“There are reasonable disagreements, and I respect that. But then there are things that come from every angle, where you just have to say to yourself ‘sometimes the quality of the thinking of those who oppose you speaks for itself.’ I was told — I didn’t see it — that someone compared this as a fire-able offense to situations in which people have made blatantly racist comments, or comments that had no place whatsoever....”Wow. Some pressure was exerted. Come on. It was bad, but it wasn't that bad.
४ डिसेंबर, २०१२
Bob Costas struggles to find a proper place for himself.
He made a "mistake"... blah blah... no! He said something out of line with the beliefs of the people who watch TV football and thereby offended management. Here's some of the icky blather that leaked out:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२६५ टिप्पण्या:
265 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»He mostly sucked as an Olympics host--can we all agree to that?
I certainly wouldn't fire him for saying what he said.... unless the ratings suffered for a few weeks in a row> then I would throw him out on his butt
He didn't offend management.
Management is the same group of psychotics who bring us Keith Ubermoronn, Rachel Madcow, Chrissy Tingles, and and Ed Schultz.
He put their ability to sell stuff to the people who watch TV football at risk.
He scared the Hell out of management.
Jason Whitlock went ballistic, laying everything at the door of the NRA.
He called the NRA the new KKK, and repeated the bizarre belief common to blacks that the massive drug abuse problems in black communities are caused by white racists.
He did make a mistake, though he probably doesn't think so. His job is to talk about football, not to pontificate on "social issues" or speak truth to power or be the conscience of a nation. It's alright for Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz to dispense liberal talking points, that's what NBC is paying them to do.
Digging himself deeper: "I don’t see any reason a citizen should be able to arm himself in some states in ways only police or military should..."
Go live in France or Ireland, you miserable excuse for a free man. Or even England, which these days has completely abandoned its common-law roots and the Peelian concept that "... the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."
Costas will be on O'Reilly tomorrow night, where he will attempt a clarification.
The fireable offense is not that he made a political statement. Multiple Baltimore Ravens have made statements on gay marriage this year and no one cares. The firing offense is appropriating his employers platform and using it in a way that reflects negatively on them. The Ravens I mention were both respectful, while Costas was a condescending jackass.
I doubt they fire him, but they should warn him if he ever does it again he's gone.
It was reported his comments were vetted (endorsed?) by management prior to him making a complete fool of himself.
NBC forgot the NFL is a different audience than watches Schultz, Sharpton .....
He said something out of line with the beliefs of the people who watch TV football
I watch football and I didn't have a problem with what he said. I suspect that this is true for more than half the people who watch.
...someone compared this as a fire-able offense to situations in which people have made blatantly racist comments, or comments that had no place whatsoever....
It doesn't compare to a blatantly racist comment.
However, a comparison to comments that had no place whatsoever seems pretty much on-target.
In general the racist comments are never "that bad" either.
Though they probably are responsible for the current environment where certain people are not allowed to misspeak.
Shouting Thomas said...
Jason Whitlock went ballistic, laying everything at the door of the NRA.
Is Althouse still afraid to challenge Whitlock is her silence tacit agreement?
Costas will be on O'Reilly tomorrow night, where he will attempt a obfuscation.
FIFY
He should get fired for being long-winded bore, but forcing his political opinions on us at Football game is good enough.
Note the condescending attitude (I forgot I was talking to a bunch of football yahoos who don't understand "nuance"). Note also Costas supports the firing of sportscasters who same something racist (aka Rush Limbaugh) but not people like him who just say "reasonable" things.
ARM: "I watch football and I didn't have a problem with what he said. I suspect that this is true for more than half the people who watch."
Upon what basis do you "suspect that this is true for more than half the people who watch."?
Jason Whitlock went ballistic, laying everything at the door of the NRA.
What I don't understand about the NRA is: they lie so much about firearms, why should anyone trust their opinion on firearms?
"It doesn't compare to a blatantly racist comment."
No, it doesn't. Instead it compares to a blatantly uninformed comment that those of us familiar with firearms know to be such. Guns don't produce mind rays that cause normally sane people to go nuts. So his rants about the "gun-culture" are nothing but uninformed babble.
He's getting what he deserves. I just hope that he takes this as a "teachable event."
garage said:
"What I don't understand about the NRA is: they lie so much about firearms, why should anyone trust their opinion on firearms?"
Could you document your assertion?
I trust the NRA's "opinion" on the 2nd amendment.
What I don't understand about the NRA is: they lie so much about firearms, why should anyone trust their opinion on firearms?
GM, cite just a few for us bitter clingers please.
Liberal sportswriters & broadcasters (are there any other kind) are the worst. They have public megaphones and think everyone needs to hear their boring, conventional - usually witless - comments on politics.
Nobody (except other liberals) wants to hear it. I suppose they need to prove that -even though they work in the Toy Department - they're 'really smart' just like the News people.
GM, cite just a few for us bitter clingers please.?
And when I do, you'll admit the NRA is lying?
Some people just don't know when to keep their mouths shut. Bob Costas is a perfect example.
"Jason Whitlock went ballistic, laying everything at the door of the NRA."
Thereby proving he belongs in the Toy department of Journalism and should stop writing checks his brain can't cash.
The problem with the NRA is that when the gun-grabbers were doing a lot better on legislation, the NRA would make deals with the gun-controllers, rather than really fight hard.
My friends who worked for gun rights told me a lot of stories about their activities in many states. I haven't kept up, but I suspect the mindset is the same. The good thing is, there are other gun-rights groups who keep them honest; and the gun-grabbers have had some pretty serious setbacks in recent years.
Why do "liberals" automatically hate guns?
Why do celebrities think they are more qualified than the average Joe or Josephine to pontificate on matters outside their expertise?
Costas cited a column by Jason Whitlock of Fox Sports and concluded that “if Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins [Belcher's girlfriend] would both be alive today.”
I'd say this is about half-right.
Comparing Belcher's end to OJ's makes the case against Costas pretty well.
"Gun grabbers" might be the most hilariously inept group in the history of this country.
What part of "shall not be abridged" don't these people understand?
But Jason Whitlock is black so he's apparently allowed to say stupid, quasi-racist shit.
garage said:
"And when I do, you'll admit the NRA is lying?"
Well played, Mr. Bond. You've unequivocally made your point with a fact-filled riposte worthy of Mencken!
I don't know why people think gun prohibition will work in the U.S., any more than drug prohibition works.
I know a number of good old boys who possess all the skills required to build guns in their basement workshops.
You can drive the gun market underground, but you cannot prohibit guns. Especially in the age of computer aided design and manufacture. Automated mini factories can easily be developed by clever individuals.
Garage mahal, we have learned from another thread today, is not only a gun-grabber, he's a pizza-grabber.
I also thought it was cowardly of Costas to quote Whitlock instead of simply using his own words.
Lame.
GM "And when I do, you'll admit the NRA is lying?"
Fire when ready.
I thought garage was a roadkill grabber.
