T Nation

Bob Costas and the 2nd Amendment

So during halftime last night Mr Costas went on a 90 second rant quoting from Fox Sports Jason Whitlock’s column about the Javon Belcher tragedy.

The side they are taking is that if there were no guns both the player and his girlfriend would be alive today.

Now I think this is a horribly short sided view but more than that, was Costas correct to use halftime to present his viewpoint?

link for reference:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/bob-costas-advocates-gun-control-sunday-night-football-164208209--nfl.html

Of course there were a myriad of others I grabbed this one from my email.

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
was Costas correct to use halftime to present his viewpoint?

[/quote]

No. I think it was tacky and uncalled for. His opinion is his opinion, the fact I think it is idiotic aside, he shoudln’t be messing up my Sunday Night Football by bringing politics into the frey.

A bad thing happened, no need to be a classless hack on top of it.

And pic related.

Common sense gun laws don’t bother me, but if he is arguing for flat out taking them all away from everyone I’d have to laugh and laugh hard.

I haven’t killed anyone with my guns yet (though I have taken out some animals!). I wonder if Costas thinks I’ve just been lucky.

And +1 to beans on quit getting politics in the way of my football.

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

The side they are taking is that if there were no guns both the player and his girlfriend would be alive today.

[/quote]

As if a 228-pound linebacker in the NFL couldn’t have found a way to kill his girlfriend without a firearm and ammunition.

I’m in favor of an assault weapons ban and stricter background-check laws, but it’s this kind of idiotic reasoning that makes any real debate impotent.

And yeah, lets not dirty halftime with politics.

I love this clip.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

The side they are taking is that if there were no guns both the player and his girlfriend would be alive today.

[/quote]

As if a 228-pound linebacker in the NFL couldn’t have found a way to kill his girlfriend without a firearm and ammunition.

I’m in favor of an assault weapons ban and stricter background-check laws, but it’s this kind of idiotic reasoning that makes any real debate impotent.[/quote]

define “assault” weapon.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

define “assault” weapon.[/quote]

Salt shooting fly gun?

This was tone-deaf for many different reasons, but the one thing that stood out to me was its lack of common sense. I don’t know what kind of gun Belcher used - I assume it was a handgun. Few gun-control advocates think all guns should be banned, i.e., hunting rifles/shotguns are okay, it’s mainly assault weapons or concealable weapons…etc.

Well, even if gun control advocates had gotten their wish, the tragedy wouldn’t have been prevented. The murder wasn’t dependent on the concealability of the weapon or it’s ability to rapid fire: Belcher could have achieved the same ends with the kinds of guns pretty much everyone agrees should be legal - i.e., a basic hunting firearm.

Since that is the case, why make the tragedy out to be a case for gun control when the nature of the gun had nothing to do with it? And if Costas thinks that the issue is the availability of any kind of gun, which is the only way his diatribe makes sense, well, [b]come out and say so[/b]. Notably, he did not, because he knows how absurd it sounds.

In any event, Costas has always appeared to have an inferiority complex over his place in journalism and he has always wanted to validate himself as someone doing something more than covering touchdowns and interceptions. Let it go, Costas - you’ve proven you don’t have the timing, sense or gravitas to handle the job. Let someone else do it, and let’s get back to football.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

The side they are taking is that if there were no guns both the player and his girlfriend would be alive today.

[/quote]

As if a 228-pound linebacker in the NFL couldn’t have found a way to kill his girlfriend without a firearm and ammunition.

I’m in favor of an assault weapons ban and stricter background-check laws, but it’s this kind of idiotic reasoning that makes any real debate impotent.[/quote]

So you believe it is how a gun “looks” that makes it dangerous?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
was Costas correct to use halftime to present his viewpoint?

[/quote]

No. I think it was tacky and uncalled for. His opinion is his opinion, the fact I think it is idiotic aside, he shoudln’t be messing up my Sunday Night Football by bringing politics into the frey.

A bad thing happened, no need to be a classless hack on top of it.

And pic related.[/quote]

THIS

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

The side they are taking is that if there were no guns both the player and his girlfriend would be alive today.

[/quote]

As if a 228-pound linebacker in the NFL couldn’t have found a way to kill his girlfriend without a firearm and ammunition.

I’m in favor of an assault weapons ban and stricter background-check laws, but it’s this kind of idiotic reasoning that makes any real debate impotent.[/quote]

define “assault” weapon.[/quote]

I’m not interested in arguing (or qualified to argue) specific parameters of hypothetical legislation, but I wouldn’t mind it if, for example, James Holmes hadn’t been able to buy an M&P15.

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

The side they are taking is that if there were no guns both the player and his girlfriend would be alive today.

[/quote]

As if a 228-pound linebacker in the NFL couldn’t have found a way to kill his girlfriend without a firearm and ammunition.

I’m in favor of an assault weapons ban and stricter background-check laws, but it’s this kind of idiotic reasoning that makes any real debate impotent.[/quote]

So you believe it is how a gun “looks” that makes it dangerous?

[/quote]

How many times it can be fired without reloading.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

The side they are taking is that if there were no guns both the player and his girlfriend would be alive today.

[/quote]

As if a 228-pound linebacker in the NFL couldn’t have found a way to kill his girlfriend without a firearm and ammunition.

I’m in favor of an assault weapons ban and stricter background-check laws, but it’s this kind of idiotic reasoning that makes any real debate impotent.[/quote]

So you believe it is how a gun “looks” that makes it dangerous?

[/quote]

How many times it can be fired without reloading.[/quote]

Clip size.

I shot a Thompson recently. Even on Semi (one trigger pull, one bullet) I could fuck up serious shit with a drum mag.

^ Thats awesome, thompsons are badass man.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

How many times it can be fired without reloading.

[/quote]

If one insisted on killing his wife with a firearm it could easily be done with a single shot gun or rifle.

So why do you ask?

Would the KC Chief and his wife still be alive if he’d used a Ruger No. 1, a single shot rifle?
[/quote]

That’s exactly the point I made above, Push.

I said Costas was being stupid, that an NFL linebacker would have found a way to kill his girlfriend without a gun.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

The side they are taking is that if there were no guns both the player and his girlfriend would be alive today.

[/quote]

As if a 228-pound linebacker in the NFL couldn’t have found a way to kill his girlfriend without a firearm and ammunition.

I’m in favor of an assault weapons ban and stricter background-check laws, but it’s this kind of idiotic reasoning that makes any real debate impotent.[/quote]

define “assault” weapon.[/quote]

I’m not interested in arguing (or qualified to argue) specific parameters of hypothetical legislation,

[/quote]

Don’t run, smh.

It’s good to know that what you mind or don’t mind might very well be the criteria for defining an unalienable right. Maybe it would be fun to apply that logic to our other rights. Shall we?
[/quote]

I’m not saying guns should be illegal, am I?

Do you think the second amendment makes any attempt to limit the proliferation of any firearm unconstitutional? Do you think Uzis should make their way back into the market?

Edit: By the way, this was about legislation I would support, so the topic pretty much was what I personally want/don’t want, as is the case with pretty much every discussion on this board.