Bob Costas Pushes Gun Control On SNF

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


Fact : People are less likely to # with other people who have guns too. 80% of crimes involving guns, are lopsided. Only one person had one in the altercation. Look at Switzerland; how many people pick up home invasion as a career choice?




posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


Yes, please tell be what is sensible about banning one weapon when a compendium of others exist. Is a gun the only object capable of killing someone? That goof could have plum beat her to death or tackled her through the living room wall, suffocation, etc. He could just as well have strangled her and jumped off a building with a note stuck to his chest. This has nothing to do with the inconsequential fact that guns are legal; but about the damage to the brain from concussions that athletes suffer. Many wrestler have died just like this; too many head injuries and they snap mentally.
edit on 3-12-2012 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Beaux
 


If you're wealthy enough for hand grenades, howitzers, and missile silos you are wealthy enough to buy your own island, put some people on it, and make your own rules. Since you have such wealth, could I maybe get a few bucks?

As far as antiquated rights go, I think freedom of the press and speech is over rated too. The founders couldn't have imagined the free-for-all dialogue that is the Internet. No, they lived in the age of civil discourse and the occasional duel. Imagine how insane it would be to allow the common people to opine on things that only powerful and wise men should decide for us!

I am with you! Scrap the Bill of Rights! If the Founders saw the marvels of today their head would explode and would have compelled the Italian duke to reign over us to make sure it didn't get out of hand.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
As far as antiquated rights go, I think freedom of the press and speech is over rated too. The founders couldn't have imagined the free-for-all dialogue that is the Internet. No, they lived in the age of civil discourse and the occasional duel. Imagine how insane it would be to allow the common people to opine on things that only powerful and wise men should decide for us!


Yep, there's the logical progression that people pushing that particular argument never connect. That's a precedent that they *really* don't want to set if they just stop and think about it, because it can...and likely would... be applied to your right to own and use almost anything invented since the Constitution was ratified, and to place restrictions on any freedoms that may have been expanded due to technological advances in the same time frame.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


Yeah, I've noticed that too...what a phony this guy is.

I'm not sure why I even cling to any type of "sports" entertainment anymore, there is so much more happening in our world today of greater importance.

Thanks for the replies everyone



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
I would like to respond to multiple comments. But first, the Bob Costas comments were first penned by Fox Sports columnist Jason Whitlock (a black writer who played football in college; Ball St). Whitlock often writes of the "black culture" (violence in hip hop music, etc). but here he is trying to make it about the "gun culture"....what if the violence was a function of the black athlete/hip-hop culture of violence and disrespect towards women? What if it was exacerbated by his headaches form a mild brain injury sustained from repeated blows to the head playing football? I agree with all of the comments that he was in a violent rage (shot her 9x!) and could have killed her with any object or "tool" or even his bare hands. Re "free vs slave"; free people should be free to arm themselves to insure that they remain free. That being said there should be some controls for the benefit of society. Short of registration (Belcher's guns were probably purchased legitimately) people that have severe emotional or mental problems should not have free access to guns. Usually in a domestic violence case the guns are removed from the home (even if temporarily).



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Saw a pic on facebook today of Nicole Brown Simpson with the caption, Ask Nicole Brown Simpson if an enraged football player needs a gun to kill.


As far as this guy Costas agrees with, today he said that the NRA is the new KKK.

Enough said about this mental midget.


The bottom line is that if he was so drunk he passed out cold in his car, he was still drunk when the police woke him up and sent him on his way.

If that cop had done his job the murder would not have happened and the player would be dealing with a DWI today.
edit on 4-12-2012 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Beaux
 
You ever bow hunt bear? It is kinda hard to carry a rifle and a bow. That is why people carry pistols and another reason why they own them. Bear could be hunting you while your hunting it even if you use bait.(Twinkies)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tarzan the apeman.
reply to post by Beaux
 
You ever bow hunt bear? It is kinda hard to carry a rifle and a bow. That is why people carry pistols and another reason why they own them. Bear could be hunting you while your hunting it even if you use bait.(Twinkies)



I've taken 4 deer with pistols, 3 whitetails and 1 mulie.


I live in a slug zone, so when they changed the law to allow pistols in our area quite a few of us switched to pistols. Shotgun slugs aren't as accurate as I would like, and a clean kill is a humane kill.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but I can't help but wonder if this football player could have possibly been some sort of "manchurian candidate", to further push along the gun control agenda?

If one believes that the "Dark Knight" shooter James Holmes is one, there's no reason that this guy couldn't have been used/setup as well

edit on 4-12-2012 by shasta9600 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
if she would have had a gun, maybe that baby would still at least have a mother.


gun control only takes guns out of law abiding citizens hands. news flash, criminals dont follow laws.

and you cant magically erase all the guns in the world.

ive always thought this statement works well. come for my guns, leave with some of my bullets.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


Costas is right. This is like the tobacco industries denial of cigarettes causing cancer.. We have the largest gun culture and gun ownership per capita and the largest percent of gun deaths per capita.. Its a undeniable stat. And they are Absolutely related. The gun rights lobby has taen advantage of our constitution to make money for an industry that kills people indiscriminantly.. Use of the product kills people. Yes, people have individual responsibility, but use of the product kills people and therefore must be tightly controlled. Right now, it is completely out of control.. Our founding fathers would change the constitution after viewing this debacle so people would not desicrate the constituition to make money for this industry out of irrational fear of guns "being taken away". limits on personal gun ownership need to be in effect, and more National controls need to be in effect.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by sensible1
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


Costas is right. This is like the tobacco industries denial of cigarettes causing cancer.. We have the largest gun culture and gun ownership per capita and the largest percent of gun deaths per capita.. Its a undeniable stat. And they are Absolutely related. The gun rights lobby has taen advantage of our constitution to make money for an industry that kills people indiscriminantly.. Use of the product kills people. Yes, people have individual responsibility, but use of the product kills people and therefore must be tightly controlled. Right now, it is completely out of control.. Our founding fathers would change the constitution after viewing this debacle so people would not desicrate the constituition to make money for this industry out of irrational fear of guns "being taken away". limits on personal gun ownership need to be in effect, and more National controls need to be in effect.


If gun ownership was the cause countries like Norway, Canada, Finland and Switzerland would also have high gun crime rates.

But they don't.

Cities like Chicago and Washington DC have very strict gun control laws, and very high rates of violent gun crime.

If guns are the problem why is this happening?


An interesting story about Chicago,

www.huffingtonpost.com...

edit on 5-12-2012 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I think it's funny that Hank Williams Jr. is removed from his association with the NFL by criticizing a MAN on a TV show that is unrelated to the NFL. Yet, Bob Costas decides he's going