Slog Comments
Or, They Could Just Shoot Him...
1
During the Olympics, Bob Costas was pushing for the moment of silence during the opening ceremony of the London Olympics, in memory Israeli athletes who were killed in 1972. They didnt get it and it was obvious why they didnt get it (when Tel Aviv hosts, they can have whatever they want).
Now conservatives who *might have* supported Mr Costas push for the moment of silence (because most conservatives are blind supporters of Israel and everything it does) are now pushing him to be fired for having a discussion about guns? Thats a bit ironic.
Now conservatives who *might have* supported Mr Costas push for the moment of silence (because most conservatives are blind supporters of Israel and everything it does) are now pushing him to be fired for having a discussion about guns? Thats a bit ironic.
2
Costas is from the super troping Dennis Miller school of sports broadcasting, an earlier regime...a bit too bright for today...and he's simply getting the shove.
3
#2 Part II
Additionally, if you follow the bouncing ball, the trend has been towards sportscasters who were part of the game...former players who now see that getting beat up on the field entitles them to the full revenue stream post athleticism. So, one hears various jibes are being hurled at the pure entertainment broadcasters from the former players.
5
"It was a well-reasoned conclusion. If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun, he and his girlfriend would likely be a alive today."
No.
You have no evidence to support that.
Therefore, it is not "well-reasoned".
No.
You have no evidence to support that.
Therefore, it is not "well-reasoned".
6
I like how no one seems to care that this asshole killed a woman. He should be strung up. well, his dead body should be.
I have no opinion on whether his dead body should also have his gun tied around his neck as well.
I have no opinion on whether his dead body should also have his gun tied around his neck as well.
7
If Jovan had had a SECOND gun, maybe he could have defended himself. Something to think about before you go posting supposedly "well reasoned" thoughts, hrmmm.
8
@5 you dumbshit. Look at death rates by gun and knife and hitting comparing nations with and without gun control regimes.
We got the high death rates by gun. Scotland, france, germany denmark and about 30 nations with good gun controls DO NOT HAVE SIMILARLY HIGH DEATH RATES BY KNIFE as we have with gun, therefore your theory that without the gun he would have knifed them or strangled them or something is total bullshit. And yes, the data bears this out.
We got the high death rates by gun. Scotland, france, germany denmark and about 30 nations with good gun controls DO NOT HAVE SIMILARLY HIGH DEATH RATES BY KNIFE as we have with gun, therefore your theory that without the gun he would have knifed them or strangled them or something is total bullshit. And yes, the data bears this out.
9
@5 hair-splitting. why don't you rant about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
The point is, it wasn't political.
The point is, it wasn't political.
10
@5
As was noted in the last post on the topic, there is in fact a wealth of evidence to support that conclusion, most notably the repeatedly confirmed finding that around 90% of murder-suicides are committed with guns.
Now, Goldy, Costas, and Whitlock didn't directly cite that or any other evidence, and of course opponents of gun control will never accept any of that evidence as valid*, but that doesn't mean they weren't aware of it, or didn't use it to reach the conclusion you're questioning.
* or pertinent, once the validity has been established beyond dispute
As was noted in the last post on the topic, there is in fact a wealth of evidence to support that conclusion, most notably the repeatedly confirmed finding that around 90% of murder-suicides are committed with guns.
Now, Goldy, Costas, and Whitlock didn't directly cite that or any other evidence, and of course opponents of gun control will never accept any of that evidence as valid*, but that doesn't mean they weren't aware of it, or didn't use it to reach the conclusion you're questioning.
* or pertinent, once the validity has been established beyond dispute
11
FWIW, @6, the general NFL coverage on ESPN today has been at some pains to point out that he murdered his girlfriend and then killed himself. It's not really a story about football, though, any more than some plumber doing the same thing would be about plumbing. You're right: it's about an asshole who murdered his girlfriend and then killed himself.
12
ABC News just reports one side, wtf? I'm sending an email to the Brady Campaign and asking them to get involved.
13
Even if it were a well-reasoned conclusion, that doesn't make it cease to be "politically charged." The only reason to voice this supposedly-well-reasoned conclusion is to envision a world in which he would have been prevented from having the gun, which is obviously politically charged. Playing dumb and acting like it's not political doesn't accomplish anything except make you look disingenuous.
14
And what is goldys response when someone goes on an antigay/racist diatribe in their place of employment? You support their 1st ammendment rights to say whatever they want with no consequence? Doubtful.
I say goldy should get fired for being a repugnant troll disguised as a reporter. In fact he is an unemployable self loathing jew who embodies the decline off the west. He makes a newspaper of degenerate godless infants look even worse. Real reporters lik Eli must be embarrassed to share the same office with this sham. See?
I say goldy should get fired for being a repugnant troll disguised as a reporter. In fact he is an unemployable self loathing jew who embodies the decline off the west. He makes a newspaper of degenerate godless infants look even worse. Real reporters lik Eli must be embarrassed to share the same office with this sham. See?