What I don't understand about the NRA is: they lie so much about firearms,...
What lies are those?
Costas cited a column by Jason Whitlock of Fox Sports and concluded that “if Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins [Belcher's girlfriend] would both be alive today.”
If you're going to base your argument on an appeal to authority, you should at least appeal to an actual authority.
Garage, if the libs succeed in banning our guns, our only recourse would be to go to Mexico and acquire them from Eric Holder or his surrogates.
The Bill of Rights has no meaning to Costas, garage, or other liberals. They speak from a higher authority, themselves.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
He said something out of line with the beliefs of the people who watch TV football
I watch football and I didn't have a problem with what he said. I suspect that this is true for more than half the people who watch.
Only if one actually believes Barry got 50.2% of the vote 4 weeks ago.
Fr Martin Fox said...
The problem with the NRA is that when the gun-grabbers were doing a lot better on legislation, the NRA would make deals with the gun-controllers, rather than really fight hard.
My friends who worked for gun rights told me a lot of stories about their activities in many states. I haven't kept up, but I suspect the mindset is the same. The good thing is, there are other gun-rights groups who keep them honest; and the gun-grabbers have had some pretty serious setbacks in recent years.
What kind of religious leader writes shit like this?
Is it any wonder that the Church is in such precipitous decline. Is it possible to be more out touch with one's own religion that this?
Let me pose this question: is it not true that guns are smuggled into prisons? Or fabricated from within?
If this is true--and I seem to recall plenty of stories to this effect--then the only way gun control can work is if the entire country becomes more of a prison than our prisons are.
Otherwise, there will always be guns--and common sense says plenty of them--in this country.
All gun control could accomplish is to make ordinary people resort to crime in order to be safe.
Or else we can live in the bestest prison ever!
"And when I do, you'll admit the NRA is lying?"
The sound you here is a massive google search "NRA", "Lying", "Daily Kos"
edutcher said...
Only if one actually believes Barry got 50.2% of the vote 4 weeks ago.
Hi Ed
You seem to have just fully endorsed my argument.
I have heard that Mr. Belcher shot his victim 9 times. That suggests a level of anger that could be reflected in stabbing someone dozens of times, or beating them for a protracted period.
NFL players are ferociously strong and nearly impervious to pain.
The idea that only the presence of a firearm resulted in a fatalisty is strongly lacking in imagination.
Fr Martin Fox said...
Let me pose this question: is it not true that guns are smuggled into prisons? Or fabricated from within?
If this is true--and I seem to recall plenty of stories to this effect--then the only way gun control can work is if the entire country becomes more of a prison than our prisons are.
Otherwise, there will always be guns--and common sense says plenty of them--in this country.
All gun control could accomplish is to make ordinary people resort to crime in order to be safe.
Following through on this 'logic' you would clearly support decriminalization of all drugs and the abandonment of prohibitions against underage sex, incest and polygamy.
reocean@8:30/
OF COURSE he quoted Whitlock--THAT was his (cowardly, as you point out) cover against criticism: "Hey, I'm just quoting..."
Pretty good comments for a while but it seems to be turning into a discussion about Gun control and the NRA.
I've heard those arguments for 30 years. Adios.
Uh, folks, we do have gun control laws.
Lots of them.
The sound you here is a massive google search "NRA", "Lying", "Daily Kos"
The sound I hear is living in a swing state subjected to the NRA and their hilarious lies on my TV 24/7. Which thankfully has ceased for the moment.
Man 1: "Well, Barrett voted to ban 15 different kinds of guns, even a lot of common deer rifles."
Man 2: "I love my deer rifle. Barrett voted to ban ‘em?"
Man 1: "Yeah."
link
That was another ad in heavy rotation during the recalls. Some dude holding a deer rifle getting ready to pull a trigger on a buck when *POOF* the deer rifle disappears. Just like that!
They really think their members are the stupidest fucking people on the planet.
...then the only way gun control can work is if the entire country becomes more of a prison than our prisons are.
Of course. This is the goal of the left. In prisons we are all equal!! Equality!! A noble goal.
Freedom? That's another question. Freedom is the enemy of the left.
Garage, What gun were they referring to?
"Following through on this 'logic' you would clearly support decriminalization of all drugs and the abandonment of prohibitions against underage sex, incest and polygamy."
It is the logical support for decriminalizing drugs. The others in your list, however, involve another (non-adult) person and polygamy is just a weird thing to include. Do you think that polygamy should be illegal?
And why chose sex related things as examples?
It would be more like... we should out-law guns because some people commit murder... and... we should outlaw penises because some people commit rape.
Really? A campaign ad? No congressional testimony, Sunday Morning Talk Show appearances, press conferences?
Fr Martin Fox said...
Let me pose this question: is it not true that guns are smuggled into prisons? Or fabricated from within?
If this is true--and I seem to recall plenty of stories to this effect--then the only way gun control can work is if the entire country becomes more of a prison than our prisons are.
Otherwise, there will always be guns--and common sense says plenty of them--in this country.
All gun control could accomplish is to make ordinary people resort to crime in order to be safe.
AReasonableMan said...
Following through on this 'logic' you would clearly support decriminalization of all drugs and the abandonment of prohibitions against underage sex, incest and polygamy.
Well, if you set out to show someone else's argument is silly, it's a bad strategy to use silly arguments oneself.
My point was not...perhaps you read too fast and didn't understand it...simply that laws are too hard to enforce, so don't have them. It was a little more subtle than that, so maybe too hard for you.
The issue I was emphasizing was being safe; you see, there is this problem: people commit aggression against each other, and people have a natural right to defend themselves. That's what makes guns useful and--for most people--desirable.
So, to keep it simple for you, of all the things you compared to guns, guns are extremely useful, and of that set, necessary.
Perhaps you can explain the similar rationale for "underage sex, incest and polygamy"? What natural right to you maintain anyone has for those things? How is it that anyone's safety demands them?
Now, you could argue that for some people, currently illegal drugs are similarly necessary--perhaps as a palliative. And, in fact, in those cases, I do believe the law is wrong to deny those palliatives to people.
Finally, your attempt at a masterful argument fails in one more way. I used the argument that gun control fails to keep guns out of prisons--and you inferred, it seems, that I'm saying anything that can't be kept out of prisons should therefore be legalized.
So why did you include "underage sex and polygamy" on your list? Are you suggesting prison regulations fail to keep these things out? That is a remarkable thing, if true: children and multiple wives smuggled into prisons!
"That was another ad in heavy rotation during the recalls. Some dude holding a deer rifle getting ready to pull a trigger on a buck when *POOF* the deer rifle disappears. Just like that!
They really think their members are the stupidest fucking people on the planet."
I'd assume that Barrett didn't *intend* to vote to ban rifles but likely did vote to ban guns of a description that could plausibly legally also define hunting rifles... but we're the stupidest people on the planet if we don't trust that the application of laws will be limited to the intentions of the law makers?
Shouting Thomas said... the bizarre belief common to blacks that the massive drug abuse problems in black communities are caused by white racists.
