December 3, 2012

Want to hear Bob Costas scold America about our terrible, terrible guns?

Here's the video from last night's NBC football broadcast. 
Well, you knew it was coming. In the aftermath of the nearly unfathomable events in Kansas City, that most mindless of sports clich├ęs was heard yet again: Something like this really puts it all in perspective. Well, if so, that sort of perspective has a very short shelf-life since we will inevitably hear about the perspective we have supposedly again regained the next time ugly reality intrudes upon our games. Please, those who need tragedies to continually recalibrate their sense of proportion about sports would seem to have little hope of ever truly achieving perspective.
Here's my perspective: A man committed murder and then murdered himself. But no, the perspective we're supposed to achieve is about how it's the gun that did it. Costas proceeds to read from a column by sportswriter Jason Whitlock, which I recommend reading in full. Here are my — not Costas's — extracts from that column:
A 25-year-old kid gunned down his 22-year-old girlfriend in front of his mother and three-month-old child, and all he could think to do in the immediate aftermath is rush to thank his football coach and football employer....
Kid?  A 25-year-old kid? Why are we infantalizing the adults who play sports? A man committed a vicious murder. All he could think to do? As if he were mentally deficient! When I first read this, it struck me as racist, but now I see that Whitlock himself is black. Perhaps that allows him to feel free to talk about the dead murderer as if he were a child.
... Twenty-eight hours after one of their best friends killed the mother of his child and himself, Chiefs players will take the field and play a violent game.
Their best friend transformed himself into a dead murderer. They should grind their lives to a halt in his memory? A violent game? A man kills 2 human beings and they should respond by feeling squeamish about the violence of the sport? They should equate play violence to real violence? No. I'd say it's an occasion for drawing a sharp line between a game — a game with rules, played voluntarily — and the most evil transgression.
You may argue that we all grieve differently. You may argue that playing the game is the best way to move on and heal....
Heal? Grieve? It was murder. Displays of sympathy for the murderer are inappropriate. To play the game was to deny the murderer any more power than he seized for himself. Put him at a distance. He is not you. 
I would argue that your rationalizations speak to how numb we are in this society to gun violence and murder. We’ve come to accept our insanity. We’d prefer to avoid seriously reflecting upon the absurdity of the prevailing notion that the second amendment somehow enhances our liberty rather than threatens it.
We're numb unless we react to one man's transgressions by relinquishing our attachment to traditional liberty? What other constitutional rights should we give up to prove our sensitivity to a transgressor's act of violence? Throw out free speech, because look at those riots over there? Freedom from search and seizure — that can't be worth it, now, numbsters, can it?
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.

But we won’t. We’ll watch Sunday’s game and comfort ourselves with the false belief we’re incapable of the wickedness that exploded inside Jovan Belcher Saturday morning.
Belcher was a murderer, responsible for what he did. To say otherwise is infantalizing, dehumanizing. There's not some outside force "wickedness" — unless you believe in The Devil! — that possesses a man and "explodes." How do you know that one day, that might not happen to you? In Whitlock's view, we're blind and complacent if we don't see that potential. We might just go nuts one day and if there are any weapons around, that random explosion will lead to death. Better ban the guns.

119 comments:

ndspinelli said...

Costas has devolved from a witty sportscaster to a pompous asshole culture commenter. His role model is Bryant Gumbel.

Levi Starks said...

In Obama's world your mommy and daddy take care of you till you're at least 26, so yeah, he was still a kid.

Shouting Thomas said...

If you don't screech about the guns, then you'd have to look at the obvious... the role that race plays in murder.

Half of black men go to jail at some point in their lives. Black men commit the vast majority of murders and gun violence.

It's an attempt at obsfucation. Don't look at the obvious. Don't you dare, you racist!

Sports writers are the most PC of all writers, for reasons that I don't precisely understand. Sports writing has really gone down the toilet as a result.

jacksonjay said...

Presumably this "kid" was still on his mommas health insurance! "Kid" is certainly a moving target in the "fundamentally transformed" America. A kid can decide to become a warrior at 17 and let momma carry him on health insurance until he is 26!

Jay said...

Handguns do not enhance our safety

And stupid sportscasters do not enhance our understanding of gun laws and the impact (if any) on crime rates.

Bryan C said...

"Sports writers are the most PC of all writers, for reasons that I don't precisely understand."

I think they have an inferiority complex. They don't really respect the game or the players, and least of all the fans. So they're constantly out to demonstrate that they're just as socially conscious as their colleagues, who get to report on trendy, important stuff and hang out with the cool people.

hawkeyedjb said...

Oh well. In the world of group-think, putting your ignorance and bias on display on national television is considered a good thing, something to be applauded.

AJ Lynch said...

