Bob Costas

Sure they did, but just as in the incident that prompted Bob Costas' commentary, the fallacy here is the assumption that such killers work in a logical progression --

(1), "I'm going to kill Jane"; (2) "how shall I do it?"

For a straight intentional murder, it's reasonable to assume that's how it works. But with gun slayings, especially mass slayings, that's not what we're talking about. We're conflating murder with what the Newtowns and Auroras and Columbines really are-- carnage.

People who murder have a specific target and a specific reason -- jealousy over a jilted lover, insurance fraud, eliminating some business rival... there is some cause and effect. They're settling some perceived score, however flawed that perception is.

On the other hand gunnists who burst into a schoolroom or a mall or a movie theater gunning down people they don't even know, cannot possibly have those motives. They're not settling scores and they're not there for that reason. They're there for the carnage. The blood flow, the wailing of helpless victims trying desperately to get out of the way. It's no more about murder than rape is about sex -- it's about power. ALL of these mass shooters --I know not a single exception-- had some kind of power issue. Fired, outcast, enraged by something.

When you go to murder someone you have all kinds of tools: bludgeoning, poisoning, accidenting, stabbing, they all accomplish the goal of murder. But when the goal is visual carnage, the gun is the only way to go.

Let's first get real about what's going on and how this works and quit the false equivalencies.

To say it's a "gun culture" is the false part. The gun is just a tool used in the culture

It is a culture built around a tool


Exactly. And that's the definition of "fetish", and that's why I call it that. Fetishizing an inanimate object is always kinda weird. That's why they don't want to talk about it.
You say "tool", I say "fetish", whatever. But we can agree that it's a carnage tool. Whereas knives and poisons and strangulation are not.
 
Last edited:
The Bob Costas rant was such bullshit.

Why gentleman?

Because the asshole who shot his common law wife to death was having an affair with another woman and had already threatened the mother of his child with death before.

Spent the night before blowing away "said companion mother of child" with his whore of a bitch woman.

It wasn't gun culture. It was athlete who couldn't keep his dick in his pants culture. His "common law wife said HALF".

He left this bitch whore's house went home and blew his common law wife away in front of his own freaking mother.

The dude was fucked up, and he was sooooooooooooooo caught fucking this chick and his common law wife and mother of his child was saying "half".

Half for a long time.

He would have choked her, beat her to death, done anything. He promised to the new chick he was going to off her. The mother of his child.

Gun culture my ass. And I hope Costas gets the real deal rammed up his skinny ass for a long freaking time for being a blow hard trying to push some bezerko agenda.

One black player fucking white woman his whore his common law wife saying half and I hate you.

Shit was going to go down no matter what.
 
Last edited:
He would have choked her, beat her to death, done anything.

Sure, agreed. And with his size and strength it would have been easy. Yet he chose to do it with a gun. One of apparently eight guns he had around.

That's what gun culture means.

Gun culture my ass. And I hope Costas gets the real deal rammed up his skinny ass for a long freaking time for being a blow hard trying to push some bezerko agenda.

-- which is what then?

And what exactly does "the real deal" mean?
 
He would have choked her, beat her to death, done anything.

Sure, agreed. And with his size and strength it would have been easy. Yet he chose to do it with a gun. One of apparently eight guns he had around.

That's what gun culture means.

Gun culture my ass. And I hope Costas gets the real deal rammed up his skinny ass for a long freaking time for being a blow hard trying to push some bezerko agenda.

-- which is what then?

And what exactly does "the real deal" mean?

He had threatened to strangle her, choke her, stab her to death or shoot her.

Pick your poison.

Dude was fucked up. So Costas saying that if he hadn't had a gun he and she wouldn't be dead is bullshit.

He would have killed her with his bare hands. Look he'd been caught out fucking this douche bag, hated this woman who bore his child, threatened to kill her on a regular basis, she's trying to leave with the baby but all he does is threaten to kill her.

Gun culture. Fuck you, :lol:, pardon my french.

The culture of the !/2.
 