I don't think that's bizarre at all. You can document the white racists involved in black communities all the way back to Lindon Johnson.
Here are quotes from the execrable Byron David Smith, noted supporter of gun ownership and the recent lethal shooter of two teens.
Smith said he fired when Schaeffel came into view from the waist down. After the teen fell down the stairs, Smith said he shot him in the face as he lay on the floor. "I want him dead," the complaint quoted Smith telling an investigator.
Smith told investigators he shot 18-year-old Haile Kifer several times as she descended a stairway into his basement, and his Mini 14 rifle jammed as he tried to shoot her again after she had tumbled down the steps. Though Kifer was "already hurting," she let out a short laugh, Smith told investigators. He then pulled out his .22-caliber revolver and shot her several times in the chest, according to the complaint. After shooting her with both the Mini 14 and the .22-caliber revolver, he dragged her next to Schaeffel. With her still gasping for air, he fired a shot under her chin "up into the cranium". Smith described it as "a good clean finishing shot".
"If you're trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at you, you go again," Smith told investigators, according to a criminal complaint filed Monday.
This cowardly cunt is apparently getting the support of gun nuts all over the country.
Isn't decriminlization of drugs, incest, polygamy, and underage sex the Holy Grail of the Left?
You'd think you guys would be with us on this one.
AReasonableMan said...
Only if one actually believes Barry got 50.2% of the vote 4 weeks ago.
Hi Ed
You seem to have just fully endorsed my argument.
No, I just shot a hole in it the size of Moochelle's ass.
Humperdink said...
Garage, What gun were they referring to?
They are referring to their calculation that you're an idiot that will think a deer rifle is a gun that will disappear right out of your arms just as you're ready to pull the trigger on your buck if you vote for Tom Barrett.
Garage you are aware semi automatic weapons were once banned under Commander-in-Heat Clinton's tenure. You are also aware (or should be)that semi automatic weapons are often used in hunting. It would not be a stretch to tie the two together.
BTW, my two sons and I took three deer off the mountain this past week. That is reason number 3 as to why I own these things.
Publius said...
Isn't decriminlization of drugs, incest, polygamy, and underage sex the Holy Grail of the Left?
You'd think you guys would be with us on this one.
That's liberterians, we just want to tax the bejesus out of rich folk.
I would just like to point out that had Kassandra or her mom had a gun handy, we might have a very different outcome today.
The solution to gun crime is MORE guns, not less.
Reasonble,
You fail to note that the two teenagers were shot during a home invasion. The guy who killed them was defending his home.
That guy may well have employed excessive force.
But, he didn't kill two innocent kids who just happened to be in his house.
I'm doubtful that gun owners are celebrating over this incident. They may be defending the guy's right to employ lethal force defending his home. I suspect this is more likely.
I believe the home owner has been charged with murder. Let the court decide.
I hunt deer with a rifle that Tom Barrett voted to ban back in 1993. It's action was no different than a traditional hunting rifle. It just looked different.
GM - I'm not really impressed with the single example. I mean, your source is PolitiFact, who manipulates and interprets the data to support their preconceived notions, and the ad in question is open to a lot of interpretation. PolitiFact, chooses, as they so often do, to interpret it from the left.
So, I give GM a Mostly False on this one.
As for Costas, he's past his time and has become a caricature of himself.
Those two kids shot in that house were also found to have robbed another shortly before. The shooter went to far but so did the folks trying to rob him
Publius said...
I would just like to point out that had Kassandra or her mom had a gun handy, we might have a very different outcome today.
The solution to gun crime is MORE guns, not less.
This particular talking point is so stupid that I am surprised it has hung around as long as it has.
In this ideal world you envisage we will all be armed at all times and the quickest on the draw wins, just like the wild west. What a fucking garish nightmare.
garage - reading the text of the PUBUC SAFETY AND RECREATIONAL HREARMS
USE PROTECTION ACT, the NRA was correct. Guns, similar to the ones described in the bill, are commonly used in big game hunting. PolitiFact Wisconsin plays a lot of word games with "common" and uses questionable sources for in their post.
I don't know, Reason, I think we're headed to a country where both you and Libertarians get their wishes. Sadly, when there are no more rich people left to tax and we can screw anything that moves, the anarchists will have won.
It'll be fun for a while, but as we say in my business, that doesn't scale.
Palladian said...
Why do "liberals" automatically hate guns?
Because they hate what they can't control. They fear what they have usually never used.
That is a weird story ARM. Sounds like the guy was completely paranoid.
But that's not the only reason the story was weird. Did he have silencers on his guns? Supposedly the girl went down in the basement after he'd shot the guy several times. WTF? A house on eight acres of land and a guy sitting in his basement, armed, when no one else is home, and two "good kids" break into the house and go down into the basement? The paranoid old man's mental state aside... WTF?
Your use of language, Reasonable, makes me think that you are anything but reasonable.
Publius said...
I don't know, Reason, I think we're headed to a country where both you and Libertarians get their wishes. Sadly, when there are no more rich people left to tax and we can screw anything that moves, the anarchists will have won.
I am not sure the anarchists will be big supporters of the IRS.
Shouting Thomas said...
Your use of language, Reasonable, makes me think that you are anything but reasonable.
More nanny-statism.
Bob Costas always struck me as a good guy. I think his heart's in the right place.
Synova said...
That is a weird story ARM. Sounds like the guy was completely paranoid.
Paranoid and armed, welcome to our world.
What I find offensive is the linkage of the NRA to the KKK.
Race has to be inserted by certain people even when there is no racial discussion to be had.
This guy was black. He shot his Black girlfriend. No one forced him to but guns, and I'd imagine he's not the only NFL player to
Buy guns. Being public figures, if imagine a lot of
Them get them for protection.
He also got the guns legally.so where is the racial controversy.
Every time we get one of these incidents a liberal pundit has to pontificate inanely and bring in calls of gun control
And things like race.
But ignore issues less convenient. Like how about spousal abuse. How about personal responsibility for
Actions. And what about questions about
A sport where more and more athletes are getting bumped on the head and then getting brain damage, paralysis and Lou Gehrig's disease and the responsibility of the sport he broadcasts for.
I suppose we can bring in race when it comes to any NFL discussions, though here too they would be off base.
Costas should retire. He's been at it too long. 70% of the homicides in the US happen in three counties. The sub-culture of urban gangs is no reason to ban law abiding citizens from owning guns. Belcher is just another thug holding his 9mm sideways.
And if the kids were high enough to laugh after being shot (not to mention go into a basement after hearing gun shots) even a sane person might feel motivated to make sure they stayed down because that's insane behavior and insane people are not safe just because you shot them.
Still think the guy was crazy. But if he was 100% sane he'd be justified in assuming that someone breaking into his house was armed and then shoot them... it's just that a sane person would stop when he saw they weren't armed, and then call 9-11.
"Paranoid and armed, welcome to our world."