15
@9
You might want to re-read what I posted because I was not commenting on that coverage. I was commenting on Goldy's comment.
@10
Do a Google search for James Krumm.
Now why don't you post, SPECIFICALLY, what legal changes would need to be made that would have prevented Belcher's attack.
Go ahead.
Let's see what you have.
You might want to re-read what I posted because I was not commenting on that coverage. I was commenting on Goldy's comment.
@10
Do a Google search for James Krumm.
Now why don't you post, SPECIFICALLY, what legal changes would need to be made that would have prevented Belcher's attack.
Go ahead.
Let's see what you have.
17
@ cowardly 14. Google search 'first amendment+fighting words,' shit-for-brains.
Your first paragraph is a false equivalency.
Your first paragraph is a false equivalency.
18
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him -Jonathan Swift
Well if you ever wondered if Costas had a pair, I think he just removed any doubt with that tumescent slam dunk teabagging to proponents of the out-of-control gun culture in this country. I bet Wayne LaPierre is still flossing Bob's silky bag fleece from his yellow teeth.
I sincerely hope that any intelligent people at NBC, the sports community, outspoken celebrities, and people across the world who are sickened by gun violence will not only stand by and defend Mr Costas, but raise money to support the Brady Campaign and speak openly and often about the dangers associated with gun ownership. I also think that the use of the word 'tragedy' when related to gun violence should be replaced by 'preventable crime.' Save tragedy for accidents and natural disasters- it's becoming diluted.
Well if you ever wondered if Costas had a pair, I think he just removed any doubt with that tumescent slam dunk teabagging to proponents of the out-of-control gun culture in this country. I bet Wayne LaPierre is still flossing Bob's silky bag fleece from his yellow teeth.
I sincerely hope that any intelligent people at NBC, the sports community, outspoken celebrities, and people across the world who are sickened by gun violence will not only stand by and defend Mr Costas, but raise money to support the Brady Campaign and speak openly and often about the dangers associated with gun ownership. I also think that the use of the word 'tragedy' when related to gun violence should be replaced by 'preventable crime.' Save tragedy for accidents and natural disasters- it's becoming diluted.
19
#11. Actually, it should very much be a story about football. More precisely, a story about how repeated head injuries (especially those that result in concussions) can lead to emotional and mental problems, such as depression, anxiety, biochemical disturbance in the brain, anger, and yes suicide, among others. Ya, maybe he was an asshole and all that, but you can't just pretend that head injuries from football weren't potentially a contributing factor, perhaps even a primary contributing factor.
20
@13 - Acknowledging a public health crisis isn't political in itself. Would you characterize discussing the effect of tobacco on health as political?
21
Man, it hard to become motivated to defend that boob Costas, but he appears to be quite right about this.
23
Holy Christ. This 'gun control debate' got old two days ago. Now two posts in the same day? From the same guy? How much of this shit must we endure?
24
@22:
Hank Williams Jr., not Waylon.
And you can bet that Costas will never again appear on Monday Night Football. Not that he ever has.
Hank Williams Jr., not Waylon.
And you can bet that Costas will never again appear on Monday Night Football. Not that he ever has.
25
@19 That could be true, but since he shot himself in the head, I doubt we'll ever know what sort of traumatic head injury(ies) he might have had. He was only 25, but he was a linebacker, a position where intense collisions happen with regularity, so it's possible -- but the causal nature of "football violence" in this case is ambiguous at best, while the fact that he SHOT his girlfriend and then SHOT himself is not.
27
@24, it was Hank Williams Jr., and he compared the POTUS to Hitler. Costas made a point about gun culture, and the fact that these tragedies are just doomed repeat. It's a pretty simple point that guns increase the consquences and do not solve violent incidents.
28
@22, Waylon Jennings, very funny. It was Hank Jr. Waylon died in 2002.
Firearms are dangerous. Firearms are also a protected fundamental right (see state and Federal constitutions). For better or worse, this country has determined -and this is harsh- that the costs of firearms are outweighed by their benefits. The fact is that the statistical evidence indicate that tragedies will occur. Our founders accepted this cost as part of a free society. They also determined that free speech, while dangerous, is more beneficial than not. They understood there would be great pressure to prohibit these, so they guaranteed them in the Bill of Rights.
They understood they could be wrong or that societal norms could change, so they allowed the constitution to be amended by 2/3 vote. If you reject these guarantees, then you'll need to convince 2/3 of the States that the cost is too high. Or move to Canada or Europe.
Firearms are dangerous. Firearms are also a protected fundamental right (see state and Federal constitutions). For better or worse, this country has determined -and this is harsh- that the costs of firearms are outweighed by their benefits. The fact is that the statistical evidence indicate that tragedies will occur. Our founders accepted this cost as part of a free society. They also determined that free speech, while dangerous, is more beneficial than not. They understood there would be great pressure to prohibit these, so they guaranteed them in the Bill of Rights.