To say it's a "gun culture" is the false part. The gun is just a tool used in the culture

It is a culture built around a tool


Exactly. And that's the definition of "fetish", and that's why I call it that. Fetishizing an inanimate object is always kinda weird. That's why they don't want to talk about it.
You say "tool", I say "fetish", whatever. But we can agree that it's a carnage tool. Whereas knives and poisons and strangulation are not.

agreed. So are pitbulls in my city. Guns are the choice of tool created by the culture, instead of poisons for the same reason pitbulls are a choice over French Poodles. The threat is immediate. Still, the gun is a tool of the culture. It's not a "gun culture" as described by Costas. The gun didn't create the desire to sell drugs, threaten a spouse, or slaughter 20 kids in a school.
 
Sure they did, but just as in the incident that prompted Bob Costas' commentary, the fallacy here is the assumption that such killers work in a logical progression --

(1), "I'm going to kill Jane"; (2) "how shall I do it?"

For a straight intentional murder, it's reasonable to assume that's how it works. But with gun slayings, especially mass slayings, that's not what we're talking about. We're conflating murder with what the Newtowns and Auroras and Columbines really are-- carnage.

People who murder have a specific target and a specific reason -- jealousy over a jilted lover, insurance fraud, eliminating some business rival... there is some cause and effect. They're settling some perceived score, however flawed that perception is.

On the other hand gunnists who burst into a schoolroom or a mall or a movie theater gunning down people they don't even know, cannot possibly have those motives. They're not settling scores and they're not there for that reason. They're there for the carnage. The blood flow, the wailing of helpless victims trying desperately to get out of the way. It's no more about murder than rape is about sex -- it's about power. ALL of these mass shooters --I know not a single exception-- had some kind of power issue. Fired, outcast, enraged by something.

When you go to murder someone you have all kinds of tools: bludgeoning, poisoning, accidenting, stabbing, they all accomplish the goal of murder. But when the goal is visual carnage, the gun is the only way to go.

Let's first get real about what's going on and how this works and quit the false equivalencies.

To say it's a "gun culture" is the false part. The gun is just a tool used in the culture

It is a culture built around a tool

100% wrong. The culture is what made you want to use the gun for illegal purposes. Be it drugs, childhood abuse, no respect taught by parents, no parents, (and I'll still throw in the culture of entitlements and government dependency) or no motivation to succeed in any other way.
 
He would have choked her, beat her to death, done anything.

Sure, agreed. And with his size and strength it would have been easy. Yet he chose to do it with a gun. One of apparently eight guns he had around.

That's what gun culture means.

Gun culture my ass. And I hope Costas gets the real deal rammed up his skinny ass for a long freaking time for being a blow hard trying to push some bezerko agenda.

-- which is what then?

And what exactly does "the real deal" mean?

He had threatened to strangle her, choke her, stab her to death or shoot her.

Pick your poison.

Dude was fucked up. So Costas saying that if he hadn't had a gun he and she wouldn't be dead is bullshit.

It sure is, since he didn't say that. Jason Whitlock wrote it; Costas read the column. Have you actually seen the Costas video or not? Scattershot rhetoric indicates in the negative.
So does the fact that you didn't answer the "agenda" question. I'm forced to question whether you even know what the agenda was.

He would have killed her with his bare hands. Look he'd been caught out fucking this douche bag, hated this woman who bore his child, threatened to kill her on a regular basis, she's trying to leave with the baby but all he does is threaten to kill her.

................. and???

Not sure where that was supposed to go. We have an idea why he did what he did. That's not in question, nor the topic. Moreover the Costas/Whitlock commentary was certainly not limited to the Belcher incident. One incident does not a culture make. The Jacksonville convenience store incident was cited as another example. Of many. Belcher, being one day prior, was the catalyst; the elephant in the room that had to be addressed.


Gun culture. Fuck you, :lol:, pardon my french.

Pas du tout, c'est pas grave, mais... Murders and suicides are one thing; gunplay is another. If we had an epidemic of strangulations, we could say we had a "strangulation culture". If we had endless poisonings, we might describe a "poisoning culture". We don't have those things, do we?

"Culture" was the Costas/Whitlock term. I still prefer "fetishism". As I noted elsewhere, what Costas got attacked for had nothing to do with gun laws, since he said nothing about them. It had to do with blasphemy. He dared to question our national worship of Almighty Gun. And I do too. Deal with it.

The culture of the !/2.

No idea what "!/2" might mean but I notice you didn't explain the "real deal" either. Another unfinished symphony. That's three by my count. Are you in this or not? Because I don't play halfway.

Even Bull O'Reilly gets this "I think you were unfairly tarred there":
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk5-5ccMxRs"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk5-5ccMxRs[/ame]

And here at the end of the same month it's obvious that not only was Bob Costas right on target with his observation, he was prescient bringing it out before Klackamas, before Newtown, before Webster... all of which happened since then and none of which involved strangulation or poisoning or stabbing.

That is a gun culture. Where the bullshit lieth is in denial of it.
 
Last edited:
Costas shot off his mouth too soon. That's the pity of it.

There could be a rational discussion of violence perpetrated by major league stars, but no. Costas hit guns. An agenda.

I'm on a tear about concussions. I still to this day cannot believe in my life that Chris Benoit killed Nancy and his son.

My heart breaks. " the rabid wolverine".

But I am honest. Left wing sports casters, left wing talking heads are not.
 
Sure, agreed. And with his size and strength it would have been easy. Yet he chose to do it with a gun. One of apparently eight guns he had around.

That's what gun culture means.



-- which is what then?

And what exactly does "the real deal" mean?

He had threatened to strangle her, choke her, stab her to death or shoot her.

Pick your poison.

Dude was fucked up. So Costas saying that if he hadn't had a gun he and she wouldn't be dead is bullshit.

It sure is, since he didn't say that. Jason Whitlock wrote it; Costas read the column. Have you actually seen the Costas video or not? Scattershot rhetoric indicates in the negative.
So does the fact that you didn't answer the "agenda" question. I'm forced to question whether you even know what the agenda was.



................. and???

Not sure where that was supposed to go. We have an idea why he did what he did. That's not in question, nor the topic. Moreover the Costas/Whitlock commentary was certainly not limited to the Belcher incident. One incident does not a culture make. The Jacksonville convenience store incident was cited as another example. Of many. Belcher, being one day prior, was the catalyst; the elephant in the room that had to be addressed.


Gun culture. Fuck you, :lol:, pardon my french.

Pas du tout, c'est pas grave, mais... Murders and suicides are one thing; gunplay is another. If we had an epidemic of strangulations, we could say we had a "strangulation culture". If we had endless poisonings, we might describe a "poisoning culture". We don't have those things, do we?

"Culture" was the Costas/Whitlock term. I still prefer "fetishism". As I noted elsewhere, what Costas got attacked for had nothing to do with gun laws, since he said nothing about them. It had to do with blasphemy. He dared to question our national worship of Almighty Gun. And I do too. Deal with it.

The culture of the !/2.

No idea what "!/2" might mean but I notice you didn't explain the "real deal" either. Another unfinished symphony. That's three by my count. Are you in this or not? Because I don't play halfway.

Even Bull O'Reilly gets this "I think you were unfairly tarred there":
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk5-5ccMxRs"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk5-5ccMxRs[/ame]

And here at the end of the same month it's obvious that not only was Bob Costas right on target with his observation, he was prescient bringing it out before Klackamas, before Newtown, before Webster... all of which happened since then and none of which involved strangulation or poisoning or stabbing.

That is a gun culture. Where the bullshit lieth is in denial of it.

His girlfriend that he spent the night with before he killed the mother of his child said that he promised to kill the mother of his child.

What did you miss about this? He freaking hated his so called woman, was screwing around on her and the baby.

Gun culture?

Kiss my ass.
 
Sure, agreed. And with his size and strength it would have been easy. Yet he chose to do it with a gun. One of apparently eight guns he had around.

That's what gun culture means.



-- which is what then?

And what exactly does "the real deal" mean?

He had threatened to strangle her, choke her, stab her to death or shoot her.

Pick your poison.

Dude was fucked up. So Costas saying that if he hadn't had a gun he and she wouldn't be dead is bullshit.

It sure is, since he didn't say that. Jason Whitlock wrote it; Costas read the column. Have you actually seen the Costas video or not? Scattershot rhetoric indicates in the negative.
So does the fact that you didn't answer the "agenda" question. I'm forced to question whether you even know what the agenda was.



................. and???

Not sure where that was supposed to go. We have an idea why he did what he did. That's not in question, nor the topic. Moreover the Costas/Whitlock commentary was certainly not limited to the Belcher incident. One incident does not a culture make. The Jacksonville convenience store incident was cited as another example. Of many. Belcher, being one day prior, was the catalyst; the elephant in the room that had to be addressed.


Gun culture. Fuck you, :lol:, pardon my french.

Pas du tout, c'est pas grave, mais... Murders and suicides are one thing; gunplay is another. If we had an epidemic of strangulations, we could say we had a "strangulation culture". If we had endless poisonings, we might describe a "poisoning culture". We don't have those things, do we?

"Culture" was the Costas/Whitlock term. I still prefer "fetishism". As I noted elsewhere, what Costas got attacked for had nothing to do with gun laws, since he said nothing about them. It had to do with blasphemy. He dared to question our national worship of Almighty Gun. And I do too. Deal with it.

The culture of the !/2.

No idea what "!/2" might mean but I notice you didn't explain the "real deal" either. Another unfinished symphony. That's three by my count. Are you in this or not? Because I don't play halfway.

Even Bull O'Reilly gets this "I think you were unfairly tarred there":
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk5-5ccMxRs"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk5-5ccMxRs[/ame]

And here at the end of the same month it's obvious that not only was Bob Costas right on target with his observation, he was prescient bringing it out before Klackamas, before Newtown, before Webster... all of which happened since then and none of which involved strangulation or poisoning or stabbing.

That is a gun culture. Where the bullshit lieth is in denial of it.

Give me a break. He was busted fucking his whore. His live in common law wife said half.

Big deal. :D

He killed her. And then he knew it was over.

Maybe we should call it divorce culture.
 
Sure, agreed. And with his size and strength it would have been easy. Yet he chose to do it with a gun. One of apparently eight guns he had around.

That's what gun culture means.



-- which is what then?

And what exactly does "the real deal" mean?

He had threatened to strangle her, choke her, stab her to death or shoot her.

Pick your poison.

Dude was fucked up. So Costas saying that if he hadn't had a gun he and she wouldn't be dead is bullshit.

It sure is, since he didn't say that. Jason Whitlock wrote it; Costas read the column. Have you actually seen the Costas video or not? Scattershot rhetoric indicates in the negative.
So does the fact that you didn't answer the "agenda" question. I'm forced to question whether you even know what the agenda was.



................. and???

Not sure where that was supposed to go. We have an idea why he did what he did. That's not in question, nor the topic. Moreover the Costas/Whitlock commentary was certainly not limited to the Belcher incident. One incident does not a culture make. The Jacksonville convenience store incident was cited as another example. Of many. Belcher, being one day prior, was the catalyst; the elephant in the room that had to be addressed.


Gun culture. Fuck you, :lol:, pardon my french.

Pas du tout, c'est pas grave, mais... Murders and suicides are one thing; gunplay is another. If we had an epidemic of strangulations, we could say we had a "strangulation culture". If we had endless poisonings, we might describe a "poisoning culture". We don't have those things, do we?

"Culture" was the Costas/Whitlock term. I still prefer "fetishism". As I noted elsewhere, what Costas got attacked for had nothing to do with gun laws, since he said nothing about them. It had to do with blasphemy. He dared to question our national worship of Almighty Gun. And I do too. Deal with it.

The culture of the !/2.

No idea what "!/2" might mean but I notice you didn't explain the "real deal" either. Another unfinished symphony. That's three by my count. Are you in this or not? Because I don't play halfway.

Even Bull O'Reilly gets this "I think you were unfairly tarred there":
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk5-5ccMxRs"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk5-5ccMxRs[/ame]

And here at the end of the same month it's obvious that not only was Bob Costas right on target with his observation, he was prescient bringing it out before Klackamas, before Newtown, before Webster... all of which happened since then and none of which involved strangulation or poisoning or stabbing.

That is a gun culture. Where the bullshit lieth is in denial of it.

That's where I disagree. It is not a gun culture. It's a culture that uses guns. I have friends who collect guns and may have 100 or more. Some are hunters and have 10 or more. Some are range masters and retool them, bulid them and fix them. Their lives ARE guns. They might have a fetish for them. But none would break the law, or even handle them irresponsibly. Why?? They don't live in the culture that uses the tool for crime. Costas would have been more responsible by saying that we live in a society (or culture) that's messed up. Let's face it, if wasn't for the NFL and NBA, half of these "athletes" would be in jail, or dead. Costas put his foot down his throat, when he made "the gun" the topic of his rant, and not the problems of the people who use them for crimes.
 
None of the above answers the question.

I don't give a shit, nor argue with, why Belcher did what he did. That's irrelevant.

What this is about is how. Not "why". And again it's not about Belcher. He's just a catalyst. As was Newtown. As were all the others.

No answer on the "real deal" either.

That's what I call a !/2 point.
 
None of the above answers the question.

I don't give a shit, nor argue with, why Belcher did what he did. That's irrelevant.


That's the problem with your thinking. Why he did it IS relevant. not how. Why he did it, IS the problem, not how. If he wanted to kill her, he would find a way. Costas made the "gun" the issue. Not the relevant issue. Which is a person killing another. If he poisoned her, would Costas had a half time rant? No, but she would still be dead. Guns kill about 8,000 a year, and cars about 32,000. We make the relevant issues safe driving lessons, responsible driving, speed limits, speed bumps, traffic tickets and fines, Mothers Against Drunk Driving etc.. Costas was the idiot ranting about the "car culture" during half time.
 
None of the above answers the question.

I don't give a shit, nor argue with, why Belcher did what he did. That's irrelevant.


That's the problem with your thinking. Why he did it IS relevant. not how. Why he did it, IS the problem, not how. If he wanted to kill her, he would find a way. Costas made the "gun" the issue. Not the relevant issue. Which is a person killing another. If he poisoned her, would Costas had a half time rant? No, but she would still be dead. Guns kill about 8,000 a year, and cars about 32,000. We make the relevant issues safe driving lessons, responsible driving, speed limits, speed bumps, traffic tickets and fines, Mothers Against Drunk Driving etc.. Costas was the idiot ranting about the "car culture" during half time.


Uh-uh.
Why Jovan Belcher did what he did is completely irrelevant here. What's relevant is why he chose a gun to do them. As you point out, he could have poisoned, bludgeoned, stabbed or any number of other things (although that doesn't address his suicide). Had he chosen one of those other methods, then Jovan Belcher would simply not have been part of the gun culture that we hear about (although having eight guns he'd still be part of the culture).

But that's just him; we'd still have Newtown, Webster, Klackamas, Jacksonville, Milwaukee, Oak Creek, Minneapolis, Minneapolis again, Oakland, Oakland again, Aurora, Columbine, Perry Hall, Chardon, Bart Township, Santee, Fayetteville, Tucson, Seal Beach, Atlanta, Killeen, DC, Virginia Tech, Binghamton, Fort Hood, Knoxville, Pittsburgh, the Holocaust Museum and many many others too numerous to mention, and that's still a gun culture if there ever was one.

" If he poisoned her, would Costas had a half time rant?" -- No. Because we don't have a "poisoning culture". All those incidents mentioned just above -- not one involved poison. If they did, then yes. Don't be obtuse.

Belcher was mentioned in the Costas commentary because the incident happened the day before, and he was a football player, and it's a halftime commentary on a football game. How can you not mention it? But that was only the most recent gun incident, and didn't happen in a vacuum; Jordan Davis was gunned down the week before in Jacksonville, and that was part of the commentary too. I'll say this however many times it takes: the commentary was not about Belcher. It was about the pattern.

So go ahead, either of you, explain to my apparently feeble mind why Costas is an "idiot", or why he should have "the real deal rammed up his skinny ass for a long freaking time", for stating the obvious. Still waiting to hear what his "agenda" is too, or how he morphs into a "left wing sports commentator" when he brought up nothing political.
 
Last edited:
The gun didn't create the desire to sell drugs, threaten a spouse, or slaughter 20 kids in a school.


Of course it didn't. Nobody suggested that. The desire for slaughter is created by the culture, not the fetish it's built around. The idea that the way to settle a score or an argument or the loud music in the next car is to grab a gun and blow it away. That culture. What we're talking about here is a mental condition, not an inanimate object.

Guns don't kill anybody by themselves. I thought you knew that.
 
The gun didn't create the desire to sell drugs, threaten a spouse, or slaughter 20 kids in a school.


Of course it didn't. Nobody suggested that. The desire for slaughter is created by the culture, not the fetish it's built around. The idea that the way to settle a score or an argument or the loud music in the next car is to grab a gun and blow it away. That culture. What we're talking about here is a mental condition, not an inanimate object.

Guns don't kill anybody by themselves. I thought you knew that.

Had Costas made the points you did in this post, he wouldn't have gotten the heat. He put rant on the gun, not the culture that uses the gun. Again, see my analogy above about a "car culture" It makes no sense in either case.
 
The gun didn't create the desire to sell drugs, threaten a spouse, or slaughter 20 kids in a school.


Of course it didn't. Nobody suggested that. The desire for slaughter is created by the culture, not the fetish it's built around. The idea that the way to settle a score or an argument or the loud music in the next car is to grab a gun and blow it away. That culture. What we're talking about here is a mental condition, not an inanimate object.

Guns don't kill anybody by themselves. I thought you knew that.

Had Costas made the points you did in this post, he wouldn't have gotten the heat. He put rant on the gun, not the culture that uses the gun. Again, see my analogy above about a "car culture" It makes no sense in either case.

He did make the same points.:bang3: Ai caramba, what does it take here??!?

I'm saying exactly the same thing he was except he had 90 seconds and I'm unlimited. What happened to Costas was the right-wing noise machine jumped on it to reframe that commentary as a "gun control rant", which is dishonest because it never was that. That's why we always have to go see the original and make our own determination, because spinmeisters who do have agendas will twist it beyond recognition. That's not Bob Costas' fault -- that's yours. Here it is four weeks later and the myth still isn't dead. See my link to the Bill O'Reilly interview.

Sorry if this is a news flash but there are entities out there who will take current events and distort them to their own agendas. Fox Noise for one, the NRA, even Fox Sports, where I spent a day on the message board correcting this myth to the 90% there who bought the "gun control rant" myth hook line and sinker. Fox Sports of course is a competitor of Bob Costas' employer NBC Sports, and that's not insignificant either. There's always an agenda in the spin machine. Don't get your news from it. I'm really tired of trying to educate those who get their info from what spin machine says he said, rather than what he actually said. I get the impression that not one of you even bothered to watch the video or read the transcript.

And sorry, the car analogy is false and dishonest too, and always will be. Accidents and passive irresponsibility will never equate to picking up a firearm and mowing people down. That's a deliberate premeditated act. Trying to compare these two is a cowardly cop-out.
 
Last edited:
"I get the impression that not one of you even bothered to watch the video or read the transcript.

And sorry, the car analogy is false and dishonest too, and always will be. Accidents and passive irresponsibility will never equate to picking up a firearm and mowing people down. That's a deliberate premeditated act. Trying to compare these two is a cowardly cop-out."


Nah, the analogy is right on. I will agree, that was is deliberate and with intent and the other is not, but the reaction to to tragedy is much different. Auto accidents kill 4 times as many people, and our reaction is to enforce laws and educate the users. With guns, the reaction is to blame it on having guns and/or call it a "gun culture". There is no more a gun culture than there is a car culture. I watched Costas video several times, and I will agree, there was an overreaction to it by some, but anyone watching it would leave with a feeling that Costas was blaming the "gun culture", and the commentary was neither the right time or place for his rant.
 

Forum List

Back
Top