Crazy-*ss paranoid, armed, sitting in his basement and a threat to absolutely no one.
Bob Costas will be on The Last Word, MSNBC in a minute or two after the commercial. Might be interesting.
But don't watch! It's MSNBC.
70% of the homicides in the US happen in three counties.
Reality check.
APossiblyReasonableButClearlyNotFullyInformedMan said...
This particular talking point is so stupid that I am surprised it has hung around as long as it has.
Yeah, it's a real mystery.
But don't watch! It's MSNBC.
Don't worry. I've got to clean the outhouse.
It's alright for Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz to dispense liberal talking points, that's what NBC is paying them to do.
Look, if George Will can talk baseball.
Don't worry. I've got to clean the outhouse.
MSNBC and the outhouse are about equally full of crap. The outhouse is very old.
Look, if George Will can talk baseball.
Bob Costas has written a book on gun control?
Cleaning the outhouse is very Zen, you'll learn a precious life lesson doing so.
The NBA has a fair number of troubled young men among its ranks. They have caused any number of headline making scandals, but the NFL, both in the frequency and severity of its incidents, is a quantum jump ahead of all others. Ray Lewis, Michael Vicks, OJ Simpson, and now Belcher. What a strange world that has such creatures in it.....Tell a young man that he is special beyond ordinary measure and encourage him to use his physical gifts in an aggressive way. If he puts other special young men on their butts, give him more money and let bards like Costas sing his praise. Add steroids and repeated head injuries for leavening.....If anything goes wrong, blame America's gun culture.
phx said, "Bob Costas always struck me as a good guy. I think his heart's in the right place."
Could be. His problem is where his mouth was.
Costas said what he said on TV and he can't walk it back.
So he links the NRA to KKK.
Well I am the NRA. Been a patron for over 20 years. CHL instructor for 10. Taught quite a few blacks and women in the classes. Never been in jail, worked since the time of got out of college (welfare? No. Unemployment? No.) Been married only once (and still married.)
And to Costas that makes me a racist.
But we now know for sure Costas is a bigot. He said it with his own mouth on TV.
Ehhh. Did that really bother you @unknown?
I think William makes a good point.
Chip S. said...
Yeah, it's a real mystery.
An inadvertently funny link.
The U.S., not as bad as Soviet Russia.
We are probably not as bad as Somalia either, or upper Mongolia. Maybe we could aim a little higher.
What William said.
Cleaning the outhouse is very Zen, you'll learn a precious life lesson doing so.
Why are women so often intent on teaching lessons? My ex-wifes often wanted to teach me lessons. I tended to be a restless sleeper, rolling over too frequently for my first wife's pleasure. One night I went to bed and she was rolling over, bouncing around, etc (and no sexual activity was occurring). I asked her what she was doing. She told me she was teaching me a lesson. Recently, I discovered, through the miracle of modern medicine, that the reason I had trouble getting to sleep is an arrhythmia. Glad I had such a caring wife. Probably about as caring as you, she's been through hell for the past 30 years.
Anyone who want's to teach me a lesson or think I need to learn a lesson can go screw themselves.
What Humperdink said.
William said...
The NBA has a fair number of troubled young men among its ranks.
Why not start with the NHL? The most gratuitously violent of any of the pro leagues.
DADvocate that was one strange and entertaining post.
Only the lonely...
Now appearing at Althouse at midnight!
Don't you guys know how to find your way to the neighborhood tavern?
Too cheap?
DaDvocate, I have an arrhythmia also, I take Cardizem and Magnesium, the palpitations have all but dissapeared, but don't listen to me, I don't want to teach you anything, just talkin' to myself.
Yeah, that was pretty crazy Inga. He thought you were trying to teach him a lesson not only that, go screw yourself.
Sorry, ARM. I'll remember not to bother giving you links to articles that span more than a page or two so you can comprehend their meaning accurately.
For you and any other folks w/ highly limited attention spans, here's the conclusion of that article from the Fox-News-financed Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy:
[T]he burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.
But by all means, "Reasonable Man," keep flaunting your complete ignorance as evidence of your superior insight.
Phx, nooooo, I wouldn't dream of teaching him a lesson. Hey did he say how many ex wives he had?
don't listen to me, I don't want to teach you anything, just talkin' to myself.
As long as you don't want to teach me anything, I'll listen. I'm fortunate that I have the least serious arrhythmia possible. It should have no affect on my health or longevity according to my doctors. I take a beta blocker which smooths things out. I still feel it occasionally. Funny thing is I've felt it for years and never thought it was a problem, but my blood pressure medicine exacerbated it somewhat.
Hey did he say how many ex wives he had?
Yes, I did.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
The NBA has a fair number of troubled young men among its ranks.
Why not start with the NHL? The most gratuitously violent of any of the pro leagues.
Too bad a sport dominated by white men doesn't have the domestic violence associated with it those other ones do.
Troll would love it if there was a correlation, but too bad there isn't.
Too bad his race card was rejected.
Let's go back to the execrable Mr Byron David Smith for a minute. Not one person on this board clearly condemned his behavior and several supported him. How gratuitously violent does someone with a gun have to be before gun supporters will acknowledge that guns contributed to and exacerbated that person's violent tendencies. Guns don't reduce violence, it is a nonsensical fantasy.
But let's hear from the man himself, proud gun owner that he is.
Smith said he fired when Schaeffel came into view from the waist down. After the teen fell down the stairs, Smith said he shot him in the face as he lay on the floor. "I want him dead," the complaint quoted Smith telling an investigator.
Smith told investigators he shot 18-year-old Haile Kifer several times as she descended a stairway into his basement, and his Mini 14 rifle jammed as he tried to shoot her again after she had tumbled down the steps. Though Kifer was "already hurting," she let out a short laugh, Smith told investigators. He then pulled out his .22-caliber revolver and shot her several times in the chest, according to the complaint. After shooting her with both the Mini 14 and the .22-caliber revolver, he dragged her next to Schaeffel. With her still gasping for air, he fired a shot under her chin "up into the cranium". Smith described it as "a good clean finishing shot".
"If you're trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at you, you go again," Smith told investigators, according to a criminal complaint filed Monday.
I am sick of cowardly fucks like this getting a pass in this country simply because they own a gun.
AReasonanableMan sees apparitions: This cowardly cunt is apparently getting the support of gun nuts all over the country.
Put down the bottle, ReasonableMan. You're getting worked-up.
Not one person on this board clearly condemned his behavior and several supported him.
A classic, Reasonable!
Hysterical much?
Apparently ARM is one of those people who think that "data" is the plural form of "anecdote".
Have I told you the story of the bejewelled woman in front of me at the grocery store who bought her junk food and booze w/ food stamps?
You once again failed to note that the two "teens" were in the process of a home invasion and burglary, Reasonable.
Why do you keep doing that?
Ahh the NHL. Pittsburgh Penguin season ticket holder here.
Very violent sport. Players, on occasion, going after each other with sticks. And of course sanctioned fisticuffs. But for some strange reason, not a lot of off-ice gun violence associated with it.
