Sunday Night Football’s Bob Costas takes on the ‘gun culture’ UPDATED
Between the shooting in Florida of a teen whose car stereo was too loud (by a concealed carry permit holder) and the death over the weekend of the Kansas City Chiefs’ Jovan Belcher, who shot his girlfriend to death before taking his own life, lots of questions are being raised in the media about our gun culture. Below is Bob Costas on Sunday night football, and Fox & Friends’ take on that.
Update: The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre suggests Jovan Belcher’s girlfriend should have been armed to save her life!
December 3, 2012 - 3:06 PM
Costas’ condescending rant was ridiculous. Is he proposing the ban of handguns or all guns? He seems to be proposing the latter. But it doesn’t appear that this was a flash-killing. Belcher could have just as easily done this with grandpa’s deer rifle.
Instead of focusing on the mental health issues (which, regardless of their origin are the real issue), he chose the tool.
This is why pro gun people cringe when they hear the word “reasonable” attached to a gun control proposal. Because here is a well-regarded, intelligent, and reasonable member of the media who has proposed banning gun ownership or at the very least, banning the single most popular class of weapons. That’s not reasonable for a multitude of reasons.
I’ll repost my response to pistol pete and an e-mail to a friend who asked me if I had seen this:
pistol pete:
“Bob Costas just lost millions of fans last night on SNF”
Of course his job is safe Kristen. It’s not like he was going against the grain with that network. Costas just read and nodded along with someone else’s reiteration of the same old gun control mantra that says everything will escalate into violence because of more guns. Truth is that despite a very sharp rise in the number of people lawfully carrying guns, that violent crime is down. The piece also said the player and his girlfriend would be alive today if he hadn’t possessed a gun and that may be true, but ignored that players and significant others don’t need guns to harm one another.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-12-17/news/17942628_1_chris-henry-bengals-owner-mike-brown-fiancee
I guess we need tougher pickup truck control too. As for increased numbers of guns escalating every situation, don’t forget this failed prediction of a “bloodbath” when concealed guns were uneventfully allowed into restaurants that serve alcohol.
http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/2011/08/dont-crow-too-hard-about-mondays-guns-bars-story/
Comment by John Wilburn — December 3, 2012 @ 10:01 am
To my friend:
Costas might think he’s reading some articulate, intelligent stuff, but that silly argument is long played out and proven to be absurd.
Costas’ comments (via the “original” author) basically said our government should make a move on lawful guns as that player was law-abiding. It’s not a case of fallen-into-the-wrong-hands; no, it’s wanting to take from the citizens at-large. As other places where free isn’t free have shown us, it does not stop with guns. Once guns are gone, they’ll go after knives, then sticks, then rocks above ground. It never stops. The government’s appetite for greed is never satisfied. There are more “guns on the streets” now than ever and violent crime is down. There is a pile of proof that the gun itself and widespread ownership are not the problem. Costas’ cherry-picked example does not sway me on whit, but if things like that can get enough people to reach for the tissues, that can sell it to well-meaning, but naïve people who are unknowingly giving their own long-term safety away….what’s even more sad, when a tragedy like this is used as a political “football”.
Dan,
The NFL is in damage control for this “workplace violence” incident. They are afraid people are going to peg this to the “football head-injury” issues of late; so they are trying to get out front and blame it on “guns” as opposed to the person responsible.
Is this really a “gun” issue or a violence issue (or maybe a mental health issue)? I suppose I know your answer as you left out the recent “crossbow” killing or the hundreds of deaths by stabbing, particularly by youths, (I suppose those people are “less dead” than those killed with “guns”.)
I never knew Bob Costas was such a gutless coward. If his panties were bunched so badly, why didn’t he speak for himself? Instead, he hid behind the canard of ‘I was only quoting what the guy who’s not a coward (Jason Whitlock) was saying…’ That gave Costas plausible deniability, in his mind at least, in case people reacted negatively. What a weak little coward…
crooked road,
Costas explicitly endorsed what Whitlock said. He simply added that he could not say it any better.
Criticize him for a legitimate reason, but not because of that.
Player shoots his GF and himself
Costas blames the gun
Costas just doesn’t want to criticize an abuser so he is deflecting. He’d rather blame the inanimate object instead of the pattern of domestic abuse by college and NFL players.
mikeO,
Are you saying that if that CC permit holder in Fla. had left his handgun home, he would have shot the teen with the too-loud stereo with his crossbow? That’s ridiculous and you know it.
Dan,
I suggest you reread the post, you obviously (unintentionally) missed something…
No, Dan, I’ll criticize Bob Costas for his fear of speaking his own words. Why hide behind – ‘this guy just says it PERFECTLY, and I, a professional commentator, have zero thoughts except those the other guy wrote…’
That’s a gutless cowardly way of making a statement while not being man enough to own it. Your posit is that Costas was unable to express any of his own thoughts on this topic he’s so passionate about, because they’d all be inferior to those Whitlock crafted? Yes, I know Costas hid behind that pansy excuse, but that doesn’t mean he was honest in doing so.
Yes, he deserves criticism for being cowardly, as well as for capitalizing on a tragedy while ignoring the obvious factors that disproved his… excuse me, Whitlock’s opinion. We have to remember, Bob Costas is too weak to express his own thoughts in a coherent manner. He’s never developed a reputation for presenting any thoughts in a coherent manner during his career as a commentator over the last few decades.
Give me a break. Costas is a gutless coward, not to mention wrong on the topic. Oops, Whitlock is wrong, and Costas the coward is just busy holding on to the man’s opinion.
“Give me a break. Costas is a gutless coward, not to mention wrong on the topic. Oops, Whitlock is wrong, and Costas the coward is just busy holding on to the man’s opinion.”
I wonder if you’d be on here, proclaiming his gutlessness, if he had quoted a pro-gun columnist instead of Whitlock.
I kind of doubt that . . . which would mean that your chief objection is the content and power of the words, not that be borrowed them (with full attribution) from another.
Dear Bob Costas,
Tell me again about still being alive if the enraged football player didn’t have a gun.
Sincerely,
Nicole Brown Simpson
Dan, what “power” of words? It was just that same old lame “If there weren’t a gun” stuff. C grade high school paper material, maybe.
What a bunch of perceptive people. Costas said NOTHING about gun control.
He spoke of our “gun culture” and he is spot on with that notice. The “gun culture” that glorifies having, carrying and using a gun for self defense, for supposed offenses (stand your ground) and that big umbrella of “protection”, sells all too many people on having and carrying a gun and then when the heights of despair or anger are reached, that gun is so easy to reach for and use.
Costas and the column he quoted, both make rational, important points that we ignore at our own peril. Guns are too damn easy to get and use, but they are also as hyped and as big a symbol of machismo as anything else involved in sports, Hollywood, music or the drug culture.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/jovan-belcher-kansas-city-chiefs-murder-suicide-tragedy-girlfriend-self-leave-orphan-daughter-why-still-playing-sunday-120112
It will not stop until we stop it.
Costas spoke out and is not hiding in the safety of anonymity so NO ONE has the right to call him “a gutless coward” IMO. Neither is Whitlock.
Dan
Costas didn’t say those things in the video.
His microphone did.
I’m thinking Costas lied to get one of his early gigs. Calling a hockey game?
Wrong again, Dan. My entire issue, as I posted above, is that Costas is cowardly in hiding behind Whitlock’s words.
As for favoring an opinion because it matches one’s own – I’d say that would be the reason for your selection of this topic. Your anti-gun columns are too numerous to list, so you might want to think twice before tossing stones at me while inside your own glass house.
Take the time to re-read my posts above. It’s pretty obvious my issue with Costas – being too cowardly to own his opinion. I’d criticize him secondly for broaching the topic during a sports broadcast. Far down the list is his reasoning, faulty as it is.
Sorry, but I will err on the side of more freedom-not less. The following FACT is from the Richmond Times.
“Gun-related violent crime in Virginia has dropped steadily over the past six years as the sale of firearms has soared to a new record, according to an analysis of state crime data with state records of gun sales.
The total number of firearms purchased in Virginia increased 73 percent from 2006 to 2011. When state population increases are factored in, gun purchases per 100,000 Virginians rose 63 percent.
But the total number of gun-related violent crimes fell 24 percent over that period, and when adjusted for population, gun-related offenses dropped more than 27 percent, from 79 crimes per 100,000 in 2006 to 57 crimes in 2011.”
yep, guns’r sure dangerous…
jus’ like cars are when driven by inexperienced, reckless, and mentally unstable people.
jus’ like prescription drugs are when taken by inexperienced, reckless, and mentally unstable people.
just’ like…well, …y’all get the drift. as we ALL know, libs will exploit any and all forums they can to prance around and chant their “abolish hand-guns” agenda. sooo, leave it to libs to exploit a baby girl who lost her mother to a murderous thug….for their own lib political agenda.
And, I think that tackle football, as we know it, should be abolished!
Wel…about that last comment, …not so fast. But, I’d bet that there’s a bunch of pantywaist libs out there who have THAT chant memorized as well.
John,
I was talking about the power those words have to make the gun crowd whine about them.
crooked road,
My columns are not anti-gun. My columns (when I write about guns, which I haven’t in awhile) have been 1) anti giving concealed carry permits to people who have never touched a handgun, via video “training” and 2) anti-concealed carry in bars and 3) I have written here on this blog in support of open carry in bars.
But anyway, you’re saying that if Costas had quoted John Lott you’d be screaming about that too, here on this blog. (right!)
Sandi Saunders:
“It will not stop until we stop it.”
What is “it”? Murder? That is already illegal. Domestic violence? That is already illegal. Were Belcher’s hands the “wrong hands”? If so, I guess you’re advocating an outright repeal of the Second Amendment.
There is NO “stopping it” in the way you’re suggesting and you know it! What we really need is for EVERY child to have strong role models and we do need to build a better society, but putting tens of thousands more words upon the tens of thousands of words we already have in the law in an attempt to control people and their guns is not the answer.
Sure, Dan. You just happen to write columns protesting the lack of controls of guns in most all forms. Every publicized shooting like this seems to make a convenient column for you. Very coincidental.
As for your insinuation that I was being dishonest above, that is not appreciated, because it is wrong as I already pointed out. FTR, I don’t even know who John Lott is, so your theory is destroyed just that easily. Next tangent? Also, I did no ‘screaming’ about Costas getting his panties in a bunch earlier. I just called him out for being a gutless coward who wouldn’t man up & own his words, instead choosing to hide behind the ample bottom of Jason Whitlock while raging against guns. I disagree with Whitlock, but at least he’s man enough to own his words. Something that can’t be said about little Bobbie Costas.
‘John,
I was talking about the power those words have to make the gun crowd whine about them.’
Just like the power those words have to cause the anti-gun crowd to weep about the supposedly unprecedented dangers we face from guns. Creating more blogs with the same ole same ole hand wringing. Yawn…
The same people who natter on so knowledgeably about “thug culture” and “urban inner cities” throw themselves on the pyre of High Dudgeon And Righteous Indignation if anyone dares to put a finer point on what those things mean. Guns.
Hypocrites.
crooked road,
Here’s the link to my column archive — http://www.roanoke.com/wb/xp-197537
Why don’t you go through it and report back on the number of gun columns I’ve written? (I doubt you’ll do this, because it’s a TINY percentage).
Well, here’s my take on all of this. Just my humble opinions.
1. I think if the Chiefs player had not had access to a firearm, he likely would have found another way to kill his girlfriend and himself.
2. I think if the guy in Florida had not had access to a firearm, he likely would have kept his mouth shut and wouldn’t have taken the life of an unarmed young man.
3. I didn’t see Bob Costas’ speach, but if he said what I’ve read he said, KNOWING he would piss off a whole big bunch of pro-gun viewers, he is definitely NOT a coward.
I just read an article that 96% of the Ivy league professors that contributed money to the Presidential campaign gave to Obama. Here lies the problem. The best and the brightest are being lead down the path of liberalism. The process starts in elementary school and continues throughout college, especially in the liberal arts arena. I encourage open dialouge in the education process, but the scale should be much more balanced. This is a major reason why we are on the path we are on….like it or not.
A vast majority of gun violence is by inner city blacks and the culture that surrounds them. Gangs, rap music, machismo,single mothers, baby daddy’s that don’t participate and entitlements. Virtually 100% of this demographic voted for Obama. Why? Things are getting worse for these folks and no one will address their problem, most notably Obama.
LOL, gun-related violent crimes down to 57 crimes in 100,000 in 2011 and yet we still need more guns and some can’t be unarmed in public?
Again, the argument per se is not gun rights, it is the gun culture which glorifies and makes the machismo factor so alluring that there are guns in abundance where guns are not respected, where they are carelessly handled and where they are so likely to be used to end a confrontation or in a crime. You cannot say this is not true and not a problem. IDK if that is a gun control issue in the end, but your bitter and totally predictable overreaction to the truth certainly says a lot.
Good one John Wilburn, you have no clue what I am suggesting but you know “There is NO “stopping it” in the way you’re suggesting”. You never disappoint.
Sandi Saunders-
“It will not stop until we stop it.”
Almost the entire country has run away from your way of dealing with gun violence in the last twenty years. And gun murders (and all violent crime) have dropped by more than 1/3.
The horrifying thing is that we’ve achieved this drop without making meaningful inroads toward the root causes of violence. Imagine where the murder rate would be without drug prohibition or if everyone had a shot at getting a quality education, etc.
“A vast majority of gun violence is by inner city blacks and the culture that surrounds them.”
Precisely as I said above. Any of you gun advocates have the stones to address this?
Guess what, AC. There’s a reason Ivy League educated people go democrat The smarter and better educated someone is, the more likely they are to vote democrat. This isn’t news.
Another Chuck, is it your position that there are thousands of conservative teachers and professors going without work because schools only hire liberals? Or is it maybe the truth that the enlightened and educated minds naturally gravitate toward progress, and Progressiveness? Which is more likely to a rational mind?
If the “best and the brightest” are liberals that is not a problem, it is education and open minds making their own choices.
I do not know about your children, but mine and most of the children I have ever known became increasingly hard to fool and force into any POV. Maybe the rejection of conservatism should tell you something besides that there is some dark brain-washing conspiracy.
Even if you believe every word you said in your last paragraph, please do tell us what Romney or conservatives have to offer any of those voters?
Jason:
“Imagine where the murder rate would be without drug prohibition or if everyone had a shot at getting a quality education, etc.”
Yes, get rid of drug prohibition. Like I said, we need role models; they ARE good education themselves.
We need more youth gun education. Not just hunters’ safety, but meaningful, politically neutral, age-appropriate firearm education. That would go a long way toward helping our culture.
Jason, WTF is my “way of dealing with gun violence”?
I just read an article that 96% of the Ivy league professors that contributed money to the Presidential campaign gave to Obama. Here lies the problem. The best and the brightest are being lead down the path of liberalism.
I disagree that the Ivy League professors who donate to presidential campaigns are the best and the brightest.
If you advocate a system that doesn’t work and has never worked, can you really be called the brightest?
The brightest professors on any campus are the math and engineering guys, and I would bet they go GOP most of the time.
“I just read an article that 96% of the Ivy league professors that contributed money to the Presidential campaign gave to Obama. Here lies the problem. The best and the brightest are being lead down the path of liberalism. The process starts in elementary school and continues throughout college, especially in the liberal arts arena. I encourage open dialouge in the education process, but the scale should be much more balanced. This is a major reason why we are on the path we are on….like it or not.”
Another Chuck,
Kristen makes a good point — the more educated a person is, the more likely he or she was to vote for Obama. So it makes perfect since that Ivy League professors, who are highly educated, would support the president.
Of course, there will always be exceptions, just like there will always be a few choirboys who grow up to rapists. It’s sad, but that’s the way it is.
I think what you conservatives need to to do is simply keep your kids out of schools and universities. Then their minds won’t get polluted — especially with facts that interfere with the dogma you want them to believe. Pesky thing, facts.
“The best and the brightest are being lead down the path of liberalism.”
You may want to think about that one for a second…
I think everyone is blaming, Costas, and not paying attention to the real issues here.
First off, I think we can all attest to the fact that everyone has a boss, and I am relatively sure that Costas was given a few choices on what to say, whether it was from writers, or his boss(es). I know the words spat forth from his mouth, but lets relax a little here. I think by him saying what he did, or regurgitating really, took some man parts if you catch my drift. So I don’t feel that he merits being called a coward at all. I don’t think he is a coward or a hero, he is simply reporting a point of view, one that may not have been presented, and I commend him and his staff for it.
Second, again we should all recognize the fact that when bad things happen close to us we all sit back and regroup, and rethink the situation. Think about our stance on things. To Costas, and many others this hit pretty close to home. They see these guys every week. They get to know them, as we get to know our coworkers. It is a little closer to home to them, so I think they may be a little more vocal about this. For these guys to question the events in a way that puts all aspects of the event under a microscope; is that natural? Is it really too much for our society to let them grieve in a way that we all would? Some will say, “Well if he didn’t have a gun, this wouldn’t have happened”, well flip that coin, “If she had a gun this wouldn’t have happened.”
My point is this, lets weigh in all the factors and do what is best for society as a whole. Let’s stop “What If” everything. My Gunny used to say, “You gonna what if it to death Devil Dawg! What if my sister had a D**k? Well, then she would be my brother! What if cats had machine guns? Dogs wouldn’t chase them.” Well… in some way those are words to live by. IMO<— is that really necessary? IMO, if you write it, is it not your opinion?
Any form or tactic of violence in a senseless killing is a tradgedy. Not sure I agree with all of Costas asumptions but convey heartfelt thoughts and a healing process to all families involved.Godspeed!
Kristen:
““A vast majority of gun violence is by inner city blacks and the culture that surrounds them.”
Precisely as I said above. Any of you gun advocates have the stones to address this?”
I’ve been saying we need more role models and this group has fewer role models around, expecially dads, than any other. No amount of politics, legislation, spending, or government fixes this. It’s cultural and they have to solve it.
John Wilburn-
“We need more youth gun education. Not just hunters’ safety, but meaningful, politically neutral, age-appropriate firearm education. That would go a long way toward helping our culture.”
Take 10 or 15 minutes to teach the four rules every year until they graduate high school. If you know them and follow them, gun “accidents” become virtually impossible. The rules have no political or ideological leaning.
So the problem isn’t guns. The problem is black people.
#36 “The brightest professors on any campus are the math and engineering guys, and I would bet they go GOP most of the time.”
Proof? Of course not.
The trajectory of this discussion is bizarre. It started a with a debate (generous term) about a domestic tragedy involving a man, a woman, and a handgun. Then, Wayne LaPierre from the NRA suggests that the victim might still be alive if she had a gun with which to defend herself. Another Chuck injects references to drugs, gangs, rap music, and John Wilburn says that their culture is the problem and they will have to change it.
I think this brings us full circle back to Jason Whitlock’s point. OUR culture, not their culture, has created a culture that glorifies the handgun. OUR culture in large measure values power, and possessing a handgun is seductively symbolic of that power, legitimate or not.
One last thought. Comparing automobiles, machines designed for transport, and handguns, machines designed for killing people, does nothng to advance any argument regarding handguns.
“The brightest professors on any campus are the math and engineering guys, and I would bet they go GOP most of the time”
Brightest is up for debate, but I would guess the GOP voting percentage of math and engineering professors is higher than for other professors.
I feel the need to once again make clear that however vigorous my defense of gun rights might be, Wayne Lapierre is a colossal douche bag. Could have taken the high road. Could have talked about mental illness. But once again, he goes with the “guns are magic talismans” approach. Idiot.
Nosaj:
“John Wilburn says that their culture is the problem and they will have to change it.”
Someone else brought up black inner city folk, so yes, they need to fix their role model and responsibility problems. How on earth can the decision to abandon one’s child be someone else’s problem. No one made that guy knock some girl up or walk away from him/her. For what it’s worth, Bill Cosby agrees with me.
http://www.humanevents.com/2006/09/07/bill-cosby-and-black-responsibility-brthe-problem-of-blaming-the-victim/
One of our unique freedoms is gun ownership. My sister from NM says she hides an unlicensed handgun under her pickup’s front seat. My brother from Durham says he does the same thing. They both admit using their guns for personal defense falls into an unknown predicament. As a resident of the nation’s capital – I do not own a gun. I’ve always thought that I would run away from a situation involving the possibility that someone would murder me with a gun. Our parents were good role models and taught us to be law-abiding, intelligent contributors to society. I simply do not understand how domestic violence can escalate into murder. Call me naive, I suppose. Murdering a fellow human is grotesque and barbaric and so…hmmm…final. However, I do accept euthanasia and suicide and don’t think we should intervene.
DC said: I think what you conservatives need to to do is simply keep your kids out of schools and universities. Then their minds won’t get polluted — especially with facts that interfere with the dogma you want them to believe. Pesky thing, facts.
Dan, if you had substituted the word philosophies with facts, your post would have been much more accurate.
i think that dance and poetry professors are predominantly lib, and the great majority of’m vote lib. I don’t know why that would be.
hey miss sandi,
a gun isn’t any more violent than a car. people are violent.
A Good Education can be defined in many ways. I could get a doctorate in Amphibians but not know how replace a doorknob.
Another subjective point about what a good education is. Listening to a bunch of people with PhD’s for 4-6 years doesn’t mean one is educated.
Kids are neutral human beings at birth. The children born into this “culture” you all keep talking about didn’t ask to be brought into their predicament.
Ever hear of big brother or big sister?
JW, I don’t disagree with you that we need more positive role models, but those role models can, and should, come from all walks of life, all ethnicities, all genders. While we are a melting pot of cultures in the US, we are strongest and most vital when we come together and help one another, regardless of background. I took your comment to mean that the problems you spoke of were someone else’s, that they don’t touch you, and that you could not be part of the solution. I don’t agree with that. These problems are our problems, and we can be part of the solution.
Dr. Cosby did indeed agree with you, but I believethat the solutions – focus on family, education, consistent employment – are most achievable if we, as a larger culture, are part of the solution.
Britwit, how are our gun ownership rights “unique”?
#51 “i think that dance and poetry professors are predominantly lib, and the great majority of’m vote lib…”
Go ahead and give us more detail about why you have this theory, Frank.
Another Chuck, interesting that you urge Dan to sub “philosophies” for “facts” as if philosophies were akin to propaganda or brainwashing. In my view, you are the one eschewing facts and espousing “philosophies” like trickle down economics, tough on crime, might makes right, and government is (bad, socialist, communist), your choice.
Frank, automobiles are machines designed to transport people and things. Handguns are machines designed to kill people. That people die in automobiles is not the same as people dying as a result of handgun use. Let’s retire this flawed comparison.
http://wtkr.com/2012/12/04/person-expected-to-recover-after-being-shot-in-virginia-beach/
This guy re-entered the store in defense of his coworker. He wouldn’t have re-entered in the first place had Autozone respected his right to carry on his person. AutoZone would rather their employees die.
http://wtkr.com/2012/11/30/autozone-employee-fired-after-taking-action-against-fake-beard-bandit/
britwit:
“My sister from NM says she hides an unlicensed handgun under her pickup’s front seat. My brother from Durham says he does the same thing.”
Neither NM nor NC “license” their handguns. Presumably, you are talking about a person having a license to carry concealed. Your sister in New Mexico is legal as NM doesn’t require a Concealed Handgun License for vehicle carry. While open carry in the vehicle is a legal alternative, both of those states are “shall-issue” and that would bring your brother into compliance with the law as well. Word of warning to your brother, NC puts the burden of proactively notifying the officer if the motorist is carrying at initial contact. Legally, he would have to notify an officer who stops him right up front and it would then come to light that he doesn’t have a CHP.
Yes, this is just a silly way to make a criminal out of someone who is not, but it is the law in NC. Whereas, if driving in Virignia, he would be okay (so long as the handgun is in a “compartment”), but driving through DC, he would be a felon.
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/northcarolina.pdf
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/newmexico.pdf
“As a resident of the nation’s capital – I do not own a gun. I’ve always thought that I would run away from a situation involving the possibility that someone would murder me with a gun.”
At least you can once again legally own a gun now thanks to Dick Heller, Emily Miller, Alan Gura, and the others who fought to end that 32 year Second Amendment blackout there. There are a lot of people whose very last thought of their life was to run away.
“Our parents were good role models and taught us to be law-abiding, intelligent contributors to society.”
Presuming he is lawfullay allowed to possess a gun in the first place, your brother may not be in complete compliance with North Carolina law, but he is complying with the Constitution whether the state is or not.
“I simply do not understand how domestic violence can escalate into murder. Call me naive, I suppose.”
You are naive, but you can always learn and prepare now. Hopefully, in the near future, DC residents will once again have their right to carry restored.
No, Nosaj, both the liberal and conservative approaches are both philosophies on how to best operate government. Dan was the one who labeled the liberal philosophy as fact.
Nosaj:
“role models can, and should, come from all walks of life, all ethnicities, all genders.”
I agree
“I took your comment to mean that the problems you spoke of were someone else’s, that they don’t touch you, and that you could not be part of the solution.”
Not at all. My handgun carry classes are likely the most diverse you’ll find anywhere and I take pride in that. No matter who you are or where you’re from, provided you are legal, you can learn responsible carrying, use, and ownership in my classes and import that knowledge and skill into any environment and, even better, pass it along. I sincerely hope that responsible, black, inner city guys and gals who want to be good role models will take classes like mine and change the “gun culture” in those areas for the better. This is something we cannot legislate, though. Members of those communities have to be the change they want to see.
Kristen:
“Britwit, how are our gun ownership rights “unique”?”
Compare our rights as Americans with our neighbors to the north, south, east, or west. You’ll quickly see what is unique about our rights.
Nosaj:
“Frank, automobiles are machines designed to transport people and things. Handguns are machines designed to kill people. That people die in automobiles is not the same as people dying as a result of handgun use. Let’s retire this flawed comparison.”
But not before noting some very important reasons he makes the comparison. It is a privilege to drive on public roads and a right to carry a handgun, not the other way around despite that being the way some view it. Automobiles are deadlier and have far more tragedies as a result of negligence, yet Bob Costas will never call for fewer cars on the streets. Drunk driving and the resultant fatalities are an everyday thing, yet the only responses are logically focused on the behavior of those behind the wheel, NEVER to ban automobiles of any sort. Why? With such a bias and stigma hindering many people from thinking about guns logically, automobiles are a GREAT way to get people to get people thinking about this.
“Compare our rights as Americans with our neighbors to the north, south, east, or west. You’ll quickly see what is unique about our rights.”
I would wager that the gun death rate is a lot lower in Canada, and the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, compared to the good old U S of A. Is that because there are more guns in those places?
We have more freedom, Dan. If you want to move to Canada, Mexico, China, or Britain, go right ahead.
It’s the arm culture that is sneaking up to get us. Nobody is talking about the arm culture.
If this madman were an amputee, the other guy would still be alive today. FACT.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/nightmare_on_subway_tracks_GgvCtkeJj6cTeyxHns2VNP
JohnW, after taking a quick buzz through Google, it appears that gun ownership is perfectly legal most places, with some requiring a license or class. I don’t consider that to pose meaningful roadblocks to someone who is committed to owning a weapon. So I’d say that our gun ownership rights are not “unique”.
Because people do not agree with you they are not “thinking about guns logically”?
Funny how so many people insist that because the Constitution does not specifically say in the First Amendment what we can and cannot do not to “make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, regarding separation of church and state, that means there should be nothing done about it and some of the same people (though not all) insist that even though it specifically says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” and that is what gave them “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms“, and why it “shall not be infringed“, we should just ignore that and “logically” know that we can do nothing, regardless of the carnage caused by gun owners until after the carnage.
Accepting the carnage or pretending it is only in some cultures is also not thinking about guns logically.
Still waiting: what is my “way of dealing with gun violence”?
Another Chuck,
Evolution = “liberal philosophy” (At Liberty U, they teach “creation” science).
Thomas Jefferson = “liberal philosophy” (the Texas Board of Ed replaced references to him in its textbooks with John Calvin).
Sex education = “liberal philosophy” with regard to pregnancy prevention (in conservative states, they teach abstinence only).
And these only scratch the surface. However, there are many facts surrounding evolution which cannot be ignored. It’s a fact that Thomas Jefferson was a founding father and former president, and that Calvin was neither. And it’s a fact that sex education that includes information about birth control reduces teen pregnancy, while abstinence only education increases the rate.
Facts are pesky things!
#66 Thank goodness that dude in Florida was carrying a gun. If he hadn’t been, he probably wouldn’t have challenged those dangerous loud music players and he wouldn’t have been able to kill one of them when they continued assaulting him with their sound waves.
I posted this last week. The evidence is overwhelming to prove responsible gun ownership reduces crime and saves lives.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/26/report-in-virginia-more-guns-less-crime/
And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.
Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788
Well Jack, if arms are so effective I’d say no one needs guns.
The right of women to bare arms is an important distinction between us and some Muslim countries. What on Earth does it have to do with guns?
That “report” is garbage, Maloof. I’d bet a good portion of the guns sold in VA are being brought into other states for resale. Also…”Gun sales doubled and crime was cut in half, ergo guns are the cure for crime” is not a scientifically legitimate finding.
I, for one, have never needed a gun.
(oh, and I’d love for it to stay that way)
IDK if he actually said that or in and under what context Maloof, but it was not mentioned in their ratification of the Constitution in 1788, or the Debate information I found.
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_decl-ma.htm
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_ma.htm
And again, why do you gun folks ALWAYS insist any discussion is about “gun control”. Costas spoke of the “gun culture” which is undeniably real and undeniably a problem. NO ONE thinks more gun control will fix that problem, not the least because it would be fought tooth and nail by the gun lobby, but also because that is not the answer we seek. You are all truly one trick ponies apparently.
You can think it is confined to gangs and the black culture, but you are wrong about that too. From music, to video games, and movies, to actual urban street life, guns are part of the whole “man’s world” way of thinking, reacting, and living. THAT is a problem and it is a menacing one. Gun control, even gun bans that have been tried, do not work. No one is even suggesting it, and yet you are all in here screaming about your rights and your freedom. Did that young girl and millions like her have any? Any at all?
In every solution or attempt at a solution I see, your rights, freedoms and guns have little to nothing to do with it. Your obstinate attitude on the other hand, has a hell of a lot to do with it.
The concealed carry permit holder who shot and killed the teen who would not follow his orders to turn the car stereo down, he is a part of this nation’s gun culture. And he was white, incidentally. And he split the scene immediately after the killing. The cops found him a day later because a witness got his license tag.
Well in Florida gun owners might well be under the impression that they can shoot black teenagers dead with impunity. At least it didn’t take months and major pressure from the media for the cops to do their job in this case.
“he is a part of this nation’s gun culture”
Link?
@59 This guy re-entered the store in defense of his coworker. He wouldn’t have re-entered in the first place had Autozone respected his right to carry on his person. AutoZone would rather their employees die. –Comment by John Wilburn
It amazes me how you guys all think every robber is gonna wet himself and give up at the sight of your gun. It worked out great for the store clerk this time, but it had the potential to get very ugly and very messy.
What would the headline of this story have been if the clerk had gotten someone shot?
I would guess that most store chains have a zero tolerance for employees carrying a gun. There’s just too much risk for something to go wrong and get innocent people hurt or killed.
BobH, the link is in the post. Feel free to click away.
“Gun sales doubled and crime was cut in half, ergo guns are the cure for crime”
Interesting how the blog’s logic nanny is silent on the logical validity of this, as well as John W’s fondness for invoking anecdotes as proof of anything.
“why do you gun folks ALWAYS insist any discussion is about “gun control”. Costas spoke of the “gun culture” which is undeniably real and undeniably a problem”
Bingo, Sandi!
That’s it in a nutshell. Thanks for your clear articulation of the distinction. Those who conflate the two issues, and never offer solutions that will disadvantage the worst in human nature, make it harder for concientous gun users to create a better world. That’s why I give Jason credit for his post admitting what a colossal douche Wayne LaPierre is, while other NRA apologists still pretend that NRA policy hasn’t been perverted into a vehicle of the gun manufacturers.
nosaj wrote of John W: “I took your comment to mean that the problems you spoke of were someone else’s, that they don’t touch you, and that you could not be part of the solution. I don’t agree with that.”
nosaj, one will sometimes find that a certain type of person who is pleased to call themselves “libertarian” in fact just like the mistaken idea that libertarianism offers an escape from the duties of a social compact, like economic Darwinists do. Gun “libertarians” often seem to be among this type, as if there is a possiblity of existing in the 21st century alone by one’s wits and guns.
Alfred:
“It amazes me how you guys all think every robber is gonna wet himself and give up at the sight of your gun.”
That’s what happened at AutoZone.
“It worked out great for the store clerk this time, but it had the potential to get very ugly and very messy.”
Yes, the store workers could have been killed.
“What would the headline of this story have been if the clerk had gotten someone shot?”
Someone else walked in and pointed a gun at them and you are finding ways to admonish the clerk for potentially risky behavior?!
“I would guess that most store chains have a zero tolerance for employees carrying a gun. There’s just too much risk for something to go wrong and get innocent people hurt or killed.”
Yeah, I guess it’s all about being politically correct and bowing to an elitist insurance company. It’s certainly isn’t about employee safety. That employee risked his own life to re-enter that building in defense of a thankful co-worker who credits him with saving his life. I don’t know why you, AutoZone, or anyone else would have a problem with this.
We don’t, we have a problem with the times it does not work out and they both get killed.
Sandi Saunders:
“Still waiting: what is my “way of dealing with gun violence”?”
**************************************************************
“John’s Quiz:
“Do you support CHP holders (the right people) being able to carry in:” NO, I do not believe CHP means anythign remotely like “the right people”. Not in any way.
“Airports (even if only on the public side of the security checkpoint)” NO, that is just silly.
“K-12 schools” Other than guards? No.
“Public universities” Other than guards? No.
“Post offices” No way!
“Courthouses (even if only on the public side of the court room)” Are you out of your mind? Hell no!
“Should guns be banned anywhere they aren’t already?” Guns should be banned anywhere the owners or people involved want them to be banned.”
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 4, 2012 @ 8:55 am
“ALL rights come with responsibility and part of that responsibility is that there might be a restriction that is required for others to be free of fear too. We are all part of society, no man stands alone, not even if he thinks so.”
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 6, 2012 @ 12:13 pm
“We have the ability to track and monitor every gun made in the world and to mark and track every bullet too. What holds us back from a solution to the offensive use of guns is the likes of John Wilburn and Dave Hicks who use the Second Amendment as a weapon too.”
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 7, 2012 @ 1:58 pm
“Life in prison, no possibility of parole if you are caught with a gun that has the serial number filed off. At least they can only do it once…”
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 24, 2012 @ 6:23 pm
“First, I did not ask for registration alone. I say we need to track the gun, that means registration of guns legally owned so we know when a gun is not. AND I said background checks for every gun transaction, whether at a flea market, or off craigslist. Then we can make it a crime to have an unregistered gun, a crime to sell/transfer a gun without the background check and get serious over how the criminals are getting the guns. These are pro-active approaches that do not have to wait for another crime, possibly …I do not see any good reason to wait for a violent or deadly crime to be committed.”
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 25, 2012 @ 10:13 am
“Life in prison, no possibility of parole if you are caught with a gun that has the serial number filed off. At least they can only do it once.
I also already said: I did not ask for registration alone. I say we need to track the gun, that means registration of guns legally owned so we know when a gun is not. AND I said background checks for every gun transaction, whether at a flea market, or off craigslist. Then we can make it a crime to have an unregistered gun, a crime to sell/transfer a gun without the background check …Not to mention that we all know that registration and background checks that help “follow the gun” are as likely as snowballs in hell even if they would 100% guaranteed work.”
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 25, 2012 @ 12:22 pm”
“I know what would happen if I were in a foxhole with a weapon and you. And only one thing would happen. Does that count?”
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 27, 2012 @ 11:13 am
“Well obviously once we are all armed there will never be another violent act in public. GREAT solution, who needs laws? Why not just shoot them dead on the spot and save the courts and prisons money too?”
Comment by Sandi Saunders — April 27, 2012 @ 1:06 pm
“No, actually JimW, the “gun free zone” turned out not to be gun free!”
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 20, 2012 @ 3:31 pm
“It is true that guns are entirely too easy to get and use, but someone set on mass death could have just mowed down a line of people waiting in line for the premiere or exiting or by planting a bomb he was apparently capable of making. The gun is a weapon of terror in the wrong hands but the cause of this tragedy was not the gun. God, it pains me to admit that, but it remains the truth.”
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 20, 2012 @ 11:37 pm
***************************************************************
It appears that your solution is to ban guns in as many places as possible, make more people victims of laws than victims of crimes, and annihilate our rights despite conceding that you know it does not work.
We would not be a free nation if it was not for the right to own and bear firearms. Anyone that thinks otherwise is out of their minds.
@Alfred: “There’s just too much risk for something to go wrong and get innocent people hurt or killed.”
And the sensible way to mitigate that risk is to allow our defenseless employees to be murdered for the $35 in the cash drawer.
Sandi would flip her lid if she realized what it takes to be able to carry INSIDE a K-12 school legally.
Jack:
“Sandi would flip her lid if she realized what it takes to be able to carry INSIDE a K-12 school legally.”
Shhhh. Don’t shake her illusion of the gun-free zone.
@92 Jack, so you’re saying that all robberies result in the death of the clerk? What’s the amount got to do with it?
If you are so sure the guy is going to kill you anyway, how would you ever get yours out before he popped you? A holstered gun is not much of a defense.
Alfred:
“@92 Jack, so you’re saying that all robberies result in the death of the clerk? What’s the amount got to do with it?”
Not all robberies end with the death of the clerk, but there’s nothing wrong with being the clerk that decides his odds are going to be lower by carrying. The amount has nothing to do with it, but there are people who will kill someone for lunch money.
“If you are so sure the guy is going to kill you anyway, how would you ever get yours out before he popped you? A holstered gun is not much of a defense.”
I can draw from concealment and place two well aimed shots in a second and half or less. I bet Jack can too. The average armed robber cannot. He’d never know what hit him. Remember, the carrier already knows the robber is armed, but not vise-versa. Also remember that carriers are free to practice and hone their skills where the robbers are not. They cannot go to the range without risking incarceration.
The robbers have the advantage of knowing of the crime before hand and choosing the moment, but the carriers have the advantage come trigger time, especially those who surprise the robber.
Sandi Saunders-
“We don’t, we have a problem with the times it does not work out and they both get killed.”
I’ve challenged you on this before and received nothing but silence in return. Put up or shut up. You go first, list all of the news stories you can find online where a gun owner acting legally killed an innocent bystander. In return, I’ll post as many stories as I can find where no innocents were killed.
And the following is yet another example of why we flinch when we hear “common sense” or “reasonable” gun control. None of the following are remotely reasonable, nor are they based in any way on logic or data:
““Airports (even if only on the public side of the security checkpoint)” NO, that is just silly.”
Why?
“K-12 schools” Other than guards? No.”
Why?
“Public universities” Other than guards? No.
“Post offices” No way!
Why, why?
“ALL rights come with responsibility and part of that responsibility is that there might be a restriction that is required for others to be free of fear too.”
Nope, you have no right, not legally, not ethically, not in any way to not be afraid of something. Even if we grant your point, why would your fear trump the fear of someone who is wary of being a victim of violent crime? Do you understand the ramifications if such a “right” existed? Civilization would shut down if everyone’s fears were respected.
“We have the ability to track and monitor every gun made in the world and to mark and track every bullet too.”
No we don’t. You are ignorant of the arms industry and more importantly, how easy it is to build a gun and to circumvent whatever goofball tracking method you are dreaming of.
Alfred-
“What would the headline of this story have been if the clerk had gotten someone shot?”
I don’t know, but you can bet your ass Dan would be all over it. Just like he is when the story turns out ok…er, never mind.
@Alfred: “A holstered gun is not much of a defense.”
Speak for yourself.
“You go first, list all of the news stories you can find online where a gun owner acting legally killed an innocent bystander. In return, I’ll post as many stories as I can find where no innocents were killed.”
The trick here is with Jason’s use of the word “legally.” Why have that in there at all? Without it, there are plenty of examples of innocent people who died at the hands of gun owners. That is what’s most important in this debate — all the innocents who die, regardless of the hair-splitting you do on whether the shooter was legal or illegal.
And btw, Jason, the shooter in Fla.’s lawyer is claiming that his client acted legally.
Missed this one.
Alfred-
“If you are so sure the guy is going to kill you anyway, how would you ever get yours out before he popped you? A holstered gun is not much of a defense.”
Obviously there are times when resisting increases your risk. But if you’d like, I can give you a list of incidents when people who were already at gunpoint successfully used there own firearm. Every incident is unique. And if, as the law usually requires, you fear that you are about to die and running or hiding isn’t an option, you have to deal with the odds being against you and act.
John, Jack and Jason. Your points are well taken. I have no data, but would assume that a person desperate enough to commit armed robbery is not all that intelligent to begin with. I would agree that they probably have no firearms training.
I would also speculate that most store clerks are not as well trained as you guys,either. I just wish that folks who carry guns were (as a whole), better trained, that’s all.
On the flip side, a person hell-bent on killing you would leave you little or no recourse. There’s just no way you can know what every person that comes in the door is going to do. In that case it’s a lose, lose for all the parties.
#95: “A holstered gun is not much of a defense”
Alfred, the Va. Citizen’s Defense League (the VCDL), by both what’s in their public agenda and what’s not, manifestly disagree with you. For example, while loud in their praise of hidden handguns, they do nothing to address private ownership of .50 caliber sniper rifles, thus they’re manifesting a belief that a hidden handgun is a good defense from them. Same with most other 2A implements-despite their pious assertions about the 2A they selfishly take no position on anything except guns (mostly handguns).
Like Grover Norquist pretending that he’s been chosen to speak on behalf of all Congressional constituents, the VCDL, even in it’s name, seems to pretend it’s been annoited to speak for the “defense” of all Virginia citizens. But they’ve done little else except lobby for CCP loosening. Well, to be fair, they’ve also made it easier for ostensibly legal buyers with any particular motivation to buy more than one gun a month (VCDL apparently believes gun users are safer firing multiple guns at once) and to prohibit police from having fingerprint data on file. But as for addressing the ways that unsavory aspects of gun culture have harmed public health, or ways to put the worst in human nature at a disadvantage, the VCDL can’t be bothered to contribute anything unique and positive beyond advocating “more guns in more places” with simplistic bumpersticker sloganeering.
So if a Virginia citizen thinks they need .50 caliber sniper rifles or weaponized lethal chemicals for protection, the VCDL, despite it’s name, takes no position-hardly a profile in the courage that the VCDL likes to flatter its’ own member CCP holders as having, and which exposes it as just another narrow single issue interest group with a misleading name.
But, if you believe the best response to someone falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is to encourage others to join in falsely yelling “fire”, then you’ll find many like minded friends in the VCDL. And if you’re only bothered by gun violence when it occasionally hits too close to home, but otherwise can ignore it except to fantasize about the odds of emerging from a shootout with only the initiator harmed, you’ll like the VCDL. And if you’re loading groceries or pumping gas when a sniper opens fire on you, use the strategy that both the actions and inactions of the VCDL endorse as the best: depend on your own handgun for protection. Because after all, the sniper might be using a gun the VCDL won’t dare tell legislators to treat any differently than a handgun.
So, I see this thread is getting near the end, but I gotta ask this question and to do so I have to set it up.
I recent murder trial in Roanoke, the person convicted of executing security guard Steve Orange had a long felony record, several of which were firearms charges. He was able to obtain not one, but two .380 semiautomatic pistols. The first was obtained as a strawman purchase by his girlfriend in March. That gun was confiscated by police after the felon brandished it at security guard at Walmart. The incident resulted in a police call and a traffic stop in which the gun was discovered in the girlfriend’s purse. It was confiscated by the police.(She was charged with carrying a concealed weapon.) That same day that gun was confiscated, the girlfriend and the felon returned to the same gun shop where she purchased the first weapon, and she purchased another one just like it. It was another strawman purchase. This is the gun used to kill Mr. Orange in July.
Gun people: How can this happen? As soon as the girlfriend was implicated with the felon, shouldn’t she be prohibited from gun purchases. I can only assume that at some point the confiscation of the weapon would have shown up as red flag in our system.
“trigger time”, seriously?
Re: Dan Casey — December 3, 2012 @ 7:30 pm
“My columns (when I write about guns, which I haven’t in awhile) have been 1) anti giving concealed carry permits to people who have never touched a handgun, via video “training” and 2) anti-concealed carry in bars and 3) I have written here on this blog in support of open carry in bars.”
- Vs
Re: by Dan Casey — December 4, 2012 @ 6:12 pm
“That is what’s most important in this debate — all the innocents who die, regardless of the hair-splitting you do on whether the shooter was legal or illegal.”
—————-
Will the real Dan Casey please step forward Re: what you write about and what you think is most important in the debate on gun control.
So, you don’t care about innocents when folk have had hands on training?
Do you care about: http://tinyurl.com/939woa2
Police Fatally Shoot a Man Outside a Bronx Bodega
By COLIN MOYNIHAN and NATE SCHWEBER
A police officer shot and killed a convenience store worker who plowed into him on a sidewalk while frantically fleeing an armed robbery early Friday, a sudden encounter that the police department called a tragic accident.
Updated, 3:57 p.m. | A 20-year-old man was shot and killed by the police early on Friday as he fled from a group of robbers inside a bodega in the Bronx and collided with a police officer, the authorities said.
SNIP
**
Or: http://tinyurl.com/cevqvrg
NYPD Gunfire Wounded All 9 People Injured In Empire State Building Shootout
By RICHARD ESPOSITO, MARK CRUDELE, RUSSELL GOLDMAN (@GoldmanRussell) , CANDACE SMITH (@CandaceSmith_) and LEE FERRAN (@leeferran)
Aug. 25, 2012
All nine people wounded in an incident when a man gunned down an aquaintance outside the Empire State Building and then was killed by cops were hit by police gunfire, New York Police Department Commissioner Raymond Kelly confirmed today.
The victims, who Kelly said were all hit either by bullets or “fragments” of bullets fired by police, sustained non-life threatening injuries. Two remain hospitalized, while a third was held overnight for observation due to elevated blood pressure, according to the NYPD.
SNIP
**
Dan-
As usual on this topic, you’re wrong. The subject was the idea that a well meaning gun owner tries to stop a criminal and hits an innocent person, not the jackasses who may or may not get away with horrible acts because of poorly written law.
I’m talking purely good guy in the middle of an unambiguous crime using his gun. I can come up with lots and lots of examples of that scenario going fine. I know of only ONE instance where the legal concealed carrier hit an innocent bystander. Despite her dying, the gun owner was cleared of all criminal charges. One. Find more. I’m sure they exist.
Dan, while you are adding update links to the OP, you might want to also add:
http://tinyurl.com/c5bokps
**
The truth about Costas, Belcher and guns
By John Lott
Published December 03, 2012
FoxNews.com
SNIP
**
Seems to me there are two distinct sides to this “gun culture” war – those of us who believe handguns are necessary for our daily safety and those od us whonthink handguns threaten our safety daily. Obviously, I fall into the latter group. Here’s why.
I have experience with firearms and attended training on many occasions. At one session, we viewed a testimonial from a police officer who came upon a robbery of a fast food store in a mall. He was off-duty at the time, but had a weapon – legally. He confronted the robber with a drawn weapon. The robber shot at the officer and missed but killed a bystander in the crowd. The assailant was subdued and arrested, but that officer never could shake the thought of what might have been if he had not confronted the robber. Would the bystander be alive? He also thought, in hindsight, what would have happened if on duty officers showed up at the scene and encountered two men with guns drawn. You see, the officer was dressed in street clothes. Would officers be able to discern who was the criminal and who was not?
Apparently, many of you who carry firearms legally are willing to put my life or that of my family on the line in the name of “protecting the public and your right to carry a firearm.” I am not willing to nor qualified to create such a risk.
In my mind, more handguns in a situation creates a much higher risk of tragedy.
John Wilburn and Jason, your long list of my previous posts (and yes, I am flattered), say nothing about my “way of dealing with gun violence”. They appear to be discussing gun control. Gun control cannot stop gun violence, that is well established and why I said that is not this discussion. Way to comprehend fellas!
Who said ANYTHING about innocent bystanders? The story was someone pulling a gun on a robber. Does that never end badly?
#96 “Not all robberies end with the death of the clerk, ”
Let’s art least be honest while making your argument John W. The VAST MAJORITY of robberies don’t end with the death of the clerk.
This is priceless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=a5dBOR2V9nU
Dave Hicks,
I don’t perceive a conflict between those two statements and here’s why.
The first was in direct response to a charge by someone that I have written many antigun columns. Now, I’ve written a little more than 500 columns since I started in March 2009. A very fraction of those have something to do with guns. I provided the link to my archive a challenged the writer to tell us how many columns had anything to do with guns. And (while I understand why someone would attempt to twist the issue into me being antigun) I also said most of my columns were a) against the relative ease with which Virginia grants concealed carry permits and b) against concealed carry in bars. Neither of those positions is necessarily antigun per se, depsite SOME pro-gunners attempts to paint them that way.
The second quote had to with a specific word Jason used in a debate with another poster over the deaths of “innocents.” And Jason seemed to be drawing a wholly imaginary line between the deaths of innocents as a result of the “legal” use of guns and the “illegal” use of guns. I questioned the distinction, assuming the death is of an innocent, in terms of THAT debate they were having. And that’s why the statements aren’t in conflict.
Re: Dan Casey @ 11:16 pm
OK, so those particular line of type, taken in the narrowest context, don’t tell the whole story. I’ll buy that.
However, the request remains, “Will the real Dan Casey please step forward Re: what you write about and what you think is most important in the debate on gun control.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/09/us/startled-father-fatally-shoots-his-daughter.html
“Fourteen-year-old Matilda Kaye Crabtree’s last words to her father were “I love you, Daddy.”
Yes, sometimes it ends badly.
Mike Scott:
“Gun people: How can this happen?”
I don’t know all the ins and outs of how that system does or doesn’t work. I choose to buy exclusively from individuals and do not participate in the dealer system. If the ATF were abolished, I might reconsider.
Sandi Saunders:
“Gun control cannot stop gun violence”
Yet you still want it…..why?
That is what I’m not comprehending.
Nosaj,
I appreciate the time, civility, and thought that you put into your post, but just want to say three simple things. Ultimately, if all of those who want peace lay down their arms, those who don’t will rule them. If bowing to your threat is always the option taken, the threats will will multiply in the abscense of risk. And, there is no moral superiority in being willfully unprepared.
JW, I have never felt more powerful or morally superior when armed with a handgun, nor have I felt that someone armed with a handgun was more powerful or morally superior than I. The convergence of preparedness through handgun possession and moral superiority is a construct I do not share.
Bob Costas should be thankful for Americans with guns. Without them, he would not have his television show and the First Amendment right to express his viewpoint.
@98 Speak for yourself.–Comment by Jack
I generally do.
No link in the post Dan. As usual, you are full of it.
He is not a part of this nation’s gun culture just because YOU say it. You stated it as a fact, but it is only your opinion.
The fact is that guns do not kill people, people kill people.
Why not go after the cars that drunk drivers are using? How come you were not ticked at the vehicle that killed Richard Slone…
No, you were too busy upholding his killer who was still testing positive for alcohol use when forbidden to do so under terms of her release while under appeal. Alcohol she blamed on cough medicine giving her a stern warning from the judge, which she promptly ignored and consumed more alcohol.
Guns do not kill. It takes a person BEHIND it. Common sense has left this Blog on this one.
BobH, there are two links in the post.
Mike Scott-
I’m ignorant of the system in that regard. But if it is not set up to put up a flag in that scenario, it should be. No argument there. And the girl should be charged as an accessory to murder if she hasn’t been. I’ve said many times in this space that straw purchasers should be aggressively pursued and the sentencing should be strong.
Warren-
“For example, while loud in their praise of hidden handguns, they do nothing to address private ownership of .50 caliber sniper rifles”
Give some evidence of the “problem” of .50 rifles. Again, nothing to do with reasonable. A gun that is, for all practical purposes, never used in crime and you are in a tizzy about it. They are just about the worst possible gun for a criminal. They are stupid expensive to acquire and shoot (the ammo is ridiculous), and are huge and heavy. Anything you would want to do with one could be accomplished much more easily with a standard deer rifle.
Sandi Saunders-
“Who said ANYTHING about innocent bystanders? The story was someone pulling a gun on a robber. Does that never end badly?”
I stand corrected. I’ll alter the challenge: you produce examples of this happening and I’ll present examples of no good guys being harmed, whether it be the armed clerk or anyone else.
It will be the same result. I’m guessing you’ll be able to find a few if you bother, but I’ll have no trouble finding far more where the clerk doesn’t die or get hurt.
Nosaj:
“The convergence of preparedness through handgun possession and moral superiority is a construct I do not share.”
That’s not what I meant at all. There are some people who feel morally superior for not carrying a handgun as if it somehow more noble a choice.
I remain convinced that sound, sensible gun control is still important, for our communities and our nation. That is a separate issue, though certainly related, to the gun culture and gun violence. It is impossible NOT to see that IMO.
We need to work on both and strive to do better, not fight over the minutiae and pretend anyone is seriously trying to ban guns or take away rights managed responsibly. Entirely too much energy and effort is wasted, this issue is like the TP/R’s and their “Agenda 21″ and ‘the UN is gonna get us’ meme. We should ALL want a safe responsible society that values the right things and shuns the wrong ones. To that end, individuals have a responsibility to the whole and vice versa. Too many people, like some here, cannot see the forest for the trees they see looming menacingly.
Instead of just fighting every social effort that comes up, work for the ones you think will work. Instead of fighting every gun control initiative, work for the ones you think will work. As long as you fight while people die, you will lose in the end IMO.
When people start using their cars as intentional weapons on any noticeable scale, then you folks comparing guns to automobiles might have a point. Until then, you just sound foolish.
Even the drunkest, or most inattentive of drivers do not deliberately aim their cars at others and “shoot”.
Jack, a bunch of yabbos running around with guns strategically “hidden” under their driver’s seats isn’t saving mine, Bob C’s, or anyone’s first amendment rights. SNF is on because people like football, not because anyone has guns.
The words in blue right above the photo are links, Bob H.
#121 Bob H, try the ORIGINAL post of the thread. Dolt.
Of course, what can we expect from a guy like you who apparently is defending an idiot who got so upset over loud music he started a fracas that led to him killing a teen?
While you’re at it, Bob H, could you look up some Bedford school budget numbers for me?
JW, understood. That I chose not to carry a handgun is not a noble decision on my part; it is safe and practical.
Jason, I do not think you get it still. John Wilburn said: “That employee risked his own life to re-enter that building in defense of a thankful co-worker who credits him with saving his life. I don’t know why you, AutoZone, or anyone else would have a problem with this.”
And I responded: “We don’t, we have a problem with the times it does not work out and they both get killed.”
This is not about quantity or preponderance. This is about the company policy that says do not risk yourself or others over “stuff” or money. Granted there was a string of burglaries, but he had not hurt anyone and was in fact leaving, again without hurting anyone, when confronted. It could have gone wrong in many ways and the fact that it did not is not the point at all.
Funny how you all crow about your rights and totally dismiss or decry the rights of the business or property owners who also have a right to set their own policies over the issue.
@Kristen,
Yes, I forgot, we won the Revolutionary war by poking our sticks at the British. My bad… stupid history teacher.
Jack, the right of free speech exists in plenty of countries that never fought the British and have far lower rates of gun violence than we do. There is no direct line between guns and the First Amendment.
@Jack, So I guess we still have to worry about people invading this country? We still lived under the British regime that did not allow us any weapons at all to defend ourselves? Comparing our need for weaponry now, to the needs of the public in 1754, is very different indeed.
The Revolutionary War was won by an oppressed group of people that wanted many types of freedoms, main ones being weaponry, religion, information, and taxation. We, as United States citizens in 2012 do not need to worry so much about being invaded by a country. We have a well trained and well established military force. So, we as civilians do not need a fully automatic AK-47 with “Banana” clips. If you hunt, get a rifle, if you need personal protection buy a pistol. But don’t try to explain to me why you need a machine gun. Because you don’t. By not letting the public have access to those types of weapons is not impeding on your personal freedoms, it upholds them. Could you imagine how many lives that has saved?
Jack, did the Founding Fathers, who included the Second Amendment in the Constitution then go on and create gun control laws? And has that not been done pretty much ever since? You have a right to claim that the right exists, you have no real foundation to say that the Founders never intended that right to actually not be “infringed”. You just don’t. Not then, not since, not Heller, not within reason IMO.
Re: The Heller opinion: “Nothing in the opinion, Scalia wrote, should
be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
This paragraph from the pen of Justice Scalia, the foremost proponent of constitutional originalism, was astounding. True, the Founders imposed gun control, but they had no laws resembling Scalia’s list of Second Amendment exceptions. They had no laws banning guns in sensitive places, or laws prohibiting the mentally ill from possessing guns, or laws requiring commercial gun dealers to be licensed. Such restrictions are products of the 20th century. Justice Scalia, in other words, embraced a living Constitution. In this, Heller is a fine reflection of the ironies and contradictions—and the selective use of the past—that run throughout America’s long history with guns.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/3/
Sandi-
“Funny how you all crow about your rights and totally dismiss or decry the rights of the business or property owners who also have a right to set their own policies over the issue.”
I’ve never done any such thing and have made it clear that I believe that property owners should have the right to set gun rules on their property. The only compromise that I advocate is to allow gun owners to store their guns in their cars while working. That is because the right of the business owner to bar guns from the workplace effectively bars guns far away from the workplace. If I missed what you were saying, my apologies.
Justin True-
“So, we as civilians do not need a fully automatic AK-47 with “Banana” clips.”
Oh boy, where to start. Fully automatic AK-47s are virtually non-existent in this country.
“If you hunt, get a rifle,”
An AK pattern gun is a rifle. The AR-15 class of weapon is a rifle (carbine). And many people are hunting with them because they are light weight, very accurate, and can use hunting sized calibers with the right upper and barrel. All long guns, whether shotguns, hunting rifles, or so called assault weapons, are used in about 5% of gun crime. They aren’t a problem.
“if you need personal protection buy a pistol.”
Away from home, that’s the best option….
“But don’t try to explain to me why you need a machine gun.”
What is your hangup with machine guns? There are a few hundred thousand in private hands and for all practical purposes, are never used in crime. They are expensive and time consuming to acquire because no new weapons are allowed to be added to the registry. So you pay a ridiculous premium for the gun, pay a $200 tax stamp, get clearance from your local LEO, get background checked, and then wait up to six months to be able to take possession.
Aside from that, what you believe a person “needs” isn’t relevant. I suspect you own a lot that you don’t need.
“By not letting the public have access to those types of weapons is not impeding on your personal freedoms, it upholds them. Could you imagine how many lives that has saved?”
The public is only limited due to their scarcity and price. And there’s no reason to believe that scarcity has saved any lives.
In that the old fallacious argument about the need to prove one has a “need” for a firearm has been brought up, I’ll repeat my earlier post / rant.
What does “need” have to do with the American way?
Do we “need”:
o Cars that can exceed the speed limit, sometimes more than twice the max speed limit?
o SUV & trucks that can haul or tow far more than some owners will ever haul or tow, again often well above the speed limit?
o More vehicles registered to private owners than there are licensed drivers?
o The square footage of the average new single-family detached home?
o Theater sized TVs in those homes?
o Cell phones for instant gratification – especially while driving?
o All the rest of the high tech devices to provide instant gratification – excuse me, connectivity / communication?
o Devices w/ 4G connections, when many consumers would not recognize 4G, even if 4G hit him or her in face?
o To be answering those devices in restaurants, churches, and all sort of public places?
o A plethora of fast food chains and local joints serving far more salt, fat and calories in a meal than a body needs in a day?
o Store shelf after store shelves and freezers full of high-salt, high-fat, high-caloric, caffeine added, adulterated foods?
o Store shelves stacked with beer after beer brand, including many from around the world?
o Bin after bin of fresh out-of-season and non-local produce flown in from around the world?
o A fishing pole unless to catch fish for food in order to survive?
o Fire extinguishers — as they are difficult to use in an emergency? (Why not just call the fire department. They can get there as quick as an LEO. When seconds count what are a few minutes, anyway?)
o A first aid kit? (Shouldn’t injuries be tended to by a professional and the ambulance can get there as quick as an LEO can when you dial 911. If that’s quick enough to stop a crime, why not for injuries?)
o A spare tire in your car? (They are seldom used and professional tow-truck operators are only a phone call away.)
Once we as a society actually function on the bases of “need”, I’ll consider “need” relative to the availability of a gun or guns. In the meantime, I’ll work on the same level of “want” not “need” that we-as-a-society operate on — across the board.
So please, quit demanding someone prove “need” for something you dislike while ignoring such a requirement to demonstrate “need” for those things you like/want.
No worries Jason, it is difficult when you and John W are both responding to me responding to you responding to… Some days I get a little dizzy, but it is almost always interesting.
John W said: “He wouldn’t have re-entered in the first place had Autozone respected his right to carry on his person. AutoZone would rather their employees die.”
Like it or not, that is Autozone’s call to make IMO.
You are correct Dave Hicks, this is not at all about true “need” to have and/or carry a gun. Thanks!
I will end my part of this conversation by saying I love America. If you want to change it, go for it. You’re welcome to leave the blog and come with me to Richmond in January and do just that.
I will be armed with facts and you can bring your emotions and it will be a ton of fun.
Do we “need” an opinion from Dave Hicks about the logical validity of John Wilburn employing random anecdotes to disprove a broader statistical truth?
Apparently not, because there’s been none.
Does Dave Hicks “need” sleep after thousands of gun deaths much further away than the one in Montgomery Co. that he reported caused him sleeplessness?
Apparently, because he’s not reported any sleep disturbance from them.
Re: Jason @ 1:53 pm And “machine guns”
Well done Jason.
—–
BTW, Justin True, according to http://tinyurl.com/bfz6bez Virginia has 30,200 — the most registered machine guns of any State.
How many of those legally owned weapons have been used in a crime?
If you can’t document a problem, what’s your issue?
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 4:32 pm
What does the anti-liberty folk’s mantra demanding someone to prove “true ‘need’” have to do with anything?
FWIIW, maybe I should add his dishonor from NYC’s 32 oz drinks to my list, also.
Did anyone notice that the week after he announced his intent to ban 32 oz sodas he proclaimed/approved doughnut week and made the opening remarks at a hotdog eating contest?
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundral. We all “love America” Jack. It’s not a position.
Re: Re: Sandi Saunders @ 4:32 pm
Sandi,
In a conversation with a TP member today, I was making a point about freedom of choice.
As an anti-authoritarian, I used the term “true need” applying it to the goverment.
As I have said before on this blog, I don’t think that the goverment should be in the boardroom or the bedroom, without very compelling reasons and make a very convincing case for such action. I have also said the same sort of thing about a women’s womb — and stated that I do not see such a convincing case for such action.
Today, I put all three together with your term true need and said, “I don’t think that the goverment should be in the boardroom or the bedroom or a women’s womb without proving a true need.”
I suspect that in the case of last two incidents “the bedroom or a women’s womb” you might agree with me.
I would hope that you might think about that in terms of “keeping and bearing” arms.
If the government should not restrict (w/o very compelling reasons and make a very convincing case) a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy after a rape, why then should the government be able restrict her right to a self-defensive weapon before the rape (w/o very compelling reasons and make a very convincing case)?
Not only do I think that the “true need” to prove a need for something lies with the goverment to prove very compelling reasons and make a very convincing case before restricting citizens’ or legal residences’ freedom of self-defensive carry of weapons (including guns, knives, etc*); I also think that such an approach is the route to the working together and is the foundation for some of the restrictions that we both see as reasonable — e.g., the current restrictions on folk convicted of violent felonies or violent misdemeanors until adjudicated reformed, the current restriction on folk who are mentally ill and adjudicated as a danger to society and/or themselves, etc.
—
* for the full list of the currently restricted weapons see § 18.2-308. Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry; penalty http://tinyurl.com/5uwnq
Now seriously, how much more proof do we need that gun rights advocates do not care about what we see as carnage and a serious problem than to see Dave Hicks opine that the government should “prove very compelling reasons and make a very convincing case” for gun control? Do you REALLY think they cannot? Could they back when the first gun control efforts took place? The precedent is set. I am sorry you do not like it, but there it is nonetheless.
Also, there are rules and restrictions on abortion and more coming down the legislative pike every year. And the battle for privacy in the bedroom is still afoot as well. Equal rights is still a dream for millions of Americans.
But that is ALL beside the point, to your mind everything is about banning guns and refusing you your not needed self defense while stripping you of your God-given right. The truth is that very, very, very seldom has the discussion EVER been about that in any real sense. That is your red herring and you trot it out with a regimented zeal. I am truly surprised we got to 146 posts without the dreaded Hitler and “confiscation” argument.
In reality, everyone who is not for you is not against you.
Sandi:
“Could they back when the first gun control efforts took place? The precedent is set. I am sorry you do not like it, but there it is nonetheless.”
No. Tell us about it.
Sandi:
“…and refusing you your not needed self defense”
Like everything else, it’s not needed until it is needed. What in the world is your point here? Are you suggesting that if confronted with danger, that Dave Hicks should die for what you believe in?
Please tell me how that’s NOT what you’re suggesting.
Sandi Saunders @ 9:35 pm
Other than very early on (before I got to know you better) when have I accused you of advocating banning all guns?
Where have I said that about Dan, or most others?
Where have I presented the Hitler and “confiscation” fallacy?
OTOH, during a public panel Q & A session at VT, I saw a well known leader of the pro-more restrictions lobby, here in Virginia, sandbagged into actually defining what he thought was “reasonable restrictions” and adequate “training & proficiency” — i.e., what he would agree to as the minimum for carry. I know what Washington DC thinks is reasonable (no carry outside the home, although they appear to be thinking about softening that stance), what Chicago, NJ, MD, etc thinks is reasonable (only the very well connected), and what his-dishonor-from NYC talks about as reasonable. All propose or have extremely high hurdles or outright blocks — to serve as per-adjudication bans on a right they do not want the average citizen to have.
These pro-more restrictions players are convinced that it is better to deny “the many” the right to self-protection because it might stop some small number from [fill-in-the-blank] in the future — all the while being in denial of the criminals’ disregard for those very laws that create vast “unarmed victim zones” in which those very criminals prey on the average citizen.
These pro-more restrictions shakers and movers preach “It could be, but never mind what it is doing”– and that is not logical, IMHO.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 9:35 pm
“Also, there are rules and restrictions on abortion and more coming down the legislative pike every year. And the battle for privacy in the bedroom is still afoot as well. Equal rights is still a dream for millions of Americans.”
—————-
Absolutely! But do two or more wrongs make a right?
Why add an additional wrong to that list?
—————————————————————-
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 9:35 pm
“The precedent is set. I am sorry you do not like it, but there it is nonetheless.”
—————-
As you said “there are rules and restrictions on abortion” which have set precedent, also. Are you saying that they should not be challenged — just because there is a precedent? That just because they are precedent are you assuming that they should not be rolled back? Does “there it is nonetheless” mean we should not work together to roll them back?
Are you saying that back when those first such efforts took place that there was “very compelling reasons” and “a very convincing case” for them?
If not, why make such an assumption for another set of bans?