence before being interupted then rudely made fun of without ever giving the sorry victim another chance, and his audience is laughing at the liberal.
Because there is no free back and forth discussion, only side steps and diversions from the issue.
(SO much brainwashing on Fox, that the sorry fool who lost the election, actually had thought he would win based on the same networks bad pollsters who were paid to give faux poll results to make them appear to win.)
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)The Second Amendment does protect the right to keep & bear arms, so your call to restrict gun possession to the home is not any paragon of American liberty.
I respectfully disagree with your conclusion about firearms. Therefore, I use my "CONSTITUTIONALLY ALLOWED" right to vote by attempting to select Democrats who support the Second Amendment wherever possible in primaries. Of course, in the recent presidential election, my vote went (enthusiastically) for Obama. This enthusiasm was increased by his 'hands-off' approach to Second Amendment issues during his first term. Here's hoping he continues this restraint for the next four years.
-app
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)The declaration of independence, which preceds the BOR to begin with
ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL
now, any person in their right mind would say that means ALL ARE CREATED EQUAL
Yet Thomas Jefferson, well the creator of the DOI and the most beloved by many(but not by me) of the founding fathers-
OMG
kept his lifetime, slaves and abused the female ones.
What happened to all men are created equal?
And where the fruck are women in that equation?
Women are NOT in the constitution or the declaration and neither are Blacks.
That makes the entire constitution hypocritical to start off with.
There is agreat new book on Jefferson by a modern historian.
The truth is coming out about Jefferson.
One too many constitutionalist on the right has blathered on about him and its time for some fact checks on him.
NO he was not a good leader or person
He was A#1, king of the hill, top of the top, A#1(c) (lyrics and music the legendary Kander and EBB)
slave owner and vile person that Thomas Jefferson was.
He was in actuality a freeloader too ironic enough
So you can keep Bear arms (though bears should have guns to fight back before you take the bears arms from them)as Bears arms are legal.
(or you can also wear t shirts with your Bare Arms showing, that too is legal)
and may the best person win in a fair fight
It's your right and it's my right.
Majority wins.
but it must be said, in my interpretation of things, I thought we are talking about guns being used for protection as the NRA soundbyte has it.
I guess in actuality, guns are not being used for protection because if there are ideas to make the streets 100% safe then not doing so means guns are being used for something else.
I would love to know what.
And I applaud Bob Costas' first amendment right to speak out.
Bravo! Bob.
It's been awhile since Howard Cosell died, that somebody "told it like it" (Howard used that line often)
Response to graham4anything (Reply #124)
Post removed
NRaleighLiberal
(60,016 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Don't highjack the thread with your personal, irrelevent odsession.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)you have yours
I have mine
Bob Costas has his
Mike Bloomberg has his
and we all are arguing the same issue
some are anti-gun, anti-nra
some are pro-gun, pro-nra
just remember, without a gun, both people would not have been killed by a gun
same with any
too bad he didn't have a helping hand, instead of a gun in hand.
by the way-
it's YOUR opinion what you titled this post #203.
How in the world can you say that as fact???
It is NOT fact at all.
and it was a legal gun btw.
OOPS.
A gun taken out of the house.
and why are you so worried about my writing style?
I don't comment on yours nor call you names and make illusions.
I just debate the issue, clear, calmly matter of fact
two people sitting around shooting the breeze on say a stoop outside ones building.
nothing more
nothing less
nothing old
nothing new
nothing borrowed
nothing blue
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)The thug will ALWAYS get them.
Note also Americans have a right to keep (house?) and BEAR arms (outside the house?). The states have powers to regulate the manner of bearing, but they cannot prohibit bearing.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)They're here to give you a headache.
patrice
(47,992 posts)sag1968
(3 posts)Yep
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)I'm neither, but something tells me that owning a machine designed and manufactured for killing human beings makes one more likely to think about the possibility of killing human beings.
Say you own a panini press. Don't you think you're more likely to make a panini if you have it? You could improvise a way to make a panini with other tools, but I somehow think you'd be less likely to do so.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)harmonicon
(12,008 posts)I think if there were products designed, manufactured, and sold for the purpose of raping, someone with them would be more likely to rape.
Do you think people should design, manufacture, and sell products designed for the purpose of raping? I don't.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)harmonicon
(12,008 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)Good Night.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)You asked if my logic lead to point x. I pointed out that it did not lead to point x. If anyone presented a straw man, it was you, but I was still willing to continue with the discussion. Care to actually discuss things, or do you just want to ask questions and stop discussing when you get an answer you don't like?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
rhiannon55
(2,671 posts)If he hadn't had a gun he might have beaten her up, but she might not have died. I doubt that he planned to kill her; the gun just made it easier to do.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)tonybgood
(218 posts)There is absolutely no question that a firearm makes the commission of murder easier. Handguns may not kill people by themselves but they make it much easier and more likely that a fatality will occur.
willcamjr
(1 post)Bob Costas - a spoon does not make me fat...my choice to eat makes me fat...a gun does not kill, the person with hatred chose to use the gun to kill. If he didn't have the gun he could have easily have chosen a knife, hammer, etc. Please do not lump gun owners in the category of murders.
patrice
(47,992 posts)try to use.
Killers using spoons are far less successful than killers using guns, therefore guns kill.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)joesdaughter
(243 posts)The domestic violence element of the discussion can be argued many ways. More women are beaten than are killed. If this man was determined to kill her, then he most likely would have found a way- gun or no gun. However, if the man in Florida that confronted the teens blasting their music had not been armed, I don't think he would have "stood his ground" up close and personal. I think he would have gotten back in his vehicle and left. I think the other Florida shooter would not have followed the teen with his Skittles and tea so closely, if he was not armed. I think he too would have gotten back into his vehicle and called the police again- if he was not armed. I am not arguing the merits of these cases , the facts are not all in, but to say that it is just a "people" problem is simplistic and defensive. I have guns in my home. I used to have venison every winter. But if the gun lobby does not enter into serious discussion about these tragedies- and the many incidents that do not make national news, there may come a time when they lose their support.
toby jo
(1,269 posts)The man with no cigarette?