As an aside, one of the more hilarious SNL skits is Plaxico Burress shooting himself. Worth You Tube the watch.
Guess, I didn't. Must have been a different thread, maybe on a different blog. Two.
Sam Kinison says it very well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GXPd0fnpKw
More from Sam, "I'm not worried about Hell. I was married for two fuckin' years."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o70wMlJO3ck
So, Reasonable, suppose that old man facing a home invasion and burglary by two "teens" had not had a gun.
What do you think would have been his fate?
Costas works for NBC right? No way that librul band of douchebags would have fired him for this.
Chip S. said...
here's the conclusion of that article from the Fox-News-financed Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy:
[T]he burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.
This is such transparent BS I am surprised you wanted to post it. Did you actually read the phrase 'when a large number of countries are compared'. Of course if you insist on including the arm-pits of the earth in the comparison the U.S. won't look like an outlier, it will just look like an average shit-hole.
But what happens when you compare the US to actual reasonable countries that someone might want to live in. Then things don't look so good.
This is the gun-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year in English speaking countries.
United States 2.98
Canada 0.5
Australia 0.1
United Kingdom 0.03
New Zealand 0.26
In a comparison of G12 countries the US ranks dead last by a wide margin, similarly in a comparison of most educated countries. Gun violence in the US is a national disgrace.
http://scienceblogs.com/thepumphandle/2012/07/23/gun-violence-is-a-u-s-public-health-problem/
Shouting Thomas said...
So, Reasonable, suppose that old man facing a home invasion and burglary by two "teens" had not had a gun.
What do you think would have been his fate?
One of the teenagers was a girl. He probably could have gone 'boo' and they would have run away.
This guy is one sick fuck, why not condemn him? It won't hurt. Just because he owns a gun doesn't mean that his actions were justified.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
But what happens when you compare the US to actual reasonable countries that someone might want to live in. Then things don't look so good.
This is the gun-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year in English speaking countries.
United States 2.98
Canada 0.5
Australia 0.1
United Kingdom 0.03
New Zealand 0.26
In a comparison of G12 countries the US ranks dead last by a wide margin, similarly in a comparison of most educated countries. Gun violence in the US is a national disgrace.
Only if you don't want to inquire how many of those at room temperature had it coming and overdue.
PS Every last one of those "reasonable" countries is prepared to do to Israel what they did to Czechoslovakia and Poland 75 years ago.
By contrast, car related deaths in the U.S.
12.8 per 100,000.
So, in other words, that 2.98 figure is teeny. The disparity in relation to other countries might look significant. But, in real term, nada.
Your chances of actually being a victim of gun violence, unless you are black or hispanic, are practically zero.
And 55% of gun related deaths are suicide.
Much ado about nothing, Reasonable.
That is, unless you are black or hispanic. You aren't, are you?
I've met some pretty vicious, athletic teenage girls, Reasonable. I'm a 63 year old arthritic man.
I would stand no chance against an athletic teenage girl.
You're making a shitload of assumptions about an incident that you don't really understand.
It's not my place to condemn or approve of the old man. I wasn't there and I won't be in court. These things are for courts to decide. It's not a symbolic event.
If only the networks would impose that same standard of neutrality on political issues on their news casts.
And, Reasonable, your really think that saying "boo" will work with a teenage girl who was involved in a series of home invasions and burglaries?
Why won't you condemn her behavior?
Anyone can read the entire article I gave you, rather than your uncomprehending attempt at a rebuttal, to see what evidence it actually presents.
More importantly, people can easily find all kinds of statistical studies on this point all over the internet.
They will find heated arguments over fine points of statistical inference. But in the end they will find a broad pattern of evidence as summarized in that law journal article.
And all of that demonstrates that your original comment ("his particular talking point is so stupid that I am surprised it has hung around as long as it has") betrays your complete ignorance of a vast literature on the subject of guns and crime.
Of course, your ignorance on the subject doesn't deter you in the least from striking the pose of a highly informed "reasonable" observer. This seems to be a recurring pattern with you.
So, I'll ask you again.
Discount the teenage girl. You're still left with an old man facing a teenage boy who invaded his home.
What do you think would have happened to the old man if he hadn't been armed?
Shouting Thomas said...
And, Reasonable, your really think that saying "boo" will work with a teenage girl who was involved in a series of home invasions and burglaries?
Why won't you condemn her behavior?
As far as I know she has only been accused of breaking into this house and even in this case she could reasonably have claimed to have become worried about her companion. But it is stupid to break into houses, no question. Not evil like executing someone with a gun at point blank range but definitely stupid.
Shouting Thomas said...
So, I'll ask you again.
Discount the teenage girl. You're still left with an old man facing a teenage boy who invaded his home.
What do you think would have happened to the old man if he hadn't been armed?
The boy was not armed so I suspect nothing would have happened. But this is not the point, I am asking you to condemn the man's actual behavior, not some hypothetical.
I have a gun in my home, Reasonable.
If a teenager broke into my home, I would shoot him or her without hesitation.
That's not evil. It's self defense. I'm an old man and I don't have the luxury of waiting it out to see what the teenager plans to do. My only defense is to act immediately. I would lose any kind of physical struggle with a young person.
Whether he "executed" the kids is for the courts to decide. You're jumping to conclusions, in order to puff up your political bias, based on a newspaper story.
The Trayvon Martin story did not turn out to be so reliable, did it?
Do you know what kind of physical condition the old man was in? No, you don't. Age can be disabling in all sorts of ways the young cannot understand. Although I look and function as if I am completely physically fit, I cannot walk for any considerable distance any more because of circulation problems in my legs.
I suspect, Reasonable, that you are young and fit and that you do not understand the physical disabilities of old age.
A teenage boy does not have to be armed to seriously injure or kill an old man. A serious fall is enough to kill an old man.
Chip S. said...
Anyone can read the entire article I gave you, rather than your uncomprehending attempt at a rebuttal, to see what evidence it actually presents.
More importantly, people can easily find all kinds of statistical studies on this point all over the internet.
They will find heated arguments over fine points of statistical inference. But in the end they will find a broad pattern of evidence as summarized in that law journal article.
And all of that demonstrates that your original comment ("his particular talking point is so stupid that I am surprised it has hung around as long as it has") betrays your complete ignorance of a vast literature on the subject of guns and crime.
Of course, your ignorance on the subject doesn't deter you in the least from striking the pose of a highly informed "reasonable" observer. This seems to be a recurring pattern with you.
This is just blather Chip. You usually do a lot better than this, which just underlines how weak this particular argument is.
In comparisons with comparable countries, countries you might actually want to live in, the US has a ridiculously high rate of gun violence. This is just a fact. There is no getting around this fact.
Maybe you are happy to live with this but I'm not. I don't want to live in country where I am afraid to give the finger to some asshole who just cut me off on the off chance that the cowardly prick might be packing heat.
"One of the teenagers was a girl. He probably could have gone 'boo' and they would have run away."