They understood they could be wrong or that societal norms could change, so they allowed the constitution to be amended by 2/3 vote. If you reject these guarantees, then you'll need to convince 2/3 of the States that the cost is too high. Or move to Canada or Europe.
29
Well, I wouldn't know the difference between Hank, Willie, Waylon or Dolly. It's all funky, twangy shit to me. But I still say he pissed-off the wrong crowd. He's toast.
30
" Say or write something that pisses them off, and they'll demand that you be denied your livelihood."
Like run a subreddit featuring completely legal photographs one doesn't like.
Like run a subreddit featuring completely legal photographs one doesn't like.
31
If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun, he and his girlfriend would likely be alive today. It's hard to argue with that.
Sigh.
Goldy... we don't know all the facts and circumstances about the case. We don't know if domestic violence was a way of life with this couple or not. Without knowing that first, we absolutely cannot logically reach ANY conclusion, let alone jump to the one you made.
You know why? It's not that, statistically, gun violence leads to more deaths. It's that domestic abusers are much better murderers when they've finally decided to murder. If they get a kitchen knife, they stab 80 or 100 times.
So if Jovan Belcher was a domestic abuser - and we don't know if he was or not - then his girlfriend would likely have died with or without a gun. And he could have attempted to take his own life without a gun, like jumping from the top of Arrowhead Stadium. I said as much on your morning thread.
Now, if he WASN'T an abuser.... if he was just an ordinary, loving partner, who happened to have snapped this one time... THEN you have a point that's hard to argue. THEN you have a preventable tragedy, because without a gun maybe he would have just hit her. Which would suck, of course, but she would be alive, and most likely so would he.
But we don't know. So we can't say.
32
@ 29, I'll bet you $5 Costas keeps his job. He's been a TV sportscaster for far too long to lose his job over something like this.
33
@32, also, Hank Jr. is uncool. They were phasing him out anyway to make room for that super-hot MILF and country star, Faith Hill. Also, Hank Jr compared President Obama to Hitler. Bad move.
34
Can we really make the statement that she would be alive today if this psycho didn't have a gun? Did he also not have access to a knife or a blunt object?
35
@15: a law could make handguns illegal when sold to or possessed by anyone but a police officer. That's what.
And maybe when it's no longer called "domestic violence" but simply "violence", it will be taken seriously
And maybe when it's no longer called "domestic violence" but simply "violence", it will be taken seriously
36
@35
Do you seriously believe that such a law would pass?
If so, why do you believe that?
If not, do you have anything intelligent to add to the discussion?
Do you seriously believe that such a law would pass?
If so, why do you believe that?
If not, do you have anything intelligent to add to the discussion?
38
It's different in England where they've banned almost all guns.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nor…
Sorry, was that too soon?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nor…
Sorry, was that too soon?
39
The sportswriter, compard the NRA to the KKK and has now said that the NRA is responsible for black gangbangers shooting each other, as well as the the poverty in the ghetto.
Yeah, here I thought it was monkey see monkey do.
Turns out, it's the NRA (representing its membership of law abiding gun owners) causing these retards to shoot each other.
Yeah, it's the guns fault...
Gun control advocates have lost cause their arguments are stupid.
Yeah, here I thought it was monkey see monkey do.
Turns out, it's the NRA (representing its membership of law abiding gun owners) causing these retards to shoot each other.
Yeah, it's the guns fault...
Gun control advocates have lost cause their arguments are stupid.
41
Attack the messenger. Cool.
Dude said it. He made the point.
You throw in your lot with morons like this bunghole, extolling the virtue of his argument, you don't get the privilege of reason or nuance when his argument is brought to its conclusion. He's either right or he's not. Which is it?
Is the NRA the new KKK?
Dude said it. He made the point.
You throw in your lot with morons like this bunghole, extolling the virtue of his argument, you don't get the privilege of reason or nuance when his argument is brought to its conclusion. He's either right or he's not. Which is it?
Is the NRA the new KKK?
42
Fired for what? For stating an opinion? Interesting how Righties want to silence their opponents while crying about free speech if someone criticizes one of them.
43
Is the NRA a partner at the table to discuss restrictions and registrations to improve public safety or is it just going to be an obstacle to any meaningful improvements? It used to be an organization about training and safety, but it's morphed into advocacy for manufacturers and arming everyone in America. Lobbying to fire any dissenting voice is not freedom fyi.
45
@38- probably not a great idea to go comparing US and England gun violence stats.
they had 0.46 per 100,000 residents as opposed to 10.27 per 100,000 in the US- that means 22.37 times more likely to be killed by a gun. Oh, wait, it gets worse. of those 0.46/100k, 0.33 are suicides, 0.07 are homicides, and 0.01 are accidental deaths. In the US we are at 4.14/100k Homicides, 5.71 Suicide, and 0.23 accidental. So in terms of actual external threat posed by guns, you are 54.63 times more likely to be killed by a firearm (considering accidental as an external threat and not your own raw stupidity). So I would say gun control works.
they had 0.46 per 100,000 residents as opposed to 10.27 per 100,000 in the US- that means 22.37 times more likely to be killed by a gun. Oh, wait, it gets worse. of those 0.46/100k, 0.33 are suicides, 0.07 are homicides, and 0.01 are accidental deaths. In the US we are at 4.14/100k Homicides, 5.71 Suicide, and 0.23 accidental. So in terms of actual external threat posed by guns, you are 54.63 times more likely to be killed by a firearm (considering accidental as an external threat and not your own raw stupidity). So I would say gun control works.
46
@45
I think you missed the point.
The point was that even with the kind of gun control that they have in England this kind of thing STILL happens.
So claiming that gun control (which won't be passed anyway) would have prevented THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE is wrong.
"So I would say gun control works."
You left out the word "generally".
Gun control GENERALLY works.
Because I just gave you a very specific example where it did not.
Not to mention, AGAIN, where it is politically feasible to pass gun control legislation.
Which is not the USofA.
I think you missed the point.
The point was that even with the kind of gun control that they have in England this kind of thing STILL happens.
So claiming that gun control (which won't be passed anyway) would have prevented THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE is wrong.
"So I would say gun control works."
You left out the word "generally".
Gun control GENERALLY works.
Because I just gave you a very specific example where it did not.
Not to mention, AGAIN, where it is politically feasible to pass gun control legislation.
Which is not the USofA.
47
@46- No- no need for 'generally.' 'Gun Control' is not the same as '100% protection from bad or stupid people' it is restriction on the ability for persons to own and operate firearms. It is a public safety measure designed to reduce the likelihood of injuries/deaths by reducing access, which is clearly working. Only children deal in absolutes, you fucking child.
48
@34 and @37 and all the ignorant folks who know nothing about the nature of weapons. "Can we really make the statement that she would be alive today if this psycho didn't have a gun? Did he also not have access to a knife or a blunt object?"
It is rare to kill someone with a single blow of an object or single stab of a knife, especially with no training. Often multiple stabs or blows will not fatally injure the victim.
There are so many scenarios and combination of scenarios that make it less likely that anyone would have been killed that day without the presence of a gun. For example, he shot her in front of a witness, his own mother. If he had had a knife or blunt object, isn't it likely his mom would have tried to intervene? Yes. Also, the victim can run from a knife, or even defend herself. The gun nuts love this part, that the only way to defend yourself from a gun is to get the drop on your "assailant" with a "faster draw" - of a gun!
This argument that it would have happened anyway is sick and ignorant.
The gun nuts want no regulation, but that isn't enough for them. They also want us to AGREE that the price is worth it and that we can't do anything to stop any of the killing - even if we allowed more regulation, rather than less and less regulation like we are doing now. For the gun nuts to brag about how every death is worth it and unavoidable is psychologically twisted. The more these ideas become ascendent the more psychologically damaged our society will become. Costas is right to be troubled by what the dominant regulatory and legal frameworks are asking him to accept as a citizen.
It is rare to kill someone with a single blow of an object or single stab of a knife, especially with no training. Often multiple stabs or blows will not fatally injure the victim.
There are so many scenarios and combination of scenarios that make it less likely that anyone would have been killed that day without the presence of a gun. For example, he shot her in front of a witness, his own mother. If he had had a knife or blunt object, isn't it likely his mom would have tried to intervene? Yes. Also, the victim can run from a knife, or even defend herself. The gun nuts love this part, that the only way to defend yourself from a gun is to get the drop on your "assailant" with a "faster draw" - of a gun!
This argument that it would have happened anyway is sick and ignorant.
The gun nuts want no regulation, but that isn't enough for them. They also want us to AGREE that the price is worth it and that we can't do anything to stop any of the killing - even if we allowed more regulation, rather than less and less regulation like we are doing now. For the gun nuts to brag about how every death is worth it and unavoidable is psychologically twisted. The more these ideas become ascendent the more psychologically damaged our society will become. Costas is right to be troubled by what the dominant regulatory and legal frameworks are asking him to accept as a citizen.
49
@47
"Only children deal in absolutes, you fucking child."
Nice.
When your position is shown to be invalid you resort to personal attacks.
Yet you are the one refusing to qualify your statement rendering it an absolute.
Which you then claim it isn't.
You claim: "So I would say gun control works."
But you deny: Gun control GENERALLY works.
Because there is no evidence IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE that Belcher would NOT have used a different weapon to murder his wife.
Why don't you try again when you can address the actual arguments instead of stating absolutes that have already been refuted. Okay?
"Only children deal in absolutes, you fucking child."
Nice.
When your position is shown to be invalid you resort to personal attacks.
Yet you are the one refusing to qualify your statement rendering it an absolute.
Which you then claim it isn't.
You claim: "So I would say gun control works."
But you deny: Gun control GENERALLY works.
Because there is no evidence IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE that Belcher would NOT have used a different weapon to murder his wife.
Why don't you try again when you can address the actual arguments instead of stating absolutes that have already been refuted. Okay?
51
@49- I don't know what part of gun control vs absolute safety you aren't getting. No one has ever made the claim that restricting access will eliminate 100% of gun violence. the idea is to make it much more rare. In nations like the UK, with restricted access, it IS much more rare.
Would this football player have killed the woman and them himself without a gun? Maybe, but it'd be pretty unlikely. Will there be gun murders in places where guns are hard to get a hold of? Sure, but it seems like there are 'generally' a lot fewer of them, as well as many fewer accidental deaths (.01 vs .23/100k). To troll with your 'Too Soon' bullshit and this continuing failure to grasp a basic premise is either a show of complete stupidity or blatant intellectual dishonesty.
Would this football player have killed the woman and them himself without a gun? Maybe, but it'd be pretty unlikely. Will there be gun murders in places where guns are hard to get a hold of? Sure, but it seems like there are 'generally' a lot fewer of them, as well as many fewer accidental deaths (.01 vs .23/100k). To troll with your 'Too Soon' bullshit and this continuing failure to grasp a basic premise is either a show of complete stupidity or blatant intellectual dishonesty.
52
@51
"Would this football player have killed the woman and them himself without a gun? Maybe, but it'd be pretty unlikely."
No.
That is your opinion and it is unsupported by any evidence in this case.
But you will not accept that.
"To troll with your 'Too Soon' bullshit and this continuing failure to grasp a basic premise is either a show of complete stupidity or blatant intellectual dishonesty."
Again, you seem to be missing the point.
That was addressed to the claims that if the USofA had gun control similar to other countries (England in my example) then Belcher would not have killed his wife.
But you won't be able to understand that.
Because you keep confusing "gun control" with the specifics of this case.
They are not the same.
Now, the test of whether you understand is whether you can state a SPECIFIC law that, when passed, would have prevented Belcher from murdering his wife with a gun.
But that law must be possible to pass in the USofA.
Otherwise you're just getting upset that I'm pointing out that your fantasy world isn't the same as the real world.
"Would this football player have killed the woman and them himself without a gun? Maybe, but it'd be pretty unlikely."
No.
That is your opinion and it is unsupported by any evidence in this case.
But you will not accept that.
"To troll with your 'Too Soon' bullshit and this continuing failure to grasp a basic premise is either a show of complete stupidity or blatant intellectual dishonesty."
Again, you seem to be missing the point.
That was addressed to the claims that if the USofA had gun control similar to other countries (England in my example) then Belcher would not have killed his wife.
But you won't be able to understand that.
Because you keep confusing "gun control" with the specifics of this case.
They are not the same.
Now, the test of whether you understand is whether you can state a SPECIFIC law that, when passed, would have prevented Belcher from murdering his wife with a gun.
But that law must be possible to pass in the USofA.
Otherwise you're just getting upset that I'm pointing out that your fantasy world isn't the same as the real world.
53
Oh please, children.
Both sides need to stop masturbating and state their real positions. As a left-wing Seattle liberal and owner of a shitload of guns that my fellow lefties find very scary, let me paraphrase the two sides as I see them:
LEFT:
A TOTAL BAN ON FIREARMS WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THAT INNOCENT WOMAN'S MURDER.
RIGHT:
NO LAW COULD HAVE PREVENTED THAT PSYCHO FROM KILLING HER.
That about sum it up??
Both sides need to stop masturbating and state their real positions. As a left-wing Seattle liberal and owner of a shitload of guns that my fellow lefties find very scary, let me paraphrase the two sides as I see them:
LEFT:
A TOTAL BAN ON FIREARMS WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THAT INNOCENT WOMAN'S MURDER.
RIGHT:
NO LAW COULD HAVE PREVENTED THAT PSYCHO FROM KILLING HER.
That about sum it up??
54
@30: That was not his livelihood, and no one forced him to stop. He still has every right and ability to post whatever he wants.
That asshole got fired because his employer did not want to keep a hateful, misogynist, pedophile on his payroll. Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. No one is impeding his freedom of speech. Anonymity is not a right.
As usual, your arguments are misinformed, poorly constructed, and brazenly self-serving.
That asshole got fired because his employer did not want to keep a hateful, misogynist, pedophile on his payroll. Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. No one is impeding his freedom of speech. Anonymity is not a right.
As usual, your arguments are misinformed, poorly constructed, and brazenly self-serving.
56
@ 48, the problem here is that this is an incident of possible domestic violence, which typically involves frenzy. When an abuser uses a knife, he stabs scores or even hundreds of times.
Please read my comment @ 31. WE DON'T KNOW THE STORY BEHIND THE MURDER. Once we DO, and if it turns out that Belcher had a history of abusing Perkins, that changes the entire story. It becomes one where guns are irrelevant.
The only crimes that serve your argument are ones where someone, in the heat of an intense argument, suddenly grabs and shoots a gun because it's there. One where there wasn't any back story where the murderer had been thinking about it for some time. It may turn out that that's what happened here - a heated argument, a convenient gun, and immediate remorse. But... WE DON'T KNOW.
Please read my comment @ 31. WE DON'T KNOW THE STORY BEHIND THE MURDER. Once we DO, and if it turns out that Belcher had a history of abusing Perkins, that changes the entire story. It becomes one where guns are irrelevant.
The only crimes that serve your argument are ones where someone, in the heat of an intense argument, suddenly grabs and shoots a gun because it's there. One where there wasn't any back story where the murderer had been thinking about it for some time. It may turn out that that's what happened here - a heated argument, a convenient gun, and immediate remorse. But... WE DON'T KNOW.
57
@52- Seriously, what is going on here? Again- restricting access doesn't eliminate gun violence, but does reduce it. Kinda like seatbelts and airbags...people still die in car accidents, but the deaths per miles driven has declined massively. Would gun control have prevented the deaths we're talking about? No one can say with 100% certainty, but it seems pretty likely it would have at least been a lot harder (especially without a handgun). If you've ever been around violent injury you'd know people don't die anything like in the movies/TV. It is a lot messier.
@53- I don't know any reasonable person on the left who holds that view.
@53- I don't know any reasonable person on the left who holds that view.
58
@53 Your statements are a great example of gun nut delusion or dishonesty or both.
Truth:
gun nuts here: the constitution says you can't regulate gun availability and/or use regulation of availability to reduce the amount of gun violence, and even if you could it wouldn't make any difference. Want laws enacted like that in Florida making it illegal for a private doctor to even discuss firearms with a patient.
people wanting a discussion about what regulations or laws could reduce gun violence: There are too many of these senseless killings with guns and we want to talk about doing more with policy, education, regulation, and/or laws to try to reduce the amount of killings.
Truth:
gun nuts here: the constitution says you can't regulate gun availability and/or use regulation of availability to reduce the amount of gun violence, and even if you could it wouldn't make any difference. Want laws enacted like that in Florida making it illegal for a private doctor to even discuss firearms with a patient.
people wanting a discussion about what regulations or laws could reduce gun violence: There are too many of these senseless killings with guns and we want to talk about doing more with policy, education, regulation, and/or laws to try to reduce the amount of killings.
59
@57
"Seriously, what is going on here?"
Simple. I've asked for you to demonstrate your understanding of the case by proposing a law that would have prevented Belcher from murdering his wife with a gun AND that would pass in the USofA.
And you are getting upset that your fantasy world does not match the real world.
So now you are attempting to retreat to generalities in order to "win" this argument.
"Seriously, what is going on here?"
Simple. I've asked for you to demonstrate your understanding of the case by proposing a law that would have prevented Belcher from murdering his wife with a gun AND that would pass in the USofA.
And you are getting upset that your fantasy world does not match the real world.
So now you are attempting to retreat to generalities in order to "win" this argument.
60
@54- So if Costas's employer fired him for being a namby-pamby liberal gun control advocate and not wanting to keep those kind of people on staff, it's OK?
Basically your argument is "It's OK when it happens to people I don't like." Just admit that and we can move on.
Basically your argument is "It's OK when it happens to people I don't like." Just admit that and we can move on.
61
@57 & 58
Of course most lefties aren't calling for a total ban on firearms.
I was trying to illustrate that if a total ban wouldn't have prevented that poor woman's murder, then whatever half-assed solution you're providing surely wouldn't have prevented it either.
And therein lies the fallacy.
Of course most lefties aren't calling for a total ban on firearms.
I was trying to illustrate that if a total ban wouldn't have prevented that poor woman's murder, then whatever half-assed solution you're providing surely wouldn't have prevented it either.
And therein lies the fallacy.
62
@60: If being a gun control advocate was seen as repulsive, demeaning, and sociopathic by most of the population, then sure, a network can fire a representative for that. But for suggesting the existence of a political opinion that a lot of the country supports? Nah.
There is a difference because holding a political opinion is different from victimizing underage girls.
Do you understand that distinction? From your argument, I do not know if you are capable of understanding the difference between having an idea, and victimizing a human. If you are not able to understand this distinction, please stop reading now.
Look, I understand that you want to live in a world where pedophiles are protected so that the can continue to prey on young girls. I know you want to continue doing whatever you want and hiding like a coward behind a computer. You want the ability to act and speak without consequences, just like any toddler.
But you need to grow up and realize that if you publicily sexualize and victimize underage girls, the public has a right to reject you. That is my argument. You do not get to do horrid, despicable things publicly and then claim that no one has a right to judge you, and you are free of consequences because you acted through a computer. Only a small child could believe that.
Besides, your whole argument rests on the idea that someone posting on a public website has every right to ironclad privacy, but a young girl has no right to privacy at all, and can have sexualized images of her posted for the world to see. So the victim deserves no privacy, and the victimizer deserves privacy. It is a self-contradicting argument, and takes a level of cognitive dissonance/plain stupidity that is staggering.
More...
There is a difference because holding a political opinion is different from victimizing underage girls.
Do you understand that distinction? From your argument, I do not know if you are capable of understanding the difference between having an idea, and victimizing a human. If you are not able to understand this distinction, please stop reading now.
Look, I understand that you want to live in a world where pedophiles are protected so that the can continue to prey on young girls. I know you want to continue doing whatever you want and hiding like a coward behind a computer. You want the ability to act and speak without consequences, just like any toddler.
But you need to grow up and realize that if you publicily sexualize and victimize underage girls, the public has a right to reject you. That is my argument. You do not get to do horrid, despicable things publicly and then claim that no one has a right to judge you, and you are free of consequences because you acted through a computer. Only a small child could believe that.
Besides, your whole argument rests on the idea that someone posting on a public website has every right to ironclad privacy, but a young girl has no right to privacy at all, and can have sexualized images of her posted for the world to see. So the victim deserves no privacy, and the victimizer deserves privacy. It is a self-contradicting argument, and takes a level of cognitive dissonance/plain stupidity that is staggering.
63
Yeah, the "total ban" thing is bullshit. I get what CPN is saying that a lot of coastal liberals view anyone who owns guns with suspicion (I'm from a large hunting state in the Midwest, and even as a non-gun-owner this is one of those cultural differences that struck me when I first moved to the East Coast) but that doesn't mean that they think it's a good idea to ban all guns.
Also: "I was trying to illustrate that if a total ban wouldn't have prevented that poor woman's murder, then whatever half-assed solution you're providing surely wouldn't have prevented it either."
First of all, that wasn't really what you were "trying to illustrate," you're backpedaling. Second of all, how do you know a full ban wouldn't have prevented it? How do you know a partial ban wouldn't have prevented it? You're assuming a lot here.
Yeah, there are still murders with guns that happen when guns are illegal. But a lot less of them - which implies that a lot of people who might commit those murders if they were legal decide they don't want to go to the trouble of acquiring an illegal object to do it. You have no way of knowing which category this murder falls into. And yet, while accusing us gun-control advocates of "assuming" that, you guys keep assuming that this case MUST fall into the "would happen even with strict gun laws" category.
Also: "I was trying to illustrate that if a total ban wouldn't have prevented that poor woman's murder, then whatever half-assed solution you're providing surely wouldn't have prevented it either."
First of all, that wasn't really what you were "trying to illustrate," you're backpedaling. Second of all, how do you know a full ban wouldn't have prevented it? How do you know a partial ban wouldn't have prevented it? You're assuming a lot here.
Yeah, there are still murders with guns that happen when guns are illegal. But a lot less of them - which implies that a lot of people who might commit those murders if they were legal decide they don't want to go to the trouble of acquiring an illegal object to do it. You have no way of knowing which category this murder falls into. And yet, while accusing us gun-control advocates of "assuming" that, you guys keep assuming that this case MUST fall into the "would happen even with strict gun laws" category.
64
@ 60, Costas won't be fired. It's stupid to even act like that's a possibility. And yes, if that somehow ends up happening anyway, I will tell you that you were right and I was wrong. But I'm not wrong.
65
@62- I'm sorry you seem to be talking about someone who committed a bunch of serious crimes, but I was discussing Bob Costas and violentacrez, neither of whom have been found to have victimized young girls.
"But you need to grow up and realize that if you publicily sexualize and victimize underage girls, the public has a right to reject you."
Somehow it's OK when Woody Allen marries his stepdaughter, Bratz push Barbie off the shelves, and yadda, yadda, yadda... If the sexualization of young women is the problem, then violentacrez certainly didn't start it, nor (as you pointed out) did he make money off of it. People do make scads and scads of money of it, and it bothers me a lot. As I've mentioned, I have a daughter and I want her to have role models like Marie Curie, not Nicole Ritchie.
But if someone were to take a photograph of my daughter when she's a teen in a public place and post it on the internet and say they found it sexually attractive, I'd be creeped out, but I wouldn't think a crime had been committed or that my daughter had been turned into a victim but that action.
Your argument is still boiling down to "I want people I don't like to get fired and people I do like to keep their jobs."
I do believe that people engaged in speech in a private domain (like Reddit, for example) do have a right to privacy (and that we benefit from it) and people moving around in the public sphere do not have a right to control images of them that have been captured lawfully and in public. You're going to have to deal with the fact. But it's also irrelevant, I'm not defending violentacrez I'm pointing out your double standard. Bob Costas has opinions that anger some people and when he voiced them those people called for his job. Violentacrez displayed completely legal images and voiced opinions people didn't like and they got his job.
I think that's a shitty way to deal with things. "Say or write something that pisses them off, and they'll demand that you be denied your livelihood. Typical." If it's good for the goose, it ought to be good for the gander.
More...
"But you need to grow up and realize that if you publicily sexualize and victimize underage girls, the public has a right to reject you."
Somehow it's OK when Woody Allen marries his stepdaughter, Bratz push Barbie off the shelves, and yadda, yadda, yadda... If the sexualization of young women is the problem, then violentacrez certainly didn't start it, nor (as you pointed out) did he make money off of it. People do make scads and scads of money of it, and it bothers me a lot. As I've mentioned, I have a daughter and I want her to have role models like Marie Curie, not Nicole Ritchie.
But if someone were to take a photograph of my daughter when she's a teen in a public place and post it on the internet and say they found it sexually attractive, I'd be creeped out, but I wouldn't think a crime had been committed or that my daughter had been turned into a victim but that action.
Your argument is still boiling down to "I want people I don't like to get fired and people I do like to keep their jobs."
I do believe that people engaged in speech in a private domain (like Reddit, for example) do have a right to privacy (and that we benefit from it) and people moving around in the public sphere do not have a right to control images of them that have been captured lawfully and in public. You're going to have to deal with the fact. But it's also irrelevant, I'm not defending violentacrez I'm pointing out your double standard. Bob Costas has opinions that anger some people and when he voiced them those people called for his job. Violentacrez displayed completely legal images and voiced opinions people didn't like and they got his job.
I think that's a shitty way to deal with things. "Say or write something that pisses them off, and they'll demand that you be denied your livelihood. Typical." If it's good for the goose, it ought to be good for the gander.
66
@65:
Ok, so you lack the cognitive ability to note the distinction between victimizing children, and simply acknowledging that a certain political belief exists. The guy was fired because his actions were found to be so horrid by basic social standards (which you are completely clueless about) that his employer thought his presence would hurt the company.
And it would have, because unlike you, most people side with the victimized party and not the pedophile. But you keep defending the right of the pedophile to stay hidden. But you are probably also stupid enough to believe that the guy was just trolling and not attracted to the underage girls he was publicly sexualizing every day.
You are too stupid to even realize that Reddit is not private. Even middle schoolers know this. Actually, how old are you? I would feel bad if you were actually twelve years old or something.
Ok, so you lack the cognitive ability to note the distinction between victimizing children, and simply acknowledging that a certain political belief exists. The guy was fired because his actions were found to be so horrid by basic social standards (which you are completely clueless about) that his employer thought his presence would hurt the company.
And it would have, because unlike you, most people side with the victimized party and not the pedophile. But you keep defending the right of the pedophile to stay hidden. But you are probably also stupid enough to believe that the guy was just trolling and not attracted to the underage girls he was publicly sexualizing every day.
You are too stupid to even realize that Reddit is not private. Even middle schoolers know this. Actually, how old are you? I would feel bad if you were actually twelve years old or something.
67
@ 65, a few corrections.
Violentacrez most definitely victimized young girls. He used their photos without their permission for the purpose of humiliation and masturbation. Tell me how they aren't victimized by that?
Woody Allen was not stepfather to Soon-Yi Previn. For one, he and Mia Farrow never married. They didn't even live together. For another, she always regarded Andre Previn to be her father. In her view, Woody was just someone shacking with her mother.
Violentacrez was trying to hide what he was doing from an employer who most likely would not approve of the association with his actions. Bob Costas gave his opinion in the full context of his job. I don't know if he warned his superiors about it, but it seems likely that it would have come up first.
I for one never called for either man to lose his job. But I accept that the differences between the situations dictate different responses from their respective employers, not least of which is the immorality of the actions of one and the utter lack of immorality of the actions of the other. (Remember, legal ≠ moral.)
Violentacrez most definitely victimized young girls. He used their photos without their permission for the purpose of humiliation and masturbation. Tell me how they aren't victimized by that?
Woody Allen was not stepfather to Soon-Yi Previn. For one, he and Mia Farrow never married. They didn't even live together. For another, she always regarded Andre Previn to be her father. In her view, Woody was just someone shacking with her mother.
Violentacrez was trying to hide what he was doing from an employer who most likely would not approve of the association with his actions. Bob Costas gave his opinion in the full context of his job. I don't know if he warned his superiors about it, but it seems likely that it would have come up first.
I for one never called for either man to lose his job. But I accept that the differences between the situations dictate different responses from their respective employers, not least of which is the immorality of the actions of one and the utter lack of immorality of the actions of the other. (Remember, legal ≠ moral.)
68
Not that anyone is still reading this thread, but new details about the case are starting to paint a picture that this tragedy IS the kind of thing that proves Goldy's point. It sounds like a heated argument that went awry, not domestic violence.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdo…
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdo…
Comments (69) RSS