Or the man with a lit cig dangling in his fingers?
It's all choice of course... just having one doesn't mean you will use it. Right.
Most folks are not going to engage the violence necessary to physically assault another human being and cause their death. It's a whole different ballgame with a knife or a hammer than with a projectile.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)The guns always bring new posters.
Logical
(22,457 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)My, aren't we touchy and defensive. I was speaking about those who have post counts of 1. Of course, if you agree with and embrace what they are saying, well, I leave that to you.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)southern_belle
(1,647 posts)Yup, they are coming out of the woodwork giving the same old NRA talking points. They all use the same wording and argument.
panader0
(25,816 posts)alp227
(32,044 posts)
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 3, 2012, 01:09 PM - Edit history (2)
And whenever I mention this fact, a gungeoneer on ignore will get touchy and launch a personal attack or some other stalking action.
Coincidence?
There is a response to this post, but I cannot see it.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)(Signed onehandle)
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)change
it's happening faster than anyone expected
the different forces converging in what is seemingly unrelated force but is merging
Bob Freakin' Costas on nationwide tv during of all things A FOOTBALL GAME
America's sport. Nationwide tv.
Anti-Freakin' Gun
WAY TO GO BOB!!!!
If you build it they will come
and they are from all angles
each one a cornerstone
and all because of President Barack Obama
The peaceful revolution won in 2008 is continuing
I kept saying wait til 2013 and watch
And its only just barely Dec. 2012 and piece by piece the same old same old is being torn down
and the beautiful mosiac puzzle is appearing before our very eyes
if this were the 60s, I would be again singing
This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius/Let the sun shine in
(c) McDermott/Ragni
hell, I am singing it now anyhow(though Marilyn McCoo has a better voice than me)
flvegan
(64,411 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts) 
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)
malaise
(269,114 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
On the Road
(20,783 posts)I have no problems with guns per se -- as a teenager, I taught kids to shoot .22 rifles at a YMCA camp.
But having one around the house is a ticking time bomb. Too many things can go wrong. As the Mickey Rourke character in Body Heat said: "any time you try a decent crime, you got fifty ways you're gonna fuck up. If you think of twenty-five of them, then you're a genius...and you ain't no genius."
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)I don't understand why people who make logical points about why people shouldn't own guns are piled on by the fetishists.
My father was a sharp-shooter in the Army. He was never in combat, but has - in his words - seen someone have "their guts blown out."
He said we kids could do anything, so long as we didn't join the military - it was hard, and he did it so we wouldn't have to. He would also prefer that we didn't have guns. When someone with medals for shooting tells me that owning a gun is a bad idea, I'll believe them.
It just baffles me that people want to own items designed and manufactured for the purpose of killing people. I can understand hunting and target shooting, but few guns are designed and manufactured for those purposes.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Many people (including me) confidently and responsibly own guns. Others should not own them.
Problem is:
There are those in this thread who advocate sweeping prohibitions, and any and all regulations to achieve that goal.
Respectfully, what would you advocate to improve on the already declining rates of, say, childhood accidental deaths by guns?
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)I have the position that guns should be legal, but that most people shouldn't own them. I don't begrudge you for owning guns, and I know that most people who own guns will never cause problems. However, a number of people who own guns do cause problems. We'll never weed them out, just as we'll never stop all violence. Don't you think there must be some way though to change the culture where violence is seen as an answer to ones problems? It's just that once someone has violence on their mind, a gun is a manufactured solution to acting out violently.
Many violent crimes are also on the decline... Though they won't admit it, a number of people own guns because they assume they will be involved in violence. There's something about a general culture of violence that must be addressed and discussed. How to do that, I don't know.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Gandhi referenced the need to act in self-defense, in his case through the highest level of ahimsa. He said one should do all possible to prevent attacks on one's self, family, home, property and religion without harming the attacker, even to the point of giving up one's life.
He also recognized that most people do not follow this ahimsa, but that should not relieve one of the responsibility of SD. In this instance, deadly violence was and is an obligation to stop attacks.
Perhaps the first place to start a discussion is to delineate between self-defense and a "culture of violence," whatever that is.
A hard truth we don't wish to face is that violent crime is committed largely by repeat felons, not by someone stewing in a broth of resentment and finding its outlet in a schoolyard massacre. Many here refuse to deal with this delineation, perhaps because of racial overtones.
Non-violence vs vulgar pacifism?
Machinegun crime on T.V. vs the rarest reality?
Social policy vs history-repeating prohibitionism?
Gun-owners as citizens vs the "hated other?"
I've this hugely ill-liberal debate here. I'm open to suggestions.
P.S. I personally favor a big campaign to rehabilitate the image of the 80-90 million gun owning fellow Americans. We would then find out what really drives some in the gun-control debate.
Thanks for the discussion.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)I can understand a desire for self-defense, but to anticipate the need to be involved with violent self-defense to the point of killing with a device made for doing so seems to be very extreme. That is part of what I mean about violence having a pervasive influence in the culture. How did we get to a point where that is considered to be reasonable, and even necessary by some? This sets up an expectation for violence that is largely unwarranted. Most people will never be in a situation where having a gun to defend themselves would be any help at all, so why even consider it? To me, it makes about as much sense as constructing a cover for your house to defend it from crashing aircraft. A number of people die that way, but no one considers that necessary, because of the culture we live in.
As for TV vs. reality, that may be what drives a lot of this. Violence is pervasive on television. It simply doesn't exist that way in our world. Why is it so entertaining? If the answer is that it's a fantasy, is participation in that fantasy why people want to one guns? I don't think so... I doubt that's why you own guns. I mean, it's not like owning a copy of the Highlander sword for you or something. However, both say something about the culture, but I'm not entirely sure what.
I absolutely agree that things have to change about there being this "hated other." I don't own guns, and I never will, but I will also always defend the rights of others to do so. I'm not making an equivalence here, but it's the same as I defend the rights of the KKK to hold their beliefs as I want everyone to have first amendment rights. That is, just because I don't exercise a right in a certain way doesn't mean I would deny that to others. I don't want to be in a homosexual relationship either, but I want others to be able to. We need to come together and recognize that we are all in the same fight for our rights and liberty.
Like I said... answers? I don't have any.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Our country does have a more violent culture than many (but certainly not all) cultures. It is wise -- given those conditions -- to anticipate a violent attack and plan accordingly. The lessening of that "culture of violence" needs to be addressed, not reasonable actions to protect oneself from violence.
I really don't expect my house to burn down; like "most people I will never be in a situation" requiring smoke detectors and insurance. But I have those anyway, it is a wise precaution. The same applies to being attacked in my own home, and on the street. I would be foolish to ignore either of these threats, as remote as the odds are, esp. if someone is bent on overcoming non-lethal pre-cautions -- the chief purpose of home invasions. It is not paranoia nor miss-spent monies to take precautions. I sleep better knowing I have a powerful revolver at the immediate ready should thug(s) decide to break down the door of a 64 yr. old man.
I certainly don't emulate the firearms "habits" of T.V. drama. You are correct in seeing how television violence doesn't exist that way in our world. I tire of it, frankly. Especially when in one (1) week you can see more FULL-AUTO weapons firing at people than in any ten (10) years of real civilian life; I mean, from Sparta, Mississippi to Walker, Texas Ranger! Absurd. But how many folks advocating for gun-control delineate between that kind of gun-play and real life? Most still can't (or won't) recognize the diff. between semi-auto arms and full-auto arms. I think the writers of these dramas neither advocate nor reflect that hyped-up culture. They are making stuff that sells. Frankly, the better dramas feature only crime aftermaths, and very little of the crime-in-action.
One of these days, if I can hammer together some research, I will propose that the image of gun-owners needs an overhaul, esp. since the culture wars over guns has played out over the last 30 years. Such a campaign may help (as it already has) lessen the consequences of a heavily-armed civilian society -- hunting deaths, childhood accidents-by-guns, fewer "accidents" by gun in general. And such a campaign may foster a different cultural outlook, with DOs and DON'TS widely promulgated in more creative and pervasive manners than an Eddie Eagle lecture.
For Democrats and progressives, on another note, it is sad that in this forum we have four groups: Two dealing with essentially prohibitionist policy debates; one with an important but nearly always reactive topic concerning civil liberties, and another which is little more than a niche topic for real crime sleuths. Where are the days of sound policy choices? Government programs which might actually work? Of defining what our real problems are?
In many ways, LBJ was ahead of his time, but even on DU we are falling back in time.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)That is, it is about what different people consider to be reasonable. I understand that having a gun could potentially save you in a home invasion. I get that, but I also know that the chance of that happening is almost zero. This is what I mean about a pervasive culture of violence. I don't doubt that you're a non-violent person, but your anticipation of this possibility says something about how violence (real, potential, or imaginary) pervades our daily lives, even when it does not exist in the present.
I think this is a discussion that needs to be had long before we consider legislation. I mean, if you and I are both generally reasonable people with largely similar political views, but we can't even agree on what reasonable actions are in our personal lives, how can we have a discussion about reasonable/practical/sound policy and law?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)But I don't see the necessity of agreeing on what we do in our personal lives. That's a grand canard I find most peculiar, but also generally not relevant to social policy. In fact the Declaration and the Constitution seem to imply these personal matters should remain such, if they don't affect the public weal.
Whatever is done regarding the character of America ("a killer, cold and isolate"
will be done chiefly from without government.
The biggest problem we face is what constitutes our legitimacy as a nation, let alone the goals and works of government; MSM, Hollywood, the Top 40, all legitimized our values and ourselves. That is gone or nearly gone, with no clear indication that something of value has replaced those "old" legitimizing functions. Gunz is small potatoes.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)That's why I'm all for your right to have guns even though I would never do so. However, it's from our personal lives that we view the world and participate in community and government. If we don't seem to be looking at these things from the same vantage point, how can we expect to come to agreement?
I absolutely agree that concerns about guns are very small potatoes, but like many things, feelings about guns are indicative of the culture, though it may be in veiled ways. Having two sides with opposing viewpoints yelling at one another isn't going to help (though that seems to be what passes for debate these days). I think we have to realize that we're ultimately all on the same side and then figure out why we're disagreeing - it's not simple things like "this is my legal right" or "I want to be safe." It's something far deeper and more pervasive than that.
I'm just afraid that we're really far away from a point where that's possible.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Illinoischick
(35 posts)wrong,
She would be just as dead with a knife, hammer or hunk of wood.
He was intent on doing what he did and nothing would have stopped him.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,481 posts)
Of course you're correct. Why everyone wants to believe that guns pass on some contagion to the people that have them is just an example of I don't even know what!
Illinoischick
(35 posts)Hubby and I shoot trap, skeet and go to the pistol range.
We have a variety of guns and have never harmed anyone, nor will we.
I would have to pull the trigger to injure someone, the gun itself has nothing to do with it.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,481 posts)...and feel free to join some others who believe in the right to keep and bear arms in the group affectionately known as the gungeon:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172
Illinoischick
(35 posts)I hope to spend more time here!!!!!!!!!!!!
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,481 posts)You near Chicago? I worked in that area a few times. Traffic almost as bad as DC.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)AlexSatan
(535 posts)With an additional death via bow-and-arrow.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)That something that supports a theory. I asked for proof.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)all you are going to get from me.
Hope you liked it!!!
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)You must be a medium! Whooaaa. Awesome!
Commonsense11
(1 post)Yeah and Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman would be alive too... Oh wait... O. J. Used a knife... Guess sharp objects should be banned too...
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Christopher didn't use a gun, why isn't Bob using the same illogic to whine about a bow ban?
rDigital
(2,239 posts)
LeftInTX
(25,464 posts)mountaineer072
(1 post)What I believe is, if he didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.
Not only untrue, but it does not account for the reality of the situation. If someone wants someone dead, it will happen regardless of the tool used, knife, hands, rope, or a firearm. Demonizing a firearm reflects Bob Costas' penchant for trying to sensationalize a tragedy. If he didn't possess/own a gun, he would be alive. Welcome to the real world, he would have used a knife or strangulation, and then hung himself.
Their time on this earth was up...and the tool used didn't matter one iota.
Keep up the fine editorial work Bob Costas, you are a nitwit.
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Post removed
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Why do you care what is posted on DU?
Mr. JJE
(4 posts)I am usually a Bob Costas fan. I certainly was when he held a moment of silence for the victims of the Munich Massacre. Today I am not a Bob Costas fan. Not because of his anti gun stance, he has a right to his opinion even if its wrong. Its the lack of thinking that he put into what he said. Violent crime is just that, violent. We don't know what happened that pushed this man over the edge. We don't know that he wouldnt have used a knife, or his bare hands. Would that have been more acceptable? Whether mental illness, steroid use, drug use, or any number of other factors led to this horrible event, we do know one thing...the gun didnt pull its own trigger. This is a murder suicide. Murder means intent. What we don't want to face is that the human condition and the way people are, is what is wrong here. Its easy to blame the gun. Costas has a right to his opinion, but politicizing these two deaths...is beneath his usual standards.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)it took an American hero, a FOOTBALL PLAYER to possibly bring down the NRA and the mighty gun.
Can you hear Hank Jr. this evening???
woo hoo Jr...
I hear the winds of change
From the Lion King (c)-
Rafiki: What was *that*?
[laughs]
Rafiki: The weather - Pbbbah! Very peculiar. Don't you think?
Adult Simba: Yeah. Looks like the winds are changing.
Rafiki: Ahhh. Change is good.
Response to graham4anything (Reply #34)
Post removed
notloc5
(2 posts)I'm assuming that you all heard about the Colorado movie theater shooting. Movie theaters are "gun free zones" meaning it's against the law to carry a weapon inside. What did the psychopath do? HE disobeyed the law! What a surprise. Did anyone hear about the 2 fatal attacks this week, one involving a bow and arrow, and one involving a "sharp object"? Probably not, because they didn't involve guns. You think gun control will solve anything? It's working for Mexico, right? How many people do you know that smokes weed? Is that legal?
“To Conquer A Nation,First Disarm It's Citizens” - Adolph Hitler
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Go crazy.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)eaglesfanintn
(82 posts)I love how someone spouting NRA talking points like a mindless drone calls others "sheep". Next notloc5 will bring out the swift boats.
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Post removed
rDigital
(2,239 posts): )
pangaia
(24,324 posts)And on national TV at a FOOTBALL game.
Too much. :> ))
Logical
(22,457 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)if Belcher didn't have a gun.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)He said this:
This suggests that crimes of passion won't happen if guns are taken out of the equation. This is erroneous, as numerous examples, including the Benoit case, demonstrate.
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Post removed
Sfrosty
(2 posts)Doctors vs. Guns U.S. Statistics:
Number of physicians in the US = 700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year =120,000
Accidental deaths per physician = 0.171 (U.S. Dept. of Health &
Human Services)
Number of gun owners in the US = 80,000,000
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) =1,500
Accidental deaths per gun owner = 0.0000188 (U.S. Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms)
Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous
than gun owners.
so now what? Ban doctors?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Which gun site follows DU posts?
Panasonic
(2,921 posts)Caught two trolls, probably on their way to being PPR'ed.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)threads. Some of our other new friends are still here.
billh58
(6,635 posts)of the DU Gungeon. Made up of Freepers, Trolls, Tea Partiers, and other rabid right wingers.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)neverforget
(9,436 posts)33 < 168 or 1704 < 8775; just saying
Can't find stats on bow and arrows lol
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)"assault weapons."
Curiously, some folks still think an AWB will accomplish some thing, some how...
rDigital
(2,239 posts)
name not needed
(11,660 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,189 posts)I believe that just about says it all, Einstein.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)This is a professional athlete against an average woman. If he was determined to kill her, she stood no chance. He could kill her with his bare hands.
Talk about gun control all you want. But even if handguns were banned, both of these two would still likely be dead.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)Guns are made for killing people. Yes, some people who commit murders with guns may have committed the murders in other ways, but you can't state that as fact every murder would have happened regardless of method. Say I wanted to mow a lawn. Maybe I'd find a way to do it if I didn't have a lawn mower, but I'm sure a hell of a lot more likely to do so if I have something made for mowing lawns.
billh58
(6,635 posts)why didn't he kill her with his bare hands? Or with a knife, or a bow and arrow, or a fork? Why didn't he kill himself with poison, or jump off a bridge?
Could it be that the right tool was used for the job? A handgun is made for for killing, and he used one.
southern_belle
(1,647 posts)
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)205
(9 posts)I firmly support the 2nd amendment, but I do believe we need more regulations on hand guns. There should be a very thorough application and approval process. The true purpose of the 2nd amendment is often overlooked by Democrats and Republicans alike. The 2nd amendment exists to protect us from the government not each other. If our government should become corrupt, it would allow the people to overthrow it.
I also believe people are very naive if they believe a 220+lb man can't kill a woman and himself without a gun. Does a spoon make a person fat?
Lastly, I believe Bob has the right to say whatever he wants, but I wonder if he will face the same scrutiny as Hank Jr.?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)205
(9 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)No, this is my first forum/post ever. Just kind of bored and wanted to have a discussion with people and see their point of views on the topic.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Well, welcome to this whole new world.
Morningfog... it seems like you have a lot of posts on this forum so do you agree or disagree with what I said? You're not really discussing the topic. Do you even think handguns could protect the people from the government, if the government controls the military? Or are we just always going to be out gunned unless they start issuing citizens tanks? haha
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Response to hrmjustin (Reply #130)
Post removed
ancianita
(36,128 posts)against any damned government. They'll kill their fellow Americans before they'll stand up to the government.The first thing gun owners do when the government deprives people of their rights is go hide and blame the victims, especially if they're women, homosexual, whistleblowers or any color other than white. Gun owners are cowards in the face of governmental rights infringements. They like to go hang out and talk tough at their gun shops, but they'll never protect fellow Americans. So as not to sound too braggy, they claim they usually hunt after defenseless animals for "sport." Some sport. There's not an even chance for the prey. They can go ahead and eat their hunted food while they contemplate this: they will always be outnumbered, always outgunned.
fishwax
(29,149 posts)He's paid to spout his opinion on sports topics.
Exactly... he made it more of a social/political topic.
fishwax
(29,149 posts)He was basically doing what he's hired and expected to do. I suppose it would be within NBC's rights to sanction Costas, but it would be odd for them to sanction him for doing his job.
Hank Jr, on the other hand, was spouting racist bullshit about the president.
I'm not defending Hank... but Bob did support one side on a touchy subject with a lot of americans. ESPN knew what Hank Jr was like when they hired him, everyone does unless you live under a rock. Nobody would take what he has to say seriously unless they are stupid. The people whose job it is to report the news and sports should try to remain unbiased, while Hank was just a Rock/Country singer who gave us a little entertainment before kickoff, and did not include his views in that song.
fishwax
(29,149 posts)Reasonable people can't agree that Obama is a muslim who hates America, any more than reasonable people can agree that the moon is made of green cheese.
ESPN probably knew what Hank was like when they hired him, sure. When his transition from rebellious iconoclast to spouter-of-racist-right-wing bullshit became a liability for the bottom line, they decided to cut their ties with him. No big deal.
The notion that Costas should face any similar scrutiny or recrimination makes no sense, 205.
205
(9 posts)Ok... well do you think it was appropriate for Bob to state his personal opinion on a sensitive political issue? I just don't think any station should affiliate themselves with the left or right wing during a football game.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,016 posts)but of course it ends up that way, clearly.
fishwax
(29,149 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)After all, there are a lotta pregnancies blowing up in the NFL culture.
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)Gun owners thinking they could do one damn thing about it if our gov't. decided to turn on us.
Let me know your dinky weapons are going to do to a drone flying @ 25,000 feet. Or what they'll do against a Bradley tank. Or even a grenade launcher.
If the government turns on us, which is not going to happen, BTW....you may as well comply, or kiss your ass goodbye.
205
(9 posts)That's exactly what i asked morningfog. So do you think it's important to protect ourselves from our government, is it an outdated idea, is it even possible?
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)And if it did....we'd be toast. I'm not afraid of my government, so I don't feel a need to protect myself from it.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,481 posts)...would bring a gun to a drone fight.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)You don't go after the drone or the APV with a hunting rifle.
But the fuel/supply truck.... Ahhhhhhh!
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)[link:http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44474315/ns/today-today_news/t/us-troops-wounded-attack-afghan-base/|
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44474315/ns/today-today_news/t/us-troops-wounded-attack-afghan-base/
are the Afghanis kissing their ass goodbye?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Are you doomed to repeat?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)"You're not one of us - get the hell out of the country"
Surely even you can detect the difference.
toby jo
(1,269 posts)the government if it wants to come and get you. Our govt has weapons that are a good generation ahead of your knowledge level in operation used to control people.
You and your gun-owning friends have every chance of killing a good 30,000 people this year in this country alone.
Blah blah the 2nd amendment. Go get you some savages.
Capt.Rocky300
(1,005 posts)all these folks bad mouthing Costas are making their very first posts on this thread. I think I smell a rat. Maybe several.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)sag1968
(3 posts)Costas is all wrong. Guns don't kill any more than spoons make people fat. You can use ropes, cars, knives, your hands, or even bridges to kill people. So should we outlaw all these things as well as many others?
rDigital
(2,239 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,481 posts) rDigital
(2,239 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)at all with, amongst other traits, the deadliness, ease of use, ubiquity, and/or transportability of a gun.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,481 posts) Welcome!
Please feel free to join some others who believe in the right to keep and bear arms:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Response to sag1968 (Reply #89)
boguspotus This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #105)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #122)
Post removed
boguspotus
(286 posts)Kudos for the folks that try to reason with these types. I feel it's hopeless. I should just ignore and go to bed.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)And he's gone.
patrice
(47,992 posts)southern_belle
(1,647 posts)Exactly!
patrice
(47,992 posts)bit more efficient at identifying ludicrously obvious holes in their "logic".
oldhippydude
(2,514 posts)I have never previously seen so many hidden posts. in a single thread... nor have i witnessed so many people posting for the first time..
ordinarily i would welcome first time posters... today i will pass
Renew Deal
(81,866 posts)Post after post of deletions. Ahhh, the good old days.
patrice
(47,992 posts)stupid; guns don't kill; etc. etc. repetition ad infinitum.
Oh, and I'd insert a sarcasm emoticon in this Reply title if I could, but I can't so I'll insert it here, just so you know how cogent and insightful I think the above referenced posts are
moondust
(20,002 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)neverforget
(9,436 posts)and they're so kind and considerate of others too!
Renew Deal
(81,866 posts) wake.up.america
(3,334 posts)another person is involved and then the topic is raised again and subsequently goes away.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)
RL
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)A firearm murder was committed about 100 yards from my office shortly after my arrival. I expected to hear the normal pointless debate between the gun crazies becoming immediately defensive about gun ownership and the anti-gun fanatics screaming about banning all guns.
It didn't happen.
There was no shortage of grieving and support for the surviving family of the victim, including a huge vigil and a tasteful memorial service.
It was a breath of fresh air to not be subject to the same predictable bullshit.
Granite ranger
(1 post)December 2nd , 2012 during NBC Sunday Night Football halftime, commentator Bob Costas took the opportunity, and apparently at the permission of NBC, to voice his agreement with an op-ed recently published about the murder suicide of an NFL player.
Bob, NBC took the opportunity during halftime to express their antigun opinions.
I refuse to debate Bob’s opinion. I refuse to debate NBC’s decision to permit Bob to use this platform to express his, and obviously the network’s, antigun position.
TOO BAD.
I refuse to watch Sunday Night Football until BOB COSTAS resignation, and a public retraction by NBC, and I encourage all Americans to do the same.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,016 posts)JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)statement or an anti-gay marriage statement instead of anti-gun would you still be singing his praises? There is a time and place for everything and that wasn't it.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,016 posts)JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)halftime for an NFL game should remain free of politics. If he wanted do a special guest segment on 60 minutes or something then more power to him.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,016 posts)issues without resulting to personal attacks on each other...
there are Dems and Repubs on both sides of guns, abortion, etc.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,333 posts)proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts) ancianita
(36,128 posts)but that doesn't mean it's going away until men understand more about women's rights.
Please don't watch. I want all this sports stuff to be less profitable and to go away, anyway.
Suspend all sports subscriptions and gambling for one year and we could feed the entire world for five.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Dream on.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)We could probably all do with less TV.
BeyondGeography
(39,377 posts)A platform like that reaches so many people, he could save lives as a result.
krawhitham
(4,645 posts)You should have to pass a Psych Evaluation
You should have to pass an IQ test
You should have to pass a background check
and then wait 180 days
You should also have to retake the Psych Evaluation every year or two
patrice
(47,992 posts)have on going, easily accessible, reasonably priced, non-stigmatizing resources for, if not solving, at least reaching the best balance possible with their problems long before they get a gun (or, as happened around here recently, jump off of an overpass during rush hour) to assert their position in whatever the dysfunctions are.
It should be commonplace for health care insurance coverage for mental health services to be at parity with other kinds of health care coverage.
It seems that all we ever do is talk about symptoms of our problems, not the root causes, so the problems just keep morphing from one set of symptoms into another and then back again and again, until it's toooooooooooooooo late.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,481 posts)...against banning guns?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)like the First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Twenty-Fourth Amendments, amIright?
krawhitham
(4,645 posts)
hack89
(39,171 posts)just like we don't let 8 year olds vote - they are not legally adults.
They are certainly old enough to operate firearms under strict supervision though.
hack89
(39,171 posts)
iandhr
(6,852 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)to his/her patients.
some of the posters in our gun forum are the most unprogressive people i've seen, much less, among any gathering of democrats or liberals.
Spirochete
(5,264 posts)Ted Nugent's whole extended family showed up for this one.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,362 posts)Without a gun, Kasandra Perkins would still be dead, at Belcher's hands. Domestic violence, roid rage, whatever.
Belcher might still be alive. For what it's worth.
Anyway, Costas did a fine job of exploiting a domestic violence incident to push his agenda.
catbyte
(34,416 posts)I suppose he'll get all sorts of shit raining down on him from the knuckle draggers and the NRA, but again, I say, "Bravo, Mr. Costas."
Paladin
(28,268 posts)But take a good, hard look at their reaction to Bob Costas trying out the First Amendment, voicing an opinion that differs from their own. Disgraceful.
aikoaiko
(34,181 posts)You do know what the 1st Amendment is about, don't you?
sarisataka
(18,725 posts)and I have the right to speak mind that I disagree with him. I am just not able to access a forum where I can give my opinion to ~18 million TV viewers.
Had Mr. Costas read an article and expressed his support for his belief that life begins at conception, how many would be leaping to defend his 1A right?
Paladin
(28,268 posts)My viewpoint on gun control gets stated for a few seconds by Bob Costas on a Sunday night football game. Your viewpoint gets championed 24/7 on the Fox Network and the rest of the right wing media empire. Spare me the whining.
And that "What If" supposition thing is a non-starter. Costas didn't speak about reproductive rights, he spoke about gun control. This is a Democratic forum, so don't get huffy when a Democratic stance gets articulated and then supported around here.
sarisataka
(18,725 posts)He can say whatever he likes on the air, street corner or wherever he wants. He doesn't have to answer to me. I never watch because to me football is a game played with your feet and a round ball.
Fox et al can also do what they wish with their air time, it is a free country.
My point is millions watched a sporting event last night. They did not tune in to hear a 1:33 opinion piece of which something in the neighborhood of 9 million agree with and 9 million oppose; less those refilling their beer and nachos.
So my what if is indeed a starter. The fact that he spoke on subject A instead of B does not mean he could never choose to speak on B. I would still support his 1A right, while continuing to disagree. Would you and those who support him today do the same on that day?
Paladin
(28,268 posts)But it's your First Amendment right to express disagreement with my comments, and I will fucking kill anybody who says otherwise. End of discussion.
(Sarcasm alert, for those in perpetual need of one.)
sarisataka
(18,725 posts)I will return the favor, but may warn the oppressors first 
Paladin
(28,268 posts)sarisataka
(18,725 posts)
Auggie
(31,177 posts)
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)
Renew Deal
(81,866 posts)On DU2, it was much more common.
Upton
(9,709 posts)also went on to chastise the NFL and the Chiefs for playing the game despite the fact Belcher's family, friends and teammates all viewed it as cathartic. He also insinuated NFL fans who watched yesterday had lost perspective...after all he knows best
SNF is for football, not moralizing. I'll live my life my own way. Costas is just trying to stay relevant, while Whitlock is an authoritarian with a sports pen. They can both shutup..
Clames
(2,038 posts)I am sure some here would probably moderate their applause of Costas if they saw some of the things Whitlock stated during the NBA "Linsanity" period.
hack89
(39,171 posts)he understands where his pay check comes from.
The Time is Now
(86 posts)He spoke for me and for a lot of other people who recognize the proliferation of firearms as a deadly serious problem. I'm sure he'll take a lot of criticism and there will be calls for his resignation.
Thank you, Mr. Costas, and hang in there.
Auggie
(31,177 posts)If Costas believes in gun control so strongly that he makes an issue of it during a major sporting event, then he should write his own commentary.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Or stabbed?
Paladin
(28,268 posts)But I'm positive that our resident Gun Enthusiasts would.....
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts) neverforget
(9,436 posts)-..__...
(7,776 posts)The POS needs to keep his opinionated, pie-hole shut.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts) 
NoGOPZone
(2,971 posts)ironically the late Lamar Hunt, owner of the Chiefs, was on that list in the corporation section.
northoftheborder
(7,572 posts)I'm not going to read all this, that's why I have the gun forum hidden on the threads I see. However i will just say I agree with Costas, to throw my 2 cents in - and will probably not come back to this post to see the arrows slung my way, (or knife thrusts).
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)The gun-control view is and probably has never been a true movement; it is an elitist outlook whose proponents occupy a substantial number of political positions in some NE cities, Baltimore, Chi., SF and a few others. This is augmented by a substantial number of "celebrities," (many of whom own guns or have BGs), and a few foundations with some cash. The biggest element in the gun control outlook is MSM. It serves as the agitprop function. No surprise, then that someone within this elite -- this time Costas -- uses a position of influence to pump up this "outlook."
Upstream, someone decried how this "issue" would soon go away after the Costas dust up. It will. And it ain't the almighty power of the hated NRA. It's because gun control has nothing to show.
It's not a movement, and the pols and most of the public knows it.
Paladin
(28,268 posts)If the gun control movement is really as impotent as you represent it to be, if it all boils down to snotty class warfare and the Evil Librul Media like you depict it, there wouldn't be an increasingly radical gun militancy movement in this country, Democratic Underground wouldn't be burdened by the toxic Gun Control/RKBA group, and this thread---and hundreds of threads like it---wouldn't be going over 300 posts. If the gun control movement isn't a movement, how come you people act like the Black Helicopters are about to land on your front lawns at any given moment to collect your guns and ammo? Just askin'......
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)I don't think DU harbors many "black helicopter" sorts, do you? And post counts are for one's personal glory, I guess. But since you brought it up, the RKBA group, a vital one, is a leading indicator of just how low the Controllers' fortunes have fallen; the imagined hegemony of a "liberal" value, or an "established" philosophy just isn't there.
IMO, I can't imagine anything more toxic for progressive Democrats than the gun-control outlook.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)Readily available hand guns don't make us any safer. The guns in Jovan Belcher's home certainly didn't make Kasandra Perkins any safer.
lbrtbell
(2,389 posts)Would Costas call for banning automobiles?
If it had been done with a knife, would he say we need to ban knives?
Let's get to the real problem--our country's mental health system is a mess. The man was clearly in dire need of psychiatric help.
Without a gun, he would have found another weapon to do the same thing. That's what severe mental illness does to a person.
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)uponit7771
(90,348 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And it's not just the usual trolls crawling out of the gungeon. It almost seems like there are a bunch of crazies who monitor DU for any gun-related OPs, and then swoop in for one or two posts before getting PPRed.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Thank you!!
I'm happy that he at least discussed this issue. The fact that he even raised it lends itself to bravery on his part. The NFL is full of conservatives, especially among the commentators and owners. He took a risk.
1ProudAtheist
(346 posts)Going on national television with such a powerful message that is supported by so many yet kept silent by so few, you sir, are indeed a real hero.
barbtries
(28,808 posts)that if there had not been a gun, there would not be a dead body.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)About the time the President ripped up his NRA card was about the time I decided that train was headed to Crazytown and it was time to pull the cord.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)This thread has great examples of brainless NRA Talking Points, all of which were rebutted around 1795, parroted by the Usual Suspects.
I'd laugh but there are so many gun deaths those NRA-parrots enable that it's sad.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Rollin
(12 posts)To Kill.Glad I live in Canada.We have gun control.Less guns here equals less murders.
BeliQueen
(504 posts)Javon Belcher killed Kasandra Perkins.
His weapon of choice was convenient and all to prevalent in our society, but Belcher would have used his fists if he had to.
Here's how I assume this all went down. A football player who has always gotten his way and has never had anyone push back against his bad behavior, serially abused the women in his life until he finally snapped and killed the mother of his child. Then--in a stunning act of self-awareness--he realized just what he had done, and instead of facing the consequences of his actions, he took his own life.
Sure a gun was used, but let's look at the other ways men have killed or have tried to kill women who they have abused: acid, knives, cars, poison, fists, feet, crowbars, etc.
I sincerely pray that this will be the case that shines a light on the abuse that women endure at the hands of men who handle balls for a living and the men who follow these teams so religiously that, when their team loses, they take their frustrations out on the women in their lives. I hope that this is the turning point where these people finally get the anger management counseling they need to stop the abuse, and that this is the last time a woman finds herself in a situation where violence against her is ignored because a team doesn't want to mess up their statistics.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts) 
Rambis
(7,774 posts) 
rivegauche
(601 posts)well said. But we can expect the very typical NRA-sponsored backlash against you, personally, for stating this. This aspect of American culture is the worst trait we have, imo.
Response to Renew Deal (Original post)
Bad_Ronald This message was self-deleted by its author.
amuse bouche
(3,657 posts)You know we have an insane gun culture, because ever time there is a tragedy like this and any mention of gun control comes up...they 'go off the cliff'
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Americans are being pumped full of fear and are responding by buying too many guns.
Not sure you can legislate a correction to that. But it is right and proper to criticize an out-of-control gun culture.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)but the NRA and Big Media use it like all of the other wedge issues, and the zealots buy into it.
rainlillie
(1,095 posts)the weekend in a town 10 minutes away, a guy killed his ex-wife, her sister and seriously injured her aunt. His weapon of choice was a knife. I'm very anti-gun, but in this particular case I wish people would focus on the domestic violence aspect of it. I did some research for a post I wrote on my blog and I was shocked to find : According to stats "the number one killer of African-American women ages 15 to 34 is homicide at the hands of a current or former intimate partner."
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)If you feel you need a gun for safety or food fine. But shooting defenseless animals for sport/fun is something I'll never ever understand.
I've lived for sometime on this earth and have never owned or shot a gun - there are non lethal weapons I carry like most gals do, that seems enough.
Dead is dead, it's final, and dying as the result of an argument is so so wrong.
My view is that Belcher was one messed up guy and a coward. If you want to exit this earth fine - but don't take another life, don't sentence your young child to growing up with neither parent, don't subject Crennel and Pioli with what you subjected them to.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)The most "anti-gun" part of what Costas said was a quote from Kansas City writer Jason Whitlock.
However I do disagree with the statement - that both the victims would be alive today if Belcher did not posses a gun. That is pure speculation. Murder and suicide can be performed with many types of weapons. If he had tempered that last statement by saying "may be a live today" instead of "would be alive today" it would have carried much more credibility.
In KC, it's no time for a game
In the coming days, Belcher’s actions will be analyzed through the lens of concussions and head injuries. Who knows? Maybe brain damage triggered his violent overreaction to a fight with his girlfriend. What I believe is, if he didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.
That is the message I wish Chiefs players, professional athletes and all of us would focus on Sunday and moving forward. Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it.
I also disagree quite strongly with the phrase in bold. I do think that there are some people for whom the bold text may apply (these people should not own firearms) but it is certainly not a blanket truth.
Jersey Devil
(9,874 posts)Guns make me nervous and for that reason I won't have one around - too many chances for accidents. But I would not use this particular case to argue against guns if I were trying to convince others to enact gun control legislation.
For cripes sakes, the guy was an NFL football player. He could have killed her with one blow from the back of his hand, so to argue that if he didn't have a gun she'd still be alive is ridiculous.
Just my take.
underpants
(182,851 posts)BTW- John Lott "answered" Costas - without pointing out that Costas was quoting/paraphrasing someone else's remarks
The truth about Costas, Belcher and guns
By John Lott
Published December 03, 2012
Guns can make it easier to kill people, but that isn’t relevant here. Even if no weapon existed, the strength differential is so large that Belcher could have easily killed Perkins in any number of ways. The same is true, sadly, about suicide. There are so many ways that Belcher could have killed himself, including crashing his car at a high rate of speed into a wall or even another car as he drove to Arrowhead Stadium.
To put it bluntly, criminals are not typical citizens. About 90 percent of adult murderers have an adult criminal record. They tend to have low IQs and long histories of social problems. Murders are also very heavily concentrated among minorities in urban areas. [font color=red ] like most of the population is in urban areas? [/font] Over 70 percent of murders occur in about 3 percent of the counties in the US. Even if our country passed laws banning guns, most of these murderers are not the kind of people who are going to voluntarily turn in their weapons.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/03/truth-about-costas-belcher-and-guns/#ixzz2E2X3Tljl
As posted above, Lott goes to "The Bell Curve" "low IQs" scientific racism here and completely fails to mention that Costas was quoting and paraphrasing Jason Whitlock who is an African-American sports writer.
Much of the work referenced by the Bell Curve was funded by the Pioneer Fund
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Race_and_intelligence
Pioneer Fund
The Pioneer Fund is an American non-profit foundation established in 1937 "to advance the scientific study of heredity and human differences." Until his death on 2 October 2012, the fund was headed by psychology professor J. Philippe Rushton, the fund states that it focuses on projects it perceives will not be easily funded due to controversial subject matter. The organization is frequently described as racist and "white supremacist" in nature,[1][2][3] or as a "hate group".[4]
The 1937 incorporation documents of the Pioneer Fund list two purposes. The first, modeled on the Nazi Lebensborn breeding program,[13] was aimed at encouraging the propagation of those "descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the original thirteen states prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and/or from related stocks, or to classes of children, the majority of whom are deemed to be so descended". Its second purpose was to support academic research and the "dissemination of information, into the 'problem of heredity and eugenics'" and "the problems of race betterment".[12] The Pioneer Fund argues the "race betterment" has always referred to the "human race" referred to earlier in the sentence, and critics argue it referred to racial groups. The document was amended in 1985 and the phrase changed to "human race betterment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)whose life works include a long history of service to his community....real hands on service. There very well may have been hidden signs of mental disorders, but they had never been manifested in his short life. Actually, up to this point, he was considered by one and all, an exceptional person.
Read up on this young man...I think you will be very surprised and join the rest of us "sad head scratchers."
Oldenuff
(582 posts)but the fact is:
no amount of wailing and hand wringing is going to convince me to EVER support any kind of gun ownership restrictions.Period.
Go ahead and call me names or whatever you like,but I will not yield.It is a right,and I don't give a fat red rats ass what anyone else thinks.
Paladin
(28,268 posts)Congratulations. (That's not a complement, by the way.)
Suji to Seoul
(2,035 posts)Seems there are massive amounts of idiot first time posters. Sadly, alot of these obvious posts are getting allowed through the jury system.
DU juries love NRA and RNC talking points on guns?
Costas was right, pure and simple. Guns have one purpose. The kill. Knives have many purposes. Cut, skin, filet, pry, lift. . .you can't cut cloth with a gun.
bagimin
(1,334 posts)somebody states the obvious.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,189 posts)I know it might seem illogical or irrational, even to some non-gun enthusiasts. But--at least at this moment--I cannot fathom having a gun in my house, ever. My father-in-law once accidentially left his at my house, and even though it was placed out of everyone's reach, I felt extremely uncomfortably with it in my four walls and brought it back to him as soon as possible.
Perhaps if I was a witness to a mafia murder or if I lived in warzone, it might be different. But it's not. I live in a quiet, safe neighborhood with very little petty crime, let alone violent crime.
Unlike cars (the favored false analogy by the gun enthusiasts), a gun is designed with one purpose and one purpose alone: to kill, injure or simulate killing or injuring. There have been many situations where a normal argument has been escalated into a fatal one simply by the presence of a gun. And I don't want something that can do that in my house. I don't want an instrument of killing in my house.
In the extremely unlikely chance of a violent home invader, I will gladly stick to what I have--a 34 inch solid aluminum Easton baseball bat sitting underneath my bed. It's cheap, doesn't need bullets, doesn't need a license or registration, and if found by a child, would not likely cause them to be curious to use it for any reason other than a pickup game of ball.
drynberg
(1,648 posts)Perspective my ass, is what I agree with Bob when he commented on those that say, "It puts it all into perspective..." Yeah, there's more relevant and important stuff than the NFL (duh), point is that Bobby did not even mention the words "Gun Control" or even the "Second Amendment"...he just stated the reality that both the murdered and the suicidal would not be shot without a gun. So why are the Gun Freaks flippin' out on this? Methinks it's the telltale heart...
rocktivity
(44,577 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 24, 2019, 01:18 PM - Edit history (4)
I've reserved judgement until now because in absence of evidence, I could only suspect that either concussions or painkillers were involved. Mix them with "babies having babies" immaturity and more money than you know what to do with, garnish with a gun, and this is getting to be downright predictable.
rocktivity