Boo?
He shot her and she laughed (according to his story) and you think she'd have run away if he said "boo?"
The story is weird. I look at the story and I think... that is freaking weird.
You look at it and see reasonable events... a couple of good kids just happened to run into a sick old man, quite by accident, in the basement of his house, and the monster murdered them.
A reasonable person would look at the story and see nothing that made sense and assume they didn't know what happened.
I'm trying to decide in what sort of reality it makes sense to go into the basement. That's B horror movie territory. They're robbing houses and they go in the basement? I'm trying to figure out what sort of reality there is where after you shoot an intruder she laughs at you that's not indie-zombie movie territory.
What I think offends you about this story, Reasonable, are the vindictive and angry statements the old man made.
I understand those statements.
Two able bodied, strong teenagers threatened an old man. He perceived himself, I'll bet, as a weak old man under attack by two ruthless predators who felt no pity on him because of his age and disabilities.
I understand how he felt. I'd probably say the same things in his place.
I don't want to live in country where I am afraid to give the finger to some asshole who just cut me off on the off chance that the cowardly prick might be packing heat.
Your chances of being a victim of gun violence if you are white (which I suspect you are) are just about zero.
Gun violence in the U.S. is almost entirely (1) suicide, or (2) gang violence perpetrated by blacks and hispanics.
So, really, you're just a drama queen.
Shouting Thomas said...
I have a gun in my home, Reasonable.
If a teenager broke into my home, I would shoot him or her without hesitation.
You wouldn't fire a warning shot? I suspect you would, which is why I don't understand why it is so hard to condemn the shooter in this particular case.
You wouldn't fire a warning shot?
No.
As I said, I am incapable of winning a physical struggle with a teenager.
Decisive action is all I've got.
Pay attention, now, kid.
I just said that a serious fall is enough to kill an old man.
You didn't know that, did you?
An old man is acutely aware of this.
"You wouldn't fire a warning shot? I suspect you would,..."
I'd yell. "I'm armed! I called the cops! Get out of my house!" Or maybe, if I thought the intruder would go away because I was, oh, in the basement, and no one else was home to be in danger... I might just hide. So would you.
Firing a warning shot means you watch way too much television. No gun training or safety course would ever ever ever advocate firing a warning shot.
I used to be a pretty tough guy when I was younger, Reasonable.
I avoid all possible physical altercations now.
Punching somebody in the face would probably break my hand. Getting punched anywhere in my body would cause injuries that would take months to heal. A really serious fall might put me out of action for a year or kill me.
When I was young, those injuries would heal in days or a couple of weeks.
You really don't understand this, do you?
I'd like to know in which direction he was supposed to discharge his gun, Reasonable.
In your learned and thoughtful opinion... which direction should that "warning shot" go?
Doubly dangerous, ST, if the old man is on blood thinners... which many are.
Shouting Thomas said...
Gun violence in the U.S. is almost entirely (1) suicide, or (2) gang violence perpetrated by blacks and hispanics.
So, really, you're just a drama queen.
Those teenagers were white, two cousins, she was pretty and he was handsome. Now both dead, brutally murdered. Yet no one here feels that it is OK to condemn Mr Smith for his overly zealous application of his second amendment rights. No one?
One of my uncles died of a minor falling accident because he bled to death.
Synova said...
I'd yell. "I'm armed! I called the cops! Get out of my house!"
Also good alternatives to simply shooting someone dead without any warning.
Now both dead, brutally murdered.
That has not been determined.
It's up to a jury to decide whether he used excessive force.
If they hadn't invaded and attempted to burglarize an old man's home, they'd still be alive.
ARM,
The issue isn't whether the US has more gun related homicides or gun related suicides, the issue is homicides and suicides and violent crime. Does it matter whether someone strangles you or shoots you?
Within these other countries that banned or severely restrict guns, their homicide rate increased.
Like a lot of liberals, you are a flat earther when it comes to data that contradicts your ill-informed views.
So, Reasonable, I gather from your refusal to acknowledge what I've said about the fears of an old man facing two teenagers, I assume...
You really don't know shit about what you're talking about.
Why do you keep carrying on like this? Why does bullshitting about something that has nothing to do with you, and that you don't really understand, occupy your time?
"Those teenagers were white, two cousins, she was pretty and he was handsome. Now both dead, brutally murdered. Yet no one here feels that it is OK to condemn Mr Smith for his overly zealous application of his second amendment rights. No one?"
What? Because they were white and pretty? It's FREAKING MINNESOTA, of course they were white and pretty.
And just because no one will decide without the evidence to unilaterally condemn Smith doesn't mean that anyone is declaring him innocent either.
Maybe pronouncing guilt on no evidence is the way you roll.
The teens, no doubt handsome and beautiful and *white*, were robbing houses, seems to be for drug money. Possibly high as a kite and behaving irrationally... you don't know they weren't. And the good looks of home invaders is irrelevant. You've no information on how physically able Smith is, if he's a strong, strapping red-neck fully capable of running off some stupid teenagers or not. There is some suggestion that a measure of harassment or repeated break-ins was involved. People who have their homes broken into feel profoundly violated. We don't know what was going on other than that some reporter felt it necessary to portray the teens as good kids, bright beautiful, handsome, full of promise athletes instead of drug addicted burglars.
You don't care.
Why should anyone pretend the answer is simple just to please you?
Shouting Thomas said...
I avoid all possible physical altercations now.
Punching somebody in the face would probably break my hand. Getting punched anywhere in my body would cause injuries that would take months to heal. A really serious fall might put me out of action for a year or kill me.
When I was young, those injuries would heal in days or a couple of weeks.
You really don't understand this, do you?
I do, I am not that young myself, and I have become more fearful as I get older. I think you have to fight that fear rather than succumb to it.
This being said I have it very easy. I live in a safe neighborhood. I would not move somewhere where personal safety was a regular issue. I fully understand that not everybody has that luxury. I did not always live where I live now.
I think these personal fears get wrapped up in what is essentially a public safety issue. Guns exacerbate violence. While some individuals may feel that their safety is enhanced by gun ownership the net effect of high gun ownership rates on society is a decrease in personal safety.
While some individuals may feel that their safety is enhanced by gun ownership the net effect of high gun ownership rates on society is a decrease in personal safety.
Really? I think there's an excellent chance that, had the old man not been armed, he would be dead instead of the kids.
"Also good alternatives to simply shooting someone dead without any warning."
Also good? As if a warning shot was the other thing that was "also" good?
Calling out would be *dangerous*. If I didn't know who was in my house and didn't know if they were armed I would have let them know where I was and warned them to shoot me first before I could shoot them.
I probably would do it anyway, depending, and that's why I said that I MIGHT ALSO hide and hope they go away.
None of that makes your recommendation of firing a warning shot less criminally stupid.
mccullough said...
Within these other countries that banned or severely restrict guns, their homicide rate increased.
For those countries I listed, where is there evidence to support this statement? As far as I know it doesn't exist.
