Lott Guns Down Costas!

[PoliticalChic]

1."Did Jovan Belcher, the 6’2” 228 pound linebacker for the Kansas City Chiefs, need a gun to kill his girlfriend Kasandra Perkins? How about to commit suicide? Apparently some think that Saturday's murder-suicide tragedy in Kansas City wouldn't have happened if he hadn't had a firearm. Amazingly, during halftime on NBC’s "Sunday Night Football," Bob Costas told viewers he believed: “If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”

2. Even if no weapon existed, the strength differential is so large that Belcher could have easily killed Perkins in any number of ways....Costas’ rant falls under the category of if gun control could save just one life it would be worth it. The argument makes as much sense as saying we shouldn’t have gun control if guns can save one life.

3. ...what Costas ignores is that guns save a lot more lives than they cost each year. And that's not even mentioning the roughly 2 million times a year that people use guns defensively.




4. Whether people like Costas like it or not the facts speak for themselves: Murder rates consistently rise when guns are banned. This is not just a US phenomenon in places such as Washington, DC and Chicago, but has been observed worldwide....gun bans disarm law-abiding good people, not criminals.

5. Gun control advocates frequently point out that the majority of murders are committed by acquaintances,...What isn’t mentioned by these same advocates is that most of these acquaintances are not people who are emotionally close to each other. They involve rival gang members who know each other.

a. Acquaintance murders also include prostitutes and their pimps or Johns as well as cab drivers who are murdered by their fares.

6. ...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.




7. If women want to protect themselves, they should get a gun. The FBI’s National Crime Victimization Survey indicates that by far the safest course of action for women to take when they are confronted by a criminal is to have a gun.

8. ...two groups of people who benefit the most from gun ownership: people who are weaker physically (women and the elderly) and those who are most likely to be victims of violent crime (primarily poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas).

9. ...gun ownership has no impact on suicide rates. To the extent that gun control has any impact, restrictions just change the way in which the suicide is committed.

10. Bob Costas’ emotional reaction..."
The truth about Costas, Belcher and guns | Fox News




If I may....Costas' was a calculated reaction...not an emotional one....
As an inveterate Liberal, Costas couldn't stop himself from blasting the Second Amendment, but when it came to antagonizing one of the Left's protected groups, Muslims....heck, that he was able to control

"Before the Olympics this summer, Costas criticized the International Olympic Committee's decision not to hold a moment of silence to mark the deaths of 11 Israeli athletes and coaches killed by Palestinian gunmen in Munich in 1972. But he stopped short of repeating that criticism on the air."

Read more here: Bob Costas gun control commentary stirs a fuss - KansasCity.com

 

[Pogo]

Actually Costas didn't comment on "gun control" or gun laws. Never mentioned either one. Neither did the Whitlock column he quoted.

Rather, they spoke of the gun culture, which is an altogether different thing. I know a lot of wags jumped on the waggin' train to derail the commentary and pretend it was something it wasn't but there it is. The commentaries weren't about laws; they were about attitudes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually Costas didn't comment on "gun control" or gun laws. Never mentioned either one. Neither did the Whitlock column he quoted.

Rather, they spoke of the gun culture, which is an altogether different thing. I know a lot of wags jumped on the waggin' train to derail the commentary and pretend it was something it wasn't but there it is. The commentaries weren't about laws; they were about attitudes.

We have meet the enemy and it is you.


Of course, you couldn't be more wrong.

"Perhaps America's 90 million gunowners should be grateful to sports pundit Bob Costas for exposing how ignorant the mainstream media is about guns and gun laws in his now infamous 90-second halftime soundbite that serves as insightful commentary today.

Costas, quoting heavily during Dec. 2's Sunday Night Football halftime on NBC from a column by foxsports.com's Jason Whitlock about Kansas City Chiefs Jovan Belcher’s murder-suicide, ignored the crime and the victim, dismissed assigning blame to criminals who commit crimes, and opted instead to make an emotional appeal for gun control by exclusively blaming guns and the "gun culture" without mentioning domestic violence, NFL brain injuries, or substance abuse."
Bob Costas' Rant Exposes Ignorance of the Gun Control Lobby | Outdoor Life



"Bob Costas did a grave disservice to the world recently when he chose to redirect the discussion about Jovan Belcher’s murder-suicide to a rant on lax gun laws."
Bob Costas Gun Rant: The Blame Lies With Jovan Belcher, Not Guns


"I think it’s obvious if you’ve traveled abroad, and traveled to countries where they have legitimate gun laws,..."
Columnist Who Inspired Bob Costas Rant: 'The NRA Is The New KKK'


Let me know if you need more help with this.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Lott's real brave when it's about a TV show. AWOL all other times.

 

[Pogo]

We have meet the enemy and it is you.

Of course, you couldn't be more wrong.
...

Let me know if you need more help with this.

Thanks, I won't need that because before posting anything about this I actually read the entire transcript and the Whitlock article and watched the commentary. It isn't in there, period. Nothing about "laws", "restrictions", "controls", "bans" or "2nd amendment". Zero.

Inaccurate contrived headlines engineered to create controversy don't change the actual history of what was printed and spoken. They just don't.

Go ahead, don't take my word for it -- check me. Come back with quotes.

Rotsa ruck.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We have meet the enemy and it is you.

Of course, you couldn't be more wrong.
...

Let me know if you need more help with this.

Thanks, I won't need that because before posting anything about this I actually read the entire transcript and the Whitlock article and watched the commentary. It isn't in there, period. Nothing about "laws", "restrictions", "controls", "bans" or "2nd amendment". Zero.

Inaccurate contrived headlines engineered to create controversy don't change the actual history of what was printed and spoken. They just don't.

Go ahead, don't take my word for it -- check me. Come back with quotes.

Rotsa ruck.

"Thanks, I won't need that..."
Au contraire.

You see, here is your problem.....

You seem to be demanding that he read an actual proposal to ban guns.

The same as the Leftists claiming that the words 'Death Panel" didn't appear in the ObamaCare legislation.....so it was false to claim the concept wan't there.

It is.


Now, you seem unable to bridge the same kind of chasm.
What do you suppose he was talking about?

Guns!
Very good.


And was he endorsing the ownership of same?
No!!!
Double good!


Here we go: what do you think the take-away from his rant was, as far as gun ownership is concerned?



Get it now, possum?

 

[daveman]

We have meet the enemy and it is you.

Of course, you couldn't be more wrong.
...

Let me know if you need more help with this.

Thanks, I won't need that because before posting anything about this I actually read the entire transcript and the Whitlock article and watched the commentary. It isn't in there, period. Nothing about "laws", "restrictions", "controls", "bans" or "2nd amendment". Zero.

Inaccurate contrived headlines engineered to create controversy don't change the actual history of what was printed and spoken. They just don't.

Go ahead, don't take my word for it -- check me. Come back with quotes.

Rotsa ruck.

“If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”


Lamenting gun ownership isn't a call for greater restriction?

Really?

 

[Pogo]

You see, here is your problem.....

You seem to be demanding that he read an actual proposal to ban guns.

No, I demand nothing but reading comprehension (fat lot of good that does though). Rather, you seem to be demanding to read ideas that are not there and never were.

What do you suppose he was talking about?

Uh -- exactly what he said they both were talking about: the gun culture. The wild west mentality. We don't need to reinvent what was already written and spoken to suit some agenda nobody brought up. A mentality is not a gun. It's not a physical object at all. A mentality is an attitude. That's what sports calls an "intangible". It's not something you can legislate, and not something specified anywhere in the Constitution. Deal with it.

Even Bill O'Reilly gets this. He tries to bring in the tired old guilt-by-association fallacy but by the end (9:35) even Bill O'Reilly concedes that Costas has been rhetorically railroaded.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk5-5ccMxRs"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk5-5ccMxRs[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

You see, here is your problem.....

You seem to be demanding that he read an actual proposal to ban guns.

No, I demand nothing but reading comprehension (fat lot of good that does though). Rather, you seem to be demanding to read ideas that are not there and never were.

What do you suppose he was talking about?

Uh -- exactly what he said they both were talking about: the gun culture. The wild west mentality. We don't need to reinvent what was already written and spoken to suit some agenda nobody brought up. A mentality is not a gun. It's not a physical object at all. A mentality is an attitude. That's what sports calls an "intangible". It's not something you can legislate, and not something specified anywhere in the Constitution. Deal with it.

Even Bill O'Reilly gets this. He tries to bring in the tired old guilt-by-association fallacy but by the end (9:35) even Bill O'Reilly concedes that Costas has been rhetorically railroaded.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk5-5ccMxRs"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk5-5ccMxRs[/ame]

Sometimes one needs to be able to put two and two together....

...if someone said "there's a dead bird...."

...would you be looking up?



BTW....did you happen to graduate from a government school?

 

[Pogo]

“If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”


Lamenting gun ownership isn't a call for greater restriction?

Really?

Once again, the word "own" isn't there. And in this case ownership is irrelevant. It matters not a whit whether Jovan Belcher legally owned the gun, illegally owned it or stole it; the end result is the same. More evidence that maybe both commentaries are actually about what they said they were about and not about some attached fantasy.

Here's the deal, and addressing the whole "he could have done it with a knife" fallacy:

The choice of what weapon was used is not the point. That fallacy presumes that a murder/suicide is planned out and contemplated in a rational progression: Step one, identify goal; step two, plan how to accomplish goal. Which in this case would be Goal: kill Kasandra; Method: gun.

But that's not how murder/suicide works. It's not a rational act and that's not how it's contemplated -- if it's contemplated at all. The progression of an emotional-based, irrational act is more along the lines of Step one: "I'm pissed at that bitch; Step two, "there's my gun"; Step three, "BLAM". That's not a rational progression.

So what Whitlock and Costas are both saying is that Step Two "there's my gun" is too culturally exalted, too ready to shoot from the hip, to be a healthy productive dynamic in the society.

Nothing in any of that says anything about what the laws are, or should be. Because that was not their topic. I'm afraid the entire OP list of counterarguments was an exercise in futility, refuting points that nobody made.

Strawman shot to death.
Oops, pardon me, bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat.

 

[daveman]

“If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”


Lamenting gun ownership isn't a call for greater restriction?

Really?

Once again, the word "own" isn't there. And in this case ownership is irrelevant. It matters not a whit whether Jovan Belcher legally owned the gun, illegally owned it or stole it; the end result is the same. More evidence that maybe both commentaries are actually about what they said they were about and not about some attached fantasy.

Here's the deal, and addressing the whole "he could have done it with a knife" fallacy:

The choice of what weapon was used is not the point. That fallacy presumes that a murder/suicide is planned out and contemplated in a rational progression: Step one, identify goal; step two, plan how to accomplish goal. Which in this case would be Goal: kill Kasandra; Method: gun.

But that's not how murder/suicide works. It's not a rational act and that's not how it's contemplated -- if it's contemplated at all. The progression of an emotional-based, irrational act is more along the lines of Step one: "I'm pissed at that bitch; Step two, "there's my gun"; Step three, "BLAM". That's not a rational progression.

So what Whitlock and Costas are both saying is that Step Two "there's my gun" is too culturally exalted, too ready to shoot from the hip, to be a healthy productive dynamic in the society.

Nothing in any of that says anything about what the laws are, or should be. Because that was not their topic. I'm afraid the entire OP list of counterarguments was an exercise in futility, refuting points that nobody made.

Strawman shot to death.
Oops, pardon me, bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat.

News flash: He would have used whatever was handy to kill her. The notion that the presence of the gun somehow inspired his actions is ludicrous.

As for the equally ridiculous notion that "gun culture" is not healthy for society, it ignores the far greater number of defensive gun uses.

Responsible gun ownership prevents more crime than irresponsible gun ownership causes. This is inarguable.

Unless you believe that it's morally superior to be raped and/or murdered to defend yourself with a gun.

And yes, some people believe that.

 

[Pogo]

News flash: He would have used whatever was handy to kill her. The notion that the presence of the gun somehow inspired his actions is ludicrous.

You don't seem to have read a word of what you just quoted. Maybe lazily tapping the "quote" button is too easy just as lazily grabbing the gun is.

As for the equally ridiculous notion that "gun culture" is not healthy for society, it ignores the far greater number of defensive gun uses.

Responsible gun ownership prevents more crime than irresponsible gun ownership causes. This is inarguable.

Unless you believe that it's morally superior to be raped and/or murdered to defend yourself with a gun.

And yes, some people believe that.

There is nothing, nowhere nohow, anywhere in the Belcher incident that has the remotest thing to do with "defending" anybody. That's a complete red herring and a non-starter.

Let's once again define terms: "gun culture" doesn't mean "the population of gun owners". It means the idea of idolizing guns, worshiping them to the point that it becomes the codpiece of our time and the go-to tool for any occasion where some asshole so much as cuts you off in traffic. That's what "attitude" means. And that's why I prefer my own term, "gun fetishism" so there's no confusion.

Again, watch the O'Reilly video. Bob Costas spells all this out. The gun culture is about the mentality of genuflecting before Lord Gun Almighty -- not just owning one. That's what "culture" means; mentality and values. This is about what kind of values we place on Almighty Gun. If this concept is not abundantly obvious, just check your own avatar.

 

[daveman]

News flash: He would have used whatever was handy to kill her. The notion that the presence of the gun somehow inspired his actions is ludicrous.

You don't seem to have read a word of what you just quoted. Maybe lazily tapping the "quote" button is too easy just as lazily grabbing the gun is.

As for the equally ridiculous notion that "gun culture" is not healthy for society, it ignores the far greater number of defensive gun uses.

Responsible gun ownership prevents more crime than irresponsible gun ownership causes. This is inarguable.

Unless you believe that it's morally superior to be raped and/or murdered to defend yourself with a gun.

And yes, some people believe that.

There is nothing, nowhere nohow, anywhere in the Belcher incident that has the remotest thing to do with "defending" anybody. That's a complete red herring and a non-starter.

Goodness, you're not very bright.

I didn't say the Belcher incident was a defensive use. But this incident and others like it must be weighed against the hundreds of thousands to millions of defensive gun uses every year.

Guns save more lives than they take. But that doesn't fit into your "gun culture is BAAAAD!!" emotional rant, so you ignore it.

Let's once again define terms: "gun culture" doesn't mean "the population of gun owners". It means the idea of idolizing guns, worshiping them to the point that it becomes the codpiece of our time and the go-to tool for any occasion where some asshole so much as cuts you off in traffic. That's what "attitude" means. And that's why I prefer my own term, "gun fetishism" so there's no confusion.

Again, watch the O'Reilly video. Bob Costas spells all this out. The gun culture is about the mentality of genuflecting before Lord Gun Almighty -- not just owning one. That's what "culture" means; mentality and values. This is about what kind of values we place on Almighty Gun. If this concept is not abundantly obvious, just check your own avatar.

So what do you do about the gun culture you abhor so much?

Obviously, the only thing you can do: Take away people's guns.

Be honest about it. Stop whining about fetishism.

 

[Pogo]

I didn't say the Belcher incident was a defensive use. But this incident and others like it must be weighed against the hundreds of thousands to millions of defensive gun uses every year.

Amazing. "I didn't say X" -- followed immediately by X.

The two have zero to do with each other, that's my point. So this incident and others like it do not need to be weighed against blah blah. They're two different things. I would explain further but you've already left the complete explanation in the part of my post you already quoted, so I'll just leave it right where it is below and maybe if we do this over and over you'll eventually read it:

Guns save more lives than they take. But that doesn't fit into your "gun culture is BAAAAD!!" emotional rant, so you ignore it.

Let's once again define terms: "gun culture" doesn't mean "the population of gun owners". It means the idea of idolizing guns, worshiping them to the point that it becomes the codpiece of our time and the go-to tool for any occasion where some asshole so much as cuts you off in traffic. That's what "attitude" means. And that's why I prefer my own term, "gun fetishism" so there's no confusion.

Again, watch the O'Reilly video. Bob Costas spells all this out. The gun culture is about the mentality of genuflecting before Lord Gun Almighty -- not just owning one. That's what "culture" means; mentality and values. This is about what kind of values we place on Almighty Gun. If this concept is not abundantly obvious, just check your own avatar.

So what do you do about the gun culture you abhor so much?

Obviously, the only thing you can do: Take away people's guns.

Be honest about it. Stop whining about fetishism.

You just put words in my mouth and then have the temerity to utter "be honest"??? No one but you and the bubble you're in said anything about "taking away people's anything".

Look it up: I've never said word one about gun control or gun laws. Not in this thread, not on this website, not on any website anywhere, at any time. It's not my issue. I am no more talking legal/constitutional issues here than Bob Costas and Jason Whitlock were. What all three of us are talking about is a social issue. That's my field and that's what I actually do write about.

Hey, maybe I should just remove the hypertext that denotes my quote so you'll think it's your words and actually read them next time

 

[tinydancer]

So now murder suicide is blamed on "gun culture"?

Tell that to Nancy Benoit.

 

[Pogo]

So now murder suicide is blamed on "gun culture"?

Tell that to Nancy Benoit.

Wow, obscure reference of the day. I had to look this up (I assumed she had invented the balls; not the case).

But it does sharpen the fallacy being committed-- if you're going to murder/suicide by hanging, that's methodical. It takes planning and setup. A gunshot is instant. Sliiiiight difference between on one hand taking the time and trouble to set up your own gallows (especially for yourself since you won't be around to make sure it goes according to plan) and on the other hand grabbing the gun and go boom.

That's the whole point here: the mentality of the latter. If Jovan Belcher decides to hang his gf and himself, that takes a lot longer and requires a hell of a lot more thought. In which case there's a danger of second thoughts or some kind of rationality creeping in. A gunshot is instantaneous. No planning, no outside materials. And no turning back.

And if you are going to go to all that trouble of setting up a hanging, then you've come to your murder/suicide via a completely different path than Jovan Belcher did.

Unless of course the next fallacious argument is that he was just being lazy and took the method that involved the least amount of work, but then the fact that he drove to his coaches and offed himself in front of them kinda shoots that argument down.

Oops, I mean it sets up a gallows and hangs that argument.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So now murder suicide is blamed on "gun culture"?

Tell that to Nancy Benoit.

Wow, obscure reference of the day. I had to look this up (I assumed she had invented the balls; not the case).

But it does sharpen the fallacy being committed-- if you're going to murder/suicide by hanging, that's methodical. It takes planning and setup. A gunshot is instant. Sliiiiight difference between on one hand taking the time and trouble to set up your own gallows (especially for yourself since you won't be around to make sure it goes according to plan) and on the other hand grabbing the gun and go boom.

That's the whole point here: the mentality of the latter. If Jovan Belcher decides to hang his gf and himself, that takes a lot longer and requires a hell of a lot more thought. In which case there's a danger of second thoughts or some kind of rationality creeping in. A gunshot is instantaneous. No planning, no outside materials. And no turning back.

And if you are going to go to all that trouble of setting up a hanging, then you've come to your murder/suicide via a completely different path than Jovan Belcher did.

Unless of course the next fallacious argument is that he was just being lazy and took the method that involved the least amount of work, but then the fact that he drove to his coaches and offed himself in front of them kinda shoots that argument down.

Oops, I mean it sets up a gallows and hangs that argument.

"In a comprehensive study of all public multiple shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that the only public policy that reduced both the incidence and casualties of such shootings were concealed-carry laws. Not only are there 60 percent fewer gun massacres after states adopt concealed-carry laws, but the death and injury rate of such rampages are reduced by 80 percent."
From an Ann Coulter column, January 29, 2009


Can I get three cheers for the "gun culture"?

 

[Pogo]

Ann Coulter as a basis. The barrel would seem to be bottomless.

Once again, introducing oranges (laws) into a discussion about apples (social attitudes) is just continuing the same non sequitur. So no three cheers for you.

"When you can't win the argument, redefine what the argument is" -- ancient philosopher Phallaciouses Canardementia

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ann Coulter as a basis. The barrel would seem to be bottomless.

Once again, introducing oranges (laws) into a discussion about apples (social attitudes) is just continuing the same non sequitur. So no three cheers for you.

"When you can't win the argument, redefine what the argument is" -- ancient philosopher Phallaciouses Canardementia

The less competent attack the messenger.
Are you suggesting that Coulter is in error?
Could you prove that?

After all, she is a scholar.



Perhaps you'll like this guy better....but the same message:

1738 Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria or Cesare, marchese di Beccaria-Bonesana (March 11, 1738 – November 28, 1794) was an Italian philosopher and politician best known for his treatise On Crimes and Punishments (1764), which condemned torture and the death penalty and was a founding work in the field of criminology. He wrote the following:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

 

[tinydancer]

The gun wasn't the problem. He would have found a way to kill her. Jovan was apperently whoring around on the young mother of his baby.

Stayed with this woman the night before he killed the mother of his child.

Friends are on record that Kasandra had already seen a lawyer. "Half" comes to mind. And it's on the record that he has had "rages" before.

" Campus police reports from Belcher's time studying at UMaine have revealed how he was unable to control his temper when it came to girlfriends.

As a freshman in 2006, he became upset over a girl and punched his arm through a window, cutting it, the Portland Press Herald reported.

He was treated at the scene for a 'possible severed thumb and lacerations to the wrist'.

'I was told that Belcher was upset over a girl and punched a window out,' a police report noted. 'There was a lot of blood outside of the west entrance and in the lobby.'



Jovan Belcher told police he was waiting for his 'girlfriend' outside another woman's home the night before murder-suicide | Mail Online