We are really really divided in this country with one exception. I have found that almost everyone loves the TV show The Big Bang Theory.

hawkeyedjb said...

And while we're getting rid of constitutional amendments, what about that pesky "search and seizure" nonsense? If the police had been able, proactively, to break into the man's home and seize his weapon(s), the murder wouldn't have happened. Right?

Shouting Thomas said...

Football is, I'll have to admit, an "infantilizing" sport.

I love to watch it. Hated to play it. The emphasis on military lingo and ass kissing of authority was impossible to swallow.

Football exists on the high school and college levels, to a great degree, to keep troubled young men "out of trouble." It's a way to attempt to keep young men who don't have much interest in education in school.

Many, if not most, football players are passed through high school with very little attempt by administrators or teachers to force them to pay any attention to school, then they advance to the university level where they take make work courses.

So, yes, football players are mostly big babies.

Surfed said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Surfed said...

If it's my time to die I'd rather die by a bullet than a knife, sword or baseball bat given my druthers. Much less horror. Reminds me of the parlor argument concerning atomic weapons. Much more preferable to die at ground zero of a nuclear/thermo-nuclear blast where you are vaporized into radioactive dust before pain even has a chance to register than at the hands of the Japanese army killing with samurai swords and bayonets. Was that a non-sequitish argument?

Michael K said...

Chicago is the best example of what Costas thinks is good public policy. Thank God we don't let them write about anything more important than sports.

LYNNDH said...

So, the young man that killed his father in Wyo with a bow and arrow didn't use a gun, yet he still killed. You can believe that there are many on the left that would want to ban all guns, thinking that there would be no more murders. Better to ban all young males.

LYNNDH said...

So, the young man that killed his father in Wyo with a bow and arrow didn't use a gun, yet he still killed. You can believe that there are many on the left that would want to ban all guns, thinking that there would be no more murders. Better to ban all young males.

AprilApple said...

NBC is a joke.

chickelit said...

Kudos to Althouse the commenters opposing (so far) the narrative of the sportscaster. The sportscaters are just authority figures who derive their influence from those who listen uncritically.

whoresoftheinternet said...

Heal? Grieve? It was murder. Displays of sympathy for the murderer are inappropriate.

And Easy Annie A. shows herself to be a giant hypocrite. Here's Easy Annie A., showing sympathy for a baby-killer--and demanding such sympathy from others:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/10/as-pain-of-labor-increased-cassidy-took.html

So I guess we're supposed to show sympathy for child-killers, but not for adult-killers.

Leftards never did have the whole "consistency" thing worked out.

SteveR said...

This not so new trend of looking everywhere but the obvious. What kind of gun did OJ use?

whoresoftheinternet said...

Better to ban all young males.
---Feminazis would do as such.

But really, just banning black males would astronomically reduce the crime rate.

Oops! Das racist, yo!

edutcher said...

He works for the Peacock.

QED

JHapp said...

soon drones will be the weapon of choice

The Drill SGT said...

One of Glenn's emailers had a pithy comment: "“Can someone remind me what caliber weapon OJ used on Nicole and Ron Goldman?”

Lem said...

Displays of sympathy for the murderer are inappropriate. To play the game was to deny the murderer any more power than he seized for himself. Put him at a distance. He is not you.

I'm with Althouse on this.

Bob Costas while trying to rise to eloquence, winds up only grasping at straws.

He writes with Brian Gumbel in mind.

Pogo said...

I admit being stunned that the long march through our institutions would also capture and destroy pro sports.

Never expected that.

FleetUSA said...

Without guns, she might still be dead as his fear and anger might have led to him killing her with his hands. Then the criminal justice system would have enjoyed years of employment prosecuting, etc.

Still a net loss to society. Guns don't kill people, people do.

Bob_R said...

Whitlock is actually a pretty good writer when he writes about football.

Mark O said...

Costas is just small in every way.

Pogo said...

Olbermann's disease is 100% fatal for sportscasters.

Lem said...

I admit being stunned that the long march through our institutions would also capture and destroy pro sports.

Pro sports reward excellence... thats a problem.

Mark O said...

Costas is just small in every way.

jacksonjay said...

25 year old NFL linebacker (6'2", 228 lbs) can easily kill his girlfriend! The gun saves KC the trouble and expense of a trial!

CWJ said...

Thank you Ann for putting the emphasis back onto the fact that this was a murder, and Belcher was a murderer. The banner headline on A1 of the KC Star today is "A City United in Sorrow" - how presumptuous and perverse. Domestic violence and murder are a not uncommon experience here, and yet because a man priviledged to play professional football commits murder/suicide rather than some common person, we are supposed to go into civic mourning unlike the nearly identical cases that have gone before.