ARM,
Violence in the US has decreased in the US over the last 20 years and the number of guns and gun ownership has increased. If your ill-informed beliefs were accurate then violence should have increased not drastically dropped.
Synova said...
Maybe pronouncing guilt on no evidence is the way you roll.
You seriously want to argue that his actions weren't excessive. Good luck with that in the court of public opinion.
mccullough said...
ARM,
Violence in the US has decreased in the US over the last 20 years and the number of guns and gun ownership has increased. If your ill-informed beliefs were accurate then violence should have increased not drastically dropped.
Not the question I asked. Violence has decreased everywhere in the western world to similar degrees. The US still remains an outlier.
Good luck with that in the court of public opinion.
Fortunately, the case will not be tried in "the court of public opinion."
It will be tried in a court of law.
You might be surprised about the outcome in "the court of public opinion," too.
Shouting Thomas said...
Really? I think there's an excellent chance that, had the old man not been armed, he would be dead instead of the kids.
This seems slightly hysterical. There is no evidence that these kids were natural born killers.
ARM,
You can start by actually reading the entire article Chip S linked to. Then read the other sources that article cites.
Anecdotes and intuitions are not a substitute for data. If you want to remain ignorant, then change your handle to An Ignorant Man.
This seems slightly hysterical. There is no evidence that these kids were natural born killers.
They don't have to be.
As I said, kids don't understand the frailty of an old man.
What might seem like a tap on the shoulder to them might cause very serious injury in an old man.
A physical struggle between them and the old man might prove fatal to the old man, regardless of the kids' intentions.
You've kind of neglected to get the point of my previous comments.
Synova said...
None of that makes your recommendation of firing a warning shot less criminally stupid.
You seem fixated on this while at the same time giving suggestions regarding the actions that you might personally take that strike me as notably more risky.
"This seems slightly hysterical. There is no evidence that these kids were natural born killers."
There's evidence that they were drug users who were breaking into houses to steal from people.
Shoving an old man, hard, against a piece of furniture doesn't require being a natural born killer. But for all he knew they were armed. They'd already *proven* they were criminals.
Was he supposed to have a conversation with them first to determine their mental state, and if they turned out to be armed and murderous, only then defended himself?
HOW he went about this may get him convicted of murder. But shooting someone who has proven themselves a criminal by violating your home... that's reasonable to do. The bare bones WHAT of it is clearly self-defense, no matter how pretty or handsome the criminals are.
mccullough said...
Anecdotes and intuitions are not a substitute for data. If you want to remain ignorant, then change your handle to An Ignorant Man.
I did read the article. Did you read the link I gave or address the stats regarding relative levels of gun violence in comparable countries?
"You seem fixated on this while at the same time giving suggestions regarding the actions that you might personally take that strike me as notably more risky."
Hiding?
If someone breaks into your home you don't have a lot of choices.
But discharging a warning shot is always wrong and never taught. Do you actually not know this?
But discharging a warning shot is always wrong and never taught. Do you actually not know this?
I suspect that ARM has never held let alone discharged a real gun--only the warm metaphorical Beatles-type gun.
Synova said...
But discharging a warning shot is always wrong and never taught. Do you actually not know this?
This is ridiculous. I suggested that rather than shoot and kill two teenagers in cold blood it might have been a better idea to fire a warning shot. Seriously, how fucking retarded do you have to to be to not think this was a better option?
I doubt that murdering someone in cold blood is taught in gun class either.
And, for the record, I have shot a rifle in anger or at least in the general direction of a harmless animal. I have never owned a hand gun. I find them unmanly, despite having watched my share of westerns as a child.
"This is ridiculous. I suggested that rather than shoot and kill two teenagers in cold blood it might have been a better idea to fire a warning shot. Seriously, how fucking retarded do you have to to be to not think this was a better option?"
Easily... since you're looking back and not imagining the situation as full of unknowns. You can only go by what a reasonable person would feel in the same situation and you're going by what you think makes sense in hindsight knowing that the invaders were teens and unarmed, something that the man *could not* know.
It's not "cold blood" when there are invaders in your home. It's fear and self-defense.
And you've no way of knowing if these are hardened criminals or high on something bad or planning to shoot you the moment they see you. They've proven they are criminals. You KNOW they are lawbreakers. Felons, right?
That's what you know.
There is a reason that no one teaches anyone to shoot a warning shot. A person on the *receiving* end of a warning shot can't know if it was aimed at them or not and is right to assume it was. If you fire a warning shot and the criminals are armed they will shoot you.
And the bullet still goes somewhere. Every. Time.
What phx said.
ARM, I'll see your link to a blog post and raise you a quote from a review of the literature:
In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents.
Actually, I can't even tell exactly what you think your data have to say about gun laws, since they don't say anything at all about the correlation b/w other countries' gun deaths and their gun laws. For instance, what are the overall crime rates in those countries? There is no logical or empirical basis for the belief that imposing South Korea's gun laws on US residents would yield South Korean gun-homicide rates.
As mccullogh has already pointed out, your data don't even present homicide rates, but simply gun-related homicide rates.
Let me restate my basic point yet again, since you keep failing to recognize it: whether one thinks the evidence is strong or merely mixed regarding the relation b/w guns and crime, it's absurd to claim that doubts about the efficacy of gun control are totally baseless. Which is what you claimed earlier.
If you don't believe me, I'm sure there are numerous self-defense sources that will talk about using guns in self-defense.
Find some who say you should fire a warning shot and I'll at least admit that there are people who teach it.
Everything I've always hear is that the hard rule is to never shoot at all unless you're intending to kill what you shoot at. I don't think anyone teaches shooting-to-wound either. I've never heard it suggested even as a controversy between factions.
ARM,
I read it. I'm familiar with it. England has a lot of violence but bans handguns. Violence, including homicides, went up in England after they banned guns. The issue is overall violence, not the specific means. They have higher knife violence in England than the US, so we must be doing something right. Even though OJ stabbed and slashed his ex-wife and boyfriend, the US didn't ban knives. Must be our knife culture.
By the way, 30 percent of French own handguns but they have lower gun violence than US. Then again they don't have the Thug Life culture of our inner cities with 70% illegitimacy rates.
Humperdink,
"... semi automatic weapons were once banned under Commander-in-Heat Clinton's tenure".
Please, please, let's be careful not to exaggerate here. One of our strengths is how loony the anti-gun folks are, prone to wild hysteria and laughable exaggeration, so it behooves to be as accurate as we can be.
While the AWB was a complete travesty, it did not impose a blanket ban on semi-auto firearms. All it did (and this was bad enough) was to prohibit the sale of newly-manufactured normal-capacity magazines, and newly-manufactured rifles having a (meaningless) combination of features. Firearms already in private hands, and equipment manufactured before the effective date of the law, was not affected at all.
Synova,
I'd yell. "I'm armed! I called the cops! Get out of my house!"
