The truth about Costas, Belcher and guns

[regulator 0]

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.”

Belcher apparently killed Perkins, the 22-year-old mother of his 3-month-old daughter, at home. The horrible tragedy occurred in front of Perkins’ mom. He then drove to the Chiefs' practice facility where he committed suicide.

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.

Unfortunately, pointing to two deaths here does nothing to advance the case for gun control. 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.

The question is the net effect of guns, and 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.

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. When guns are banned, even in island nations such as the UK, Ireland, and Jamaica, the pattern has been the same. The problem is that gun bans disarm law-abiding good people, not criminals. With disarmed victims, crime is easier to commit.

Gun control advocates frequently point out that the majority of murders are committed by acquaintances, trying to make people fearful of letting relatives have access to guns. But this claim regarding domestic violence irresponsibly makes people afraid of those who they have no reason to be afraid of. 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. Acquaintance murders also include prostitutes and their pimps or Johns as well as cab drivers who are murdered by their fares.

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. 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.

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.

There are 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).

The research by economists overwhelmingly shows that 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.

Bob Costas’ emotional reaction to the deaths of Belcher and Perkins is understandable, even if a rant on gun control during a football game is misplaced. But hopefully cooler heads will prevail before we enact laws that will unintentionally lead to more deaths.



http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/03/truth-about-costas-belcher-and-guns/?intcmp=obnetwork

[regulator 0]

The problem is that gun bans disarm law-abiding good people, not criminals

[regulator 0]

Bob Costas doubled down on gun control Wednesday night on "The O’Reilly Factor" and Tuesday on MSNBC. Despite all the commotion generated by his rant on guns during halftime on NBC’s "Sunday Night Football,” he just couldn’t leave well enough alone. He called for restrictions on concealed handgun permit holders and reduced gun ownership in cities. Some Democratic lawmakers followed Costas’ lead and called for more gun control this week.

Unfortunately, Costas’ statements were filled with errors on topics ranging from "body armor" to “automatic weapons” to the gun laws in Colorado to the views of police to the behavior of permit holders.

During appearances on both shows Costas worried about the “Wild West, Dirty Harry mentality” of America’s 8 million concealed handgun permit holders.

Regarding the Aurora, Colorado shooting he attacked: “people who actually believe that if a number of people were armed at the theater in Aurora, they would have been able to take down this nut job in body armor and military style artillery.” But Costas never asked why the killer picked the Cinemark’s Century 16 Theater in Aurora, Colorado on July 20th to commit mass murder

Despite what some might think, the theater chosen by the killer for the attack was neither the closest one to his apartment nor the one with the largest audience. Instead, out of the seven movie theaters within a 20 minute drive of his apartment showing the new "Batman" movie that night, it was the only one at that time where guns were banned. So why would a mass shooter pick a place that bans guns?

The answer should be obvious, though it apparently is not clear to Costas – disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks. And I have written elsewhere about many other such cases, such as the Columbine shooting.

It is true that the Holmes’ bullet resistant vest might have protected him from getting killed by a permit holder, but any hits on the vest would have likely knocked him down and stopped the attack. As to the “military style” weapons, Costas confuses how the outside of a weapon looks with how it functions.

None of the attacks that have been in the news involve machine guns. Costas claims that police agree with him about the dangers of permit holders: “In fact, almost every policeman in the country would tell you that would have only increased the [Aurora] tragedy and added to the carnage.”

As to what police believe, the 2010 annual survey by the National Association of Chiefs of Police found 78 percent of their members believed that concealed-handgun permits issued in one state should be honored by other states "in the way that drivers' licenses are recognized through the country"—and that making citizens' permits portable would "facilitate the violent crime-fighting potential of the professional law enforcement community."

Surveys of street officers show even more support. That none of the many multiple victim shootings that have been stopped by a concealed handgun permit holder has ever resulted in a permit holder accidentally shooting a bystander would also be a relevant fact.

Costas told O’Reilly: “it's far more likely than somebody playing Dirty Harry and taking this guy down that, over the course of time, there would be a dispute about somebody stepping on someone's foot on the line for popcorn and that dispute would escalate because somebody has a gun.” But if that is the case, why do murder rates rise around the world whenever guns are banned?

On Monday, Fox Sports columnist Jason Whitlock, whom Costas has been quoting, asserted “the NRA is the new KKK” because it is trying to arm so many black gangs. Costas also expressed his justifiable concerns about “inner cities where teenage kids are somehow armed to the hilt.” But Costas’ and Whitlock’s response will hurt blacks.

There is a real drug gang problem in inner cities. But it isn’t any easier to stop the gangs from “being armed to the hilt” than it is to stop them getting illegal drugs. Police are probably single most important factor for reducing crime, but they almost always arrive on the crime scene after the crime has occurred. The question is whether law-abiding poor blacks will be allowed guns to defend themselves. As the most likely victims of violent crime, poor blacks living in urban areas benefit more than any other group from owning guns.

Finally, it isn’t just women and those who live in high crime urban areas who benefit from owning guns. Even large, powerful football players face a relative high crime rate because of their wealth. Though Costas downplayed last night, conceding: “All right, they -- they may feel that they need it for protection.” Instead, ascribing their gun ownership again to “Wild West cowboy Dirty Harry” and gangster rap videos.

Costas feels baffled by the response he has received because on Sunday night: “I never used the word ‘Second Amendment.’ Never used the words ‘Gun Control’,” but it was pretty hard to miss what he meant. He really didn’t leave any doubt when he said: “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.”

Costas’ biggest problem is that he just made too many factually incorrect claims. All the interviews that he has given this week have only made that problem worse.

[regulator 0]

This just shows how much of a dumbass bob costas is. The problem by far isnt anyone with a CHL. At least in texas there is fairly rigorous restrictions on getting one and obviously background checks are ran before being permitted. So more restrictions on CHL licenses only make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Quote

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.

There are 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).
...
Costas feels baffled by the response he has received because on Sunday night: “I never used the word ‘Second Amendment.’ Never used the words ‘Gun Control’,” but it was pretty hard to miss what he meant. He really didn’t leave any doubt when he said: “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.”

Why can't "all of the above" be true? Guns are just inanimate tools in the hands of people; people are highly variable in their behavior, and they interact with their environment in complex ways. In the hands of the law-abiding, guns can provide some measure of protection and security, especially if those people are trained in how to use them. However, it is silly to pretend that having an efficient tool will have no effect on someone's behavior. I would never dream of jumping from a plane without an appropriate tool (parachute). I probably wouldn't have tackled some of the construction jobs I have if I didn't have power tools to make the job feasible; although I could have done it with hand tools, it would have taken forever. In the hands of certain people, I am sure guns are tools to do a job that they could do with a knife, but might not care to risk. Guns are also highly efficient, so a flash of anger combined with a gun may have consequences that are instantly regretted. You can kill someone with a garotte, but you have to really want to do it, that's not something that will happen in a flash of anger.

One of the arguments people have used against AADs is that they create a false sense of security, and encourage people to attempt jumps that are beyond their skill level. I'm baffled when people make such an argument regarding one tool (AADs), yet get all bent out of shape at the suggestion that a different tool (guns) might have a similar effect on some people.

So what if Costas vents his anger and frustration at the needless deaths of two more people? The second amendment isn't going anywhere. The supreme court has ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right. No-one is coming to disarm you. Let Costas blow off steam. He is no real threat to you. Or does "gun rights" now mean people aren't even allowed to be upset at the senseless loss of life that is facilitated by ready access to such an efficient tool? Is doubling down on guns the only permissible response to you?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[beowulf 1]

CHL holders have an incentive to abide by the law if they want to keep their CHL.

[lawrocket 3]

Did Costas rant about cars? A week after Belcher we had another NFL player kill someone – this time a teammate – by driving drunk.

Ban cars?
Ban alcohol?
Ban curbs?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

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.”

to be precise, he was citing another writer's column, though it's clear he is holding similar beliefs.

[skinnay 0]

Quote

Guns can make it easier to kill people, but that isn’t relevant here.

Actually that's generally the entire concern with guns and its a pretty valid point. Yes he could have killed her with a knife, but he didn't, and there's countless times where people have been murdered with guns because someone lost their temper and they had a gun. I am all for gun rights but you have to be stupid if you can't understand that concept.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Guns can make it easier to kill people, but that isn’t relevant here.

Actually that's generally the entire concern with guns and its a pretty valid point. Yes he could have killed her with a knife, but he didn't, and there's countless times where people have been murdered with guns because someone lost their temper and they had a gun. I am all for gun rights but you have to be stupid if you can't understand that concept.

I don't think it's very applicable to this situation - Belcher didn't lose his temper, he committed a combo murder-suicide. Clearly he was not in good mental health and the same impulses that used a gun could have manifested with other tools.

Very different from two punks out street racing to escalate from mouthing off to firing.

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

Did Costas rant about cars? A week after Belcher we had another NFL player kill someone – this time a teammate – by driving drunk.

That is actually banned.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Did Costas rant about cars? A week after Belcher we had another NFL player kill someone – this time a teammate – by driving drunk.

That is actually banned.

Well then, I guess they need to ban driving drunk even more. They just aren't banning it enough and should ban alcohol.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[regulator 0]

This reminds of the movie "a few good men'...when Demi Moore said...but your honor I STRENUOUSLY OBJECT!...yeah that didnt work out too well either.

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Quote

I don't think it's very applicable to this situation - Belcher didn't lose his temper, he committed a combo murder-suicide.

Maybe you've seen some news article that offers evidence that this murder-suicide was premeditated; I haven't. Just saying it's quite possible the initial murder was done in a fit of temper, and the suicide because he realized he'd fucked up big time and his life was basically finished.

Quote

Clearly he was not in good mental health and the same impulses that used a gun could have manifested with other tools.

True, if his intent was to murder his girlfriend. It's just a lot easier to do with a gun, and there is generally less opportunity to change your mind part way through the process. The thing about losing your temper is that it's pretty much incompatible with "thinking it through" or "intent". One squeeze of the trigger and it's all over. Much more drawn out to do it with your hands, or a lamp or fireplace poker, though of course those will work if you really mean it.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Did Costas rant about cars? A week after Belcher we had another NFL player kill someone – this time a teammate – by driving drunk.

That is actually banned.

Well then, I guess they need to ban driving drunk even more. They just aren't banning it enough and should ban alcohol.

Not sure what you're arguing here, or if you're arguing anything. "Making the perfect the enemy of the good" is a common tactic if you actually don't want to do anything at all. Somehow I doubt that you're suggesting that the fact that people sometimes violate laws is an argument that we shouldn't have laws at all?

Comparing guns to cars is pretty silly. Cars and guns are both tools for particular functions. Sure, you can kill someone with a car if you're determined enough. However, I've never heard of a would-be bank robber passing the teller a note that says "I have a car".

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Did Costas rant about cars? A week after Belcher we had another NFL player kill someone – this time a teammate – by driving drunk.

That is actually banned.

so is shooting your girlfriend. and in most states, killing yourself, no? Or is it just assisting suicide?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I've never heard of a would-be bank robber passing the teller a note that says "I have a car".

Nope. Nor have I heard about using a car in self-defense.

The implication is - one week later and NFL player KILLS a teammate, and it's no big thing. No outcry. No "blame the car." No, "Blame the alcohol." None of it except for "there's a player who wouldn't even call for his complimentary cab provided to all NFL players."

No blaming the cars. It's blaming the perpetrator. Which doesn't seem to happen with guns.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[blueblur 0]

Quote

One squeeze of the trigger and it's all over. Much more drawn out to do it with your hands, or a lamp or fireplace poker, though of course those will work if you really mean it.

Don

Keep in mind it wasn't simple "one squeeze of the trigger"... he shot her 9 times. I think that defines really meaning it.

In every man's life he will be allotted one good woman and one good dog. That's all you get, so appreciate them while the time you have with them lasts.

- RiggerLee

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Clearly he was not in good mental health and the same impulses that used a gun could have manifested with other tools.

True, if his intent was to murder his girlfriend. It's just a lot easier to do with a gun, and there is generally less opportunity to change your mind part way through the process. The thing about losing your temper is that it's pretty much incompatible with "thinking it through" or "intent". One squeeze of the trigger and it's all over. Much more drawn out to do it with your hands, or a lamp or fireplace poker, though of course those will work if you really mean it.

At the risk of devolving to the lame commentary from Fox (played on the Daily Show), an NFL linebacker can kill a typically sized woman without too much effort or time, and a knife wound is delivered just as quick, and depending on where, can be much more difficult to treat. So I find your argument less compelling than if the killer was a 150lb pencil neck.

Saw an interesting chart on the Wall Street Journal of all places, noting that serious gunshot injuries (leading to care at hospital) have increased 50% in the past decade or so, but deaths have declined because doctors are better at treating (thanks to last set of wars) and trauma centers are increasingly available, so only 16% of serious injuries result in death. (** stats for shootings are somewhat less reliable than homicides)

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Did Costas rant about cars? A week after Belcher we had another NFL player kill someone – this time a teammate – by driving drunk.

That is actually banned.

so is shooting your girlfriend. and in most states, killing yourself, no? Or is it just assisting suicide?

But driving drunk didn't kill him - crashing did.

Metaphors are fun, but more likely to cause trouble than be useful. Like quad bikes.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Quote

At the risk of devolving to the lame commentary from Fox (played on the Daily Show), an NFL linebacker can kill a typically sized woman without too much effort or time, and a knife wound is delivered just as quick, and depending on where, can be much more difficult to treat.

Well sure, I think I did say that if he really wanted to kill her he could have done it with his hands, or any number of implements. For that matter, he could have made it look like a home invasion robbery, or made her "disappear", or whatever, if the intent was to just get rid of her. I was just quibbling with the comment the "Belcher didn't lose his temper". Maybe he had some plan to kill her, then kill himself, though that seems like a remarkably stupid plan. Shooting her 9 times would seem to indicate either a lot of anger or a desire to be really thorough or both. None of that either proves nor excludes a role for "losing his temper". I don't know, and I don't much care, what the intimate details of this particular tragic story are. I said before that guns are just inanimate tools, so the "fault" of whatever happened is with Belcher not a lump of metal. I'm just saying that not all tools are appropriate in the hands of all people at all times. In an ideal world it would be great if people would recognize when they are getting so angry they are likely to lose control, and take some action so they don't have a gun in their hand when that happens. How to make that happen, I have no idea.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[blueblur 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Did Costas rant about cars? A week after Belcher we had another NFL player kill someone – this time a teammate – by driving drunk.

That is actually banned.

so is shooting your girlfriend. and in most states, killing yourself, no? Or is it just assisting suicide?

But driving drunk didn't kill him - crashing did.

Metaphors are fun, but more likely to cause trouble than be useful. Like quad bikes.

The crash was caused by the driver driving drunk... what's your point? That's like saying Belcher pulling the trigger didn't kill the girlfriend, the burning powder firing the lead projectile did...

In every man's life he will be allotted one good woman and one good dog. That's all you get, so appreciate them while the time you have with them lasts.

- RiggerLee

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Did Costas rant about cars? A week after Belcher we had another NFL player kill someone – this time a teammate – by driving drunk.

That is actually banned.

so is shooting your girlfriend. and in most states, killing yourself, no? Or is it just assisting suicide?

But driving drunk didn't kill him - crashing did.

Metaphors are fun, but more likely to cause trouble than be useful. Like quad bikes.

The crash was caused by the driver driving drunk... what's your point? That's like saying Belcher pulling the trigger didn't kill the girlfriend, the burning powder firing the lead projectile did...

Hence my second sentence...

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Hence my second sentence...

there's some sort of logical leap you're making that makes no sense here. It's something about how you leaped back and changed the context, and then suggest my comparison wasn't suitable.

People misuse tools, either intentionally or via gross negligence, and people die. We then punish said people. Banning of the tools in a knee jerk reaction is rarely the proper response.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

there's some sort of logical leap you're making that makes no sense here.

No different than the logical leap in the belief that every killing with a gun as a tool, would have taken place without that gun as a tool.

Or the logical leap need to favour open container laws, because some people might do something bad, but not favour gun restrictions because it only hurts law abiding citizens.

There are lots of logical leaps in the whole gun debate.