As for Costas' not so veiled plee for gun control, I call squirrel. The NFL is under a lot of scrutiny these days over the alledged health effects both physical and mental of playing the game. In addition to gun control neatly fitting NBC's politics, they have every incentive to divert attention away from the NFL and onto the gun. Wouldn't want to kill that golden egg laying goose. Whitlock just provided them with the means to do it without going on record themselves.

dbp said...

It would be pretty hard, if not impossible to stab, bludgeon or choke yourself to death. But if you are a large, strong and fit football player, I would think that killing a smaller, weaker person would not be difficult.

The gun allowed the football player to commit suicide easily and I doubt he would have traveled to see his coach if he didn't own a pistol.

Paul said...

The eventual repeal of the Second Amendment is guaranteed on our now inevitable march down the road to serfdom.

That pesky Constitution will need to be jettisoned in order for our leftist leaders and their allies in the media and education to properly shape society to conform to their collectivist radical egalitarian society.

We gave them permission to get busy with "fundamentally transforming America" in 2008 and reaffirmed our commitment a month ago so we're going to get that transformation.

Good and hard.

CWJ said...

One final note. The supra head to that KC Star headline is: Community Mourns - Kasandra Perkins and Jovan Belcher Remembered. Talk about false and disgusting equivalence; at least the victim got top billing.

Paul said...

"I admit being stunned that the long march through our institutions would also capture and destroy pro sports.

Never expected that."

Capture the media and schools and all else follows in time.

Shouting Thomas said...

The murderer took a trip to the stadium to "thank" his coaches for the opportunity to play NFL football before he killed himself..

Yes, he was an infant.

Icepick said...

Two points.

First, Althouse is wrong to call football "play violence" - the violence is quite real, even if it IS dedicated to playing a game.

Second, the idea that if Belcher hadn't had a gun his girlfriend wouldn't be dead is stupid. He was a professional football player, and a defensive player at that. Committing violence with his body was what he was paid to do. He could have bashed her head in or strangled her to death without resorting to picking up a weapon.

...

Actually, a third point comes to mind. I've heard it reported that his girlfriend was actually pregnant with their second child. Perhaps it's my WASPish background breaking through, but perhaps if he had been the kind of man to not give in to impulse, to not act without thinking about consequences, and to take responsibility for his actions he wouldn't have been working on his second out-of-wedlock child with a woman that he thought so well of that he pumped nine bullets into her with his child in the next room and his mother watching. Before going to his place of employment to scare Hell out of his bosses while thanking them before splattering his brains across their rides.

I guess a WASP like me should just be happy that at least he had the common courtesy to let his bosses know he wouldn't be coming in for work. That's progress, right?

lgv said...

This post is representative of why I read this blog.

What can never be answered is whether, absent the hand gun, he would have bludgeoned his girlfriend with a rock or fireplace poker and driven headlong into a tractor trailer, perhaps killing an innocent bystander.

The anti-gun screed just assumes it would not have happened if it wasn't as easy as picking up a loaded gun.

Fr Martin Fox said...

All right, here's my proposal for Whitlock, Costas, and those who agree with them:

Lets announce that, starting next week, all citizens over 18 are invited to visit a govt office--any govt office--and sign and swear to the following statement: "I accept responsibility for my own choices and actions, and I accept the hazards and risks of living free."

Mr. Costas and Mr. Whitlock need not sign; and if they don't, they won't have to face the messiness of life; the govt will care for them. Mr. Costas makes a good living, I'm sure he will pay his fair share.

We'll figure out where the non-responsibles can live, far away from those preferring that frightening life of freedom. But leave those of us who want to be free, alone.

Clyde said...

What about that goofball Bow-and-Arrow guy up in Wyoming who stabbed his father's live-in girlfriend to death the other day, then shot his father in the head with the bow and stabbed both himself and his father with the knife? No firearms involved there. Should we ban bows and knives?

Gun laws only disarm law-abiding citizens, leaving them easy prey for the criminals. In countries like the U.K. where they disarm the law-abiding citizens, the rate of violent home invasions skyrockets, because the criminals know they aren't going to be shot by the homeowner. Unintended consequences, indeed!

Tank said...

Pogo said...

I admit being stunned that the long march through our institutions would also capture and destroy pro sports.

Never expected that.


I think it helps if you remember that they are in the entertainment business.

Portia said...

I didn't watch the game on NBC. I cannot stand that network. Yes, Costas has always been an asshole.

I pretty much watch what football I watch on the computer now. Saves the ears from inane comments and lots of blah blah.

Matthew Sablan said...

"First, Althouse is wrong to call football "play violence" - the violence is quite real, even if it IS dedicated to playing a game. "

-- That's why we need to note that it is "play violence," just like when I sparred with people to learn martial arts. Was it violent? Yes. But saying that I engaged in violence would sort of cloud the exact meaning, hence, "play violence."

Clyde said...

dbp said...
It would be pretty hard, if not impossible to stab, bludgeon or choke yourself to death.


I think that Bow-and-Arrow Guy up in Wyoming would beg to differ, since he did, indeed, stab himself to death, according to reports.

EMD said...

IASEF.

Matthew Sablan said...

As for not being able to commit suicide without a gun: Wrists have been slit and people have hanged themselves for, probably, centuries. It just usually isn't as loud and dramatic.

James Pawlak said...

There is no "gun violence" nor "knife violence" nor "fist violence". There is "people violence".

Guns do provide Natural Law protection against the tyranny of the individual criminal and of the tyrannical State.

X said...

there's something creepy about Costas' hair and stretched face. his pompous napoleonic ramblings have always been boring.

Richard Dolan said...

I'd blame Julia. Costas and Whitlock are just today's sockpuppets spouting her line.

Richard Dolan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ndspinelli said...

BobR, You're right about Whitlock. He is VERY HARD on black culture including what he calls the "prison culture." He's just wrong on this.

DADvocate said...

We're numb unless we react to one man's transgressions by relinquishing our attachment to traditional liberty? What other constitutional rights should we give up to prove our sensitivity to a transgressor's act of violence?

Well put, as is your entire post.

Costas lost all of my respect. We're supposed to give up our rights and our protection because of one incident? As some guy named Andy Levy said on Twitter, "Bob Costas, who’s gotten rich thanks in part to a sport that destroys men’s bodies and brains, gives us a little civics lecture. "

Studies in the United States show that men who play five or more years in the NFL have a life expectancy of 55, 20 years less than the average in the general public. For linemen, perhaps due to their size, the life expectancy is 52. Source

More HERE.

Participants in many other sports that Costas has gotten rich off of suffer debilitating injuries and death. Yet, he doesn't show any real concern regarding that. He just keeps raking in the dough.

DADvocate said...

It would be pretty hard, if not impossible to stab, bludgeon or choke yourself to death.

Bludgeon, yes. Slitting your wrists and hanging yourself are common methods of suicide.

BTW - we don't have a constitutional right to possess rope.

kcom said...

Google stabbed himself to death

You can do it with family members involved:
Ex-soldier Michael Pedersen repeatedly stabbed himself [to death] after first knifing to death his two young children, police confirmed today.

You can even do it in front of others:
A troubled 19-year-old stabbed himself to death on stage at an open mic night after playing a song called Sorry For All the Mess.

You can do it in jail:
A suspect last Saturday stabbed himself to death while in custody of the Buffalo Unit of the Ghana Police Service in Kumasi

You can do it in front of cops:
Authorities on Friday afternoon identified the man who stabbed himself to death in front of sheriff’s deputies in Battle Ground on Wednesday. The deputies tried to intervene, but Berry’s injuries were severe and he was pronounced dead at the scene, Cooke said.

CWJ said...

DADvocate@10:38 provides further evidence for my contention that this is squirrel on NBC's part.

Costas is just the designated Susan Rice of this particular narrative. I doubt he even read, much less composed, his statement before it crawled across his teleprompter at halftime.

Ann Althouse said...

"Bludgeon, yes. Slitting your wrists and hanging yourself are common methods of suicide."

Bludgeoning would correspond to ramming into something. The most obvious way to do that is to jump off a building. You could also run your car into something.

Chris Lopes said...

"I think that Bow-and-Arrow Guy up in Wyoming would beg to differ, since he did, indeed, stab himself to death, according to reports."

It's a well known fact that suicide was impossible before the invention of gun powder.

Ann Althouse said...

Here's the OED definition of "violence":

"The exercise of physical force so as to inflict injury on, or cause damage to, persons or property; action or conduct characterized by this; treatment or usage tending to cause bodily injury or forcibly interfering with personal freedom."

I repeat, in that light, that football is play violence.

If a player does what that definition says and the ref sees it and understands it that way, a penalty is called.

It is a game with rules, and the rules define and exclude violence.

Kansas City said...

I would give Whitlock some slack since he is black, a former football player and apparently has had some exposure to the dark sides of society. He is still wrong, but he offers his perspective from an interesting perspective.

On this issue, Costas is a self important, uninformed, left winger. He has led a privileged life and, if he was ever in the slightest danger, he would hire guys with guns to protect him. We don't need his sanctimonious lecture that is not nothing more than a liberal talking point. Without the gun, the girlfriend might or might not be alive. Belcher likely would be alive. Would that be a good thing? What if Belcher sliced her throat with a knite and then was arrested? What if she had a gun and successfully saved her life? No, as easy as it seems to liberals to blame the gun, that is not the cause of this murder/suicide.

EMD said...

e’d prefer to avoid seriously reflecting upon the absurdity of the prevailing notion that the second amendment somehow enhances our liberty rather than threatens it.

I'm going to rob Bob Costas's house tonight.

Who's with me?!?!?

Ann Althouse said...

"I would give Whitlock some slack since he is black..."

I did. I was going to call racism, but I saw that he was black, so I just said that I was going to call it racism, but then I saw that he was black.

Michael said...

I am against suicide and consider it self murder, the worst of crimes.

As ST noted at 9:18, the sports writers are the most PC of all. Since they aren't "real" writers and reporters they do what they can to appear even more PC than the obviously PC "real" writers hoping to be thought of favorably by that fraternity.

A gun is not necessary to kill. An acquaintance leapt off a building which did the trick. She left behind a child and a husband. What a vile and horrible thing to do to them.

tomaig said...

From the Hartford Courant article about the bow-and-arrow killing:

"Investigators said Christopher Krumm then stabbed himself multiple times before driving a large knife into his father's chest"

This guy drove all the way from Connecticut to Colorado to kill his father.

Kansas City said...

Costas is very good on sports, particularly baseball.

He just have become too self important. HE saw this as an opportunity to spout the liberal talking point. By the way, until recently, I did not realize the sports media world was so liberal. It must in part be the result of the far left atmosphere on college campuses. I think long ago sports writers used to tend to be conservative. Typically, liberal political bias makes little difference in the sports media, but occasionally, you can see it seep into their work.

tomaig said...

Excuse me....he drove from Connecticut to Wyoming to kill his father (and his father's girlfriend)

kcom said...

"I would give Whitlock some slack since he is black..."

I did. I was going to call racism, but I saw that he was black, so I just said that I was going to call it racism, but then I saw that he was black.


And how does any of that have anything to do with anything? Either what he said had merit or it didn't. Changing the skin color of the writer makes not an iota of difference to the point being made. Really, what I see in that whole exchange is judging people by the color of their skin - which is sooooo racism. Or patronizing, if you prefer.

kcom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kcom said...

Why for instance did you jump to race instead of age? Who talks of 25-year-olds as kids? Older people, that's wo. You have to reach a certain age to look on a 25-year-old as a young person. So why jump to race? It makes zero sense.

Ann Althouse said...

Belcher didn't need a gun to kill the woman, but she might have needed a gun to protect herself from him.

That is the great use of guns: it gives the smaller, weaker person, often the woman, a chance.

Tom Spaulding said...

I think we need to disarm all of the Palestinians to save them from their gun culture.

Icepick said...

treatment or usage tending to cause bodily injury or forcibly interfering with personal freedom.

That sounds a lot like a tackle to me.

Just because there are rules that codify which violence is and is not legal doesn't mean there isn't violence. Look at all the people that get hurt and crippled by perfectly legal hits.

By your reasoning what Larry Holmes did to Muhammed Ali wasn't violent, nor was what Hagler and Hearns did to each other. And back to football, Jack Tatum crippled a man on a legal hit, Bednarik knocked Gifford out of the game for two years on a legal hit, LT snapped Theisman's leg on a legal hit, et cetera. If you hit someone and break important body parts, that's violence even by the definition you cite.

Chip Ahoy said...

putting your ignorance and bias on display on national television

But he didn't though, in his own mind. And in the minds of people who believe likewise. He does make some good point there. There are people who will relate.

I do. Because I know while I'm reading his rant and the responses to it that there really were times that I thought myself, "goddamnit, we're both lucky there's not a gun within reach because you'd be certainly dead and I'd be in a lot of trouble."

I've become so angry with people I could kill them. And if there was a gun right there I would have.

That forces me to listen to them.

And he's told us all he knows. That's it. That's the extent of it. There'll be no arguing with him either because that's his extent. You'll not get any further, his mind has reached its limit, everything else is beyond it so nothing you counter with and expand upon will count. It can't count because it can't be processed within the limit.

It's the most frustrating thing. In Costa's mind and others like him the discussion is ended back there with his last full stop.

Icepick said...

I remember someone once asked what Dick Butkus what he missed most about football. He answered "The violence" in a wistful tone.

hombre said...

Althouse wrote: There's not some outside force "wickedness" — unless you believe in The Devil!

Even if you believe in the Devil as an "outside force 'wickedness,'" that does not, per se negate free will unless you're Flip Wilson.

And: We're numb unless we react to one man's transgressions by relinquishing our attachment to traditional liberty? What other constitutional rights should we give up to prove our sensitivity to a transgressor's act of violence?

Pure gold!

X said...

give up your guns ladies. 4'11" Bob Costas will protect you.

Pettifogger said...

I've owned firearms for over 50 years. Not one of them has ever made me do anything yet.

Big Mike said...

That is the great use of guns: it gives the smaller, weaker person, often the woman, a chance.

Spot on, Professor! Given Jovan Belcher's huge advantage in size, quickness, and strength, once he decided to kill Kasandra Perkins the only chance she had was a gun of her own.

cf said...

Ann Althouse said...
Belcher didn't need a gun to kill the woman, but she might have needed a gun to protect herself from him.

That is the great use of guns: it gives the smaller, weaker person, often the woman, a chance.


I have been dreaming of a Women's Militia ever since the Batman shootings, combined with our leadership's phobia for dissing Islamists and how that endangers every American citizen going forward. Brainstorm with me a moment: imagine an alternate American reality where every fifth woman was armed. (would the batman shooter made his move anyway?)

It might be a necessity in the Dark Utopia our "See No Evil" Obamabots are creating for us.

Big Mike said...

@Chip, I sense where you're coming from, but is that how you'd really react? If you're a responsible person -- and nothing I've ever read in any of your comments suggests otherwise -- then I think you would grasp the responsibility that comes with owning a gun.

Try taking one of the NRA's introductory handgun safety classes. You don't have to own a gun to do so, you just can't be afraid to hold one or to point it downrange at a target with an instructor standing behind you (and some versions don't even require actually firing a real gun). Owning a gun is a responsibility. Even if a person has broken into your house you have a responsibility to use the gun only to defend yourself; you can't legally go hunting the intruder down even if the castle doctrine is in effect where you live. All that is as it should be.

wyo sis said...

When they were in high school, my two sons would get so angry with each other that I sometimes feared if there was a gun in the house they would have used it.
On reflection, now that they are grown up, I was probably over-reacting. But, I do see how an enraged person with poor impulse control could fire a gun at someone else.
It still is not the fault of the gun. People have to learn to control their violent impulses. There is much more emphasis on the means of violence than the cause. We have taken the consequences out of kids lives sometimes until they are too big and the consequences are too big. It's much simpler, and yet much more work to see to it that kids experience consequences when the offense is small and the consequence is meaningful. It requires adults that pay attention when they need to.

PaulV said...

What would OJ say?

http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ojsimpsonbobcostas.jpg

PaulV said...

What would OJ say?

http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ojsimpsonbobcostas.jpg

mccullough said...

Where is Jovan Belcher's father?

mccullough said...

Jason Whitlock is a racist, by the way. After Jeremy Lin scored 38 points back in early 2012, he tweeted who is the lucky lady whose going to feel a couple of inches of pain tonight?

Since Whitlock's black, people give him a pass. Not me. He treats blacks as morally not culpable. He thinks they're children. Fuck him.

n.n said...

First, if we truly lack freewill, then we are perfectly interchangeable and disposable from conception to grave, which justifies the progress of behaviors which are commonly understand to be retrogressive.

Second, apparently only authorized people and criminals should have the right and ability to be armed. We should also probably enact a preemptive regiment for knife control, which while not as effective a force equalizer, does provided leverage to the prospective attacker.

Amartel said...

Don't pull your punches - Whitlock is a racist. He's demeaning blacks by saying they are like children and can't be trusted with firearms. The fact that he is black has nothing to do with it. He's carrying the white progressive man's water for him, advancing himself by advancing the false narrative that guns cause violence. The next step is he will blame white conservatives.

Belcher shot his girlfriend multiple times. He was in a rage. If there hadn't been a gun, he would have used and axe or whatever was handy by. The cause of this murder (I could not care less about his later suicide other than to say it was considerate he killed himself so other people wouldn't have to) was an undisciplined and unprincipled mind. The girlfriend might be alive if she had had a gun.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Amartel said...

Bob Costas is a silly little man.
At this summer's Olympics he delivered a homily about that fantastic gymnast who won the all-around competition, identifying her as the first American black gymnast or some such thing, waxing fauxmotional about how we Americans had "come a long way" or some such sopping wet nonsense. Forgetting that we Americans had produced fantastic black gymnasts in the past.
Whoops. In. Con. Venient for you, Bob.

n.n said...

A corollary to "if they cannot be criticized, then they are ineligible to serve" is "if they are unaccountable, then they are ineligible for liberty".

purplepenquin said...

Only two minutes.

That is how long it took before someone posted in these comments that the reason this happened is because the guy was black, and (according to the commentator) blacks are simply more prone to violence and crime.

That was almost six hours ago, and nobody...not even our hostess...has called 'em out on it, but instead at least one other person agreed with the claim.

*shakes head slowly*

Paul said...

Pretty strange I have been 'into' guns since 15 years old and never seen a shooting, nor murder, nor 'gun crime' (except when I saw a amateur gunsmith butcher a gun conversion! It was a crime I tell you!)

Maybe instead, if you watch such as 'The First 48', you will find in 95 percent of the murders both the killers and victims were doing something illegal and got their self capped for their trouble.

It's call the 'good riddance' factor in case you didn't know.

No guns don't cause crime for if they did then the availabilty of matchs cause ARSON.

dbp said...

Ha! I guess there was some pushback on the stabbing, bludgeoning & etc.

I don't think most people could stab themselves to death. Sure, people have done it (I'm thinking seppuka) but it can't be easy. Slashing your wrists isn't really stabbing and you wouldn't die fast enough to do in front of your coach: After you pass out, they would bind they wounds and stop the bleading. The same would apply to choking: What are you going to do? Bring a scaffold onto the field? They would cut you down before the hanging is complete. As for blugeoning, you would most likely knock yourself out before you could land a fatal blow. Stepping in front of a train would kill by blunt trauma, but if you pushed someone in front of a train, nobody would say you blugeoned the victim. Besides, there is hardly ever a moving train or speeding car near your coach's office or on a practice field.

Shouting Thomas said...

purplepenguin,

Nobody argued because it's true.

You are a lying sack of shit. You know that truth, too, asshole.

Shouting Thomas said...

Didn't take long to find this in HuffPo!

Vast majority of perps and victims of gun crime in NYC are blacks and Latinos.

I guarantee you that that lying fuck, penguin, organizes his life with this reality in mind. Penguin, you're an atrocious fucking liar!

purplepenquin said...

Nobody argued because it's true.

I understand that a lot (most?) of the commentators on this blog agree with your theory but that doesn't mean it is true. And just because I disagree with your opinion doesn't mean I'm a liar.

Just to clarify tho...'cause I don't wanna make any assumptions...you are claiming that there is something genetic that makes blacks commit crimes and act in a violent manner...correct?


Opps. Sorry. Maybe I should phrase the question in a way that you'll better understand it: Are fucking claiming that there is something fucking genetic that makes blacks commit fucking crimes and be fucking violent?

(Seriously dude...do you get in a lotta fights while out in public or do you only act like an violent jerk when you're online?)

Shouting Thomas said...

OK, so we know how, penguin, that you're a vicious fucking liar.

Why do you do it? What's your scam, asshole?

wyo sis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
wyo sis said...

Ann mentioned race in the blog entry. Race is part of the story because the murderer is black.

purplepenquin said...

OK, so we know how, penguin, that you're a vicious fucking liar. Why do you do it? What's your scam, asshole?

*sigh*

Is that your lil' way of saying that you ain't gonna answer the questions that was asked of ya, or are you just too drunk to even notice that any questions were asked?

Seriously...if you can throttle back on your blind rage for just a moment I sincerely would like to know more about your opinion: Are you claiming that there is something genetic about black folks that make 'em more likely to commit crime and behave violently? I'm truly curious to better understand what you meant when you mentioned "the role that race plays in murder". Please clarify...thanks.

Shouting Thomas said...

Assholes liars like you, penguin, deserve nothing but contempt and the back of the hand.

You are a scam artist. There are only two things to be determined.

What causes you to play out the scam? What do you hope to get out of the scam?

I don't expect answers from a scam artist like you. Yes, in public, all you'd get from me is a kick in the nuts.

Amartel said...

Hi dbp,
"It would be pretty hard, if not impossible to stab, bludgeon or choke yourself to death."

Let's ask Oliver Relin, JournOlist and co-author of the fraudulence masterpiece of pwogwessive twoofiness "Three Cups of Tea."
Oh, wait, we can't ask Oliver.
He killed himself recently. Cause of death: blunt force trauma.

Sigivald said...

So, right. Costas is an idiot, quoting an idiot.

(If "handguns" are the problem, making people act on random violent impulses, why do so few people who aren't career criminals or murderously insane use them to kill others?

One might suspect that a very strong, large football player might be able to murder his gilrfriend "in a moment of anger" or whatnot, even without a firearm, be it a handgun or not.

And the one thing I've heard unanimously from people with CWPs, who actually legally carry a handgun around, is that its presence drives them to avoid confrontations, aggression, and escalation even more.

It turns out that law-abiding adults - apart from the occasional gun-control fanatic* - don't want to shoot someone, and thus try to minimize the chance that they'll be forced to be an escalating confrontation.

* Judging them by their own, oft-repeated claims, that guns should be banned "because I know I'd kill someone". Not universal, of course, but I've heard the "argument" many times.)

Sigivald said...

Icepick said: First, Althouse is wrong to call football "play violence" - the violence is quite real, even if it IS dedicated to playing a game.

"Play violence" does not mean only/necessarily "playing at violence", that is, simulating it or it not-being-real.

Interpreting the utterance as "violence in the act of play" is equally valid - and fits the context so much better I can't even entertain the first interpretation.

(Our host says, right after that, "I'd say it's an occasion for drawing a sharp line between a game — a game with rules, played voluntarily — and the most evil transgression."

Emphasis on "game" - violence "in play" is radically different from violence outside of it, even if both are equally "really violence" rather than one being a simulation of violence.

That's why a boxing match isn't mutual assault or attempted murder.)

Kansas City said...

Whitlock is okay. Sometimes very good, including ripping blacks for bad lifestyle or culture problems.

The fact that he is black has some relevance here because I assume he is troubled by all the violence blacks direct against other blacks.

purplepenquin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
purplepenquin said...

Yes, in public, all you'd get from me is a kick in the nuts.

Always good to know if one of those is heading my way, and I appreciate the advance warning. If you wanna be a true sport about it then you should post a pic of yourself as well...


Seriously dude, why the total meltdown, threats of violence and over-the-top cursing? All I am asking is for you to clarify the implication you made earlier...why are you unwilling to do so? You're obviously among friends here, so what are you worried about?

When you say "the role that race plays in murder", are you referring to a genetic trait or something else?

Amartel said...

"The fact that he is black has some relevance here because I assume he is troubled by all the violence blacks direct against other blacks."

Oh, bunk. You can be troubled by interracial violence without infantilizing the race. Aw, the poor black kid and the bad, bad gun. Wah. The fact that Whitlock is black is not relevant. He does not indicate any special racial insight into Belcher's character. He adds nothing to the story except the progressive party line.

Amartel said...

ST, the purple turkey misrepresented what you said. Anyone who cares to know can figure this out. Don't worry about it.

mccullough said...

Amartel,

The fact Whitlock is black insulates him from his accusations. If a white person suggested that a 25 year old black man is a "kid" who can't control his emotions enough to not kill his girlfriend/mom of his 3-month old, then someone would say something. Althouse was about to trash him until she found out he was black, then gave him a pass for his idiotic racism.

Black people can be racist against other black people. Whitlock is.

chickelit said...

Could the race/violence missing link be related to testosterone levels?

chickelit said...

Althouse was about to trash him until she found out he was black, then gave him a pass for his idiotic racism.

Is that true? If so, it's disappointing.

BaltoHvar said...

I am not equating Costas to the following giants of sports broadcasting/journalism, but I wonder if Scully, Barber, Chuck Thompson, Chick Hearn or Mel Allen would have done that? Seriously! Would they have written a piece and then given it on national TV? Now, had they been in an interview setting and answering questions, that's a different context. But to editorialize like that, even given that is apparently now lil' Bobby's half-time assignment, shows a marked lack of couth. Scolding us as if we were somehow responsible cheapens the death of the Mother, and victimizes the murderer. Cheap and tawdry.

Kansas City said...

I said I gave Whitlock some slack because he is black. Some logically ask what does race have to do with it.

In my mind, the relationship was that Whitlock as a black is seeing the black commuinity being very damaged by gun violence. So, perhaps, if the "gun culture" was changed, it would help the black community. But that is neither realistic nor applicable to non-criminals who have guns.

William said...

The elephant in the room is neither race nor guns, but football. Basketball players come from the same troubled backgrounds as football players, and, although there's a fair number of scandals in the NBA, the NFL is a quantum jump ahead both in frequency and severity.....They say the cases of brain damage in football could be considerably diminished by the simple expedient of not having full contact practices.....I suppose to some football is as sacred as the 2nd Amendment and as touchy as race, but I truly believe that the banning of full contact practice is not the first step towards serfdom or fascism. It's worth a shot.

Paul said...

That football player was 3x times the size of his girlfriend (if not more!) So he could have used his bare hands if he wanted to. Guns? Heck baseball bats, chains, tire irons, steak knives, etc... are used all the time.

Guns equalize. It makes the weak just as strong as the powerful. It makes a 100 lb woman the equal to a 200 lb man in a fight. It gives the 70 year old grandmother a fighting chance against a gang of home invasion artist at night (can you imagine the outcome of the old lady against them? Yea, Obamacare taken to it's logical conclusion!)

So we don't need gun control. We need felon control! As that have found.. more guns, less crime. More prisions, less crime. More long sentences, less crime.

kcom said...

"That was almost six hours ago, and nobody...not even our hostess...has called 'em out on it, but instead at least one other person agreed with the claim."

So now you've come along and drawn attention to it. Does that make you feel better? Cause it certainly hasn't changed anything. You see the difference?

kcom said...

"But that is neither realistic nor applicable to non-criminals who have guns."

Exactly. Taking a handgun away from a law-abiding homeowner in Rolla, Missouri is irrelevant to whether one teenager is going to shoot another on the streets of Chicago. The problem is in Chicago, not Rolla, Missouri. It's like trying to kill a fly with a sledgehammer. You break a bunch of things that weren't broken, and you still didn't kill the fly.