I wouldn't. My house is just average sized, built with average materials (most notably, wood frame and sheet rock interior walls.) No way am I giving any intruder a good hint as to my specific location, unless I'm sure he's not armed.
AuRM,
"Violence has decreased everywhere in the western world to similar degrees."
Not in England!
AReasonableMan said...
Publius said...
I would just like to point out that had Kassandra or her mom had a gun handy, we might have a very different outcome today.
The solution to gun crime is MORE guns, not less.
This particular talking point is so stupid that I am surprised it has hung around as long as it has.
In this ideal world you envisage we will all be armed at all times and the quickest on the draw wins, just like the wild west. What a fucking garish nightmare.
12/4/12 9:12 PM
Huh. So you ASSUME the OP meant they'd USE the gun, vs. have it as a dterrent, and they/their argument are the stupid.
Sold me on your hubris.
I don't want to live in country where I am afraid to give the finger to some asshole who just cut me off on the off chance that the cowardly prick might be packing heat.
They are already in a weapon- a car. They can hurt you with that, you know.
I live in England and I used to tell men not to pee at the entrance to my street. My neighbor, a man who has lived here 35 years, told me I shouldn't do that because you never know who is willing to stab you.
So it's always something.
@KIrk I am fully aware what the AWB covered. But it was just one step down the path I did not want to travel. If not for the NRA and other and like minded citizens, I am sure it soon would have covered not only newly mfg'd, but existing ones also. It surprises me you would not agree with that.
And then on auto loading shotguns.
The best weapon for home defense (my opinion) is a pump shotgun, a Remington 870 comes to mind, with the shortest legal barrel. You generally don't have to jump through hoops to acquire one. The sound of a shell being racked normally gets someones attention. The pattern covers a doorway very nicely.
AReasonableMan said...
In this ideal world you envisage we will all be armed at all times and the quickest on the draw wins, just like the wild west. What a fucking garish nightmare.
It's funny the nuts are always saying shit like this. Similar accusations were made when the so called assault weapon ban failed to be renewed, yet somehow the predictions failed to come true. Compare cities with liberal gun laws to say Chicago, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Which looks more liek the wild west?
For people who like to preen as "the reality based community" they sure are impervious to evidence.
repeated the bizarre belief common to blacks that the massive drug abuse problems in black communities are caused by white racists.
The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this is that Shouting Dumbass is a racist.
Back to the original post. Where should Costas proper place be?
First, he should renounce his own personal armed security. Then he should join Keith Olbermann and Bryan Gumbel in the land of oblivion.
I like how on Sunday night Costas was putting forth the notion that if Belcher didn't have a gun they would both be alive today (quoted from Whitlock's column, but in his clarification yesterday he feels the line should be drawn at semiautomatic weapons. So which is it?
Also ARM, to use a sports reference, is clearly "Monday-morning quarterbacking" the story about the guy killing the teens and making some pretty wild assumptions in the process.
"I don't want to live in country where I am afraid to give the finger to some asshole"
You want to be a jerk without consequences? Explains your career in Internet trollery, then.
Costas is an idiot and a sloppy thinker. But, at least he recognizes he made a mistake; not the right mistake, mind you, but a mistake.
I am sick of cowardly fucks like this getting a pass in this country simply because they own a gun.
Hes being charged with murder. What do you want? Skip the trial and go straight to the gas chamber?
I do notice though that you apparently have no problem with the teens who broke into his house.
Garage, let's parse PolitiFact's statement you link to:
"The statement holds an element of truth in that some deer hunters used some of the weapons. But the statement ignores facts that create a different impression. Experts agreed that the once-banned weapons were not commonly used for deer hunting."
In other words: The NRA did not lie, PolitiFact would just like to make a counter claim smuggled in as a fact check. Did Barret vote to ban rifles, including some that were used for deer hunting (perhaps commonly in some areas?) Yes. He did.
But, PolitiFact decided it was more important to lie to you and muddy the waters.
Barret voted for what the NRA said; what PolitiFact is saying is that, well, some experts think people could just use other rifles instead. This is why as a rule Republicans are distrustful of PolitiFact. Because they are not doing journalism or fact checks, they are engaging in issue advocacy.
"you apparently have no problem with the teens who broke into his house"
butbutbut... they were white! And pretty!
‘sometimes the quality of the thinking of those who oppose you speaks for itself.’
That's what I thought about Costas and his challenged brain. A poor thinker and so, obviously, a sports commonpotator.
Warning shot? Hell, no. A warning shot just gives them a chance to prepare to shoot or stab me.
"This particular talking point is so stupid that I am surprised it has hung around as long as it has. In this ideal world you envisage we will all be armed at all times and the quickest on the draw wins, just like the wild west. What a fucking garish nightmare."
-- Take it up with John Lott, who has done actual science to show that this is a reasonable interpretation.
P.S, The "Wild West" was actually relatively peaceful compared to what you think it was, especially compared to some modern day cities. A murder rate of 1 in 100,000 would be amazing, especially considering in 2011, the DOJ had this to say: "This week, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced that in 2010 the U.S. homicide rate fell to 4.2 homicides per 100,000 residents, the lowest U.S. homicide rate in four decades."
So, yes. If we could go back to Wild West level of homicide rates, that would be great.
"One of the teenagers was a girl. He probably could have gone 'boo' and they would have run away."
-- Imagine if a Republican had said this. This is incredibly misogynistic.
Also: You never fire a warning shot. A warning shot could hit something you do not want to hit; it gives them time to draw a weapon if they have it. If you draw your gun and point it at someone, you intend to shoot or cover that person. If they are breaking into your home, you are probably going to shoot them. This is coming from someone who will probably never own a gun, mind you. I don't like the responsibility that would come with carrying or owning one, so I won't. But it is not a magical talisman that works like on TV.
As for this: "Those teenagers were white, two cousins, she was pretty and he was handsome. Now both dead, brutally murdered."
-- And they were breaking into his house. After the Trayvon case, and realizing how the prosecutor played the media to try the shooter in the court of public opinion by withholding evidence, I am waiting again to come to any conclusions if this was a justified shooting or not. It may not have been, but we won't know for a long time.
"You've no information on how physically able Smith is, if he's a strong, strapping red-neck fully capable of running off some stupid teenagers or not."
-- It doesn't matter if he was Bruce Lee in his prime; simply because someone is fit doesn't mean they are required to risk their lives in deadly confrontations with home invaders when he could use a weapon to ensure his survival. We need to wait till we get more information on this one.
ARM thinks its reasonable to fire a warning shot rather than to shoot a home intruder. That of course assumes the intruder isn't armed him/herself. ARM obviously doesn't think its unreasonable to break into someone's home and be expected to face any consequences.
As for me, break into my house and I will kill you. No warning shot. I'm not risking my life or family's life to assuage the delicate conscience of bleeding hearts like ARM.
For the liberals who don't want to live in a country with a Second Amendment, leave. Please. The vast majority of Americans who cherish our right to bear arms will do just fine without you thank you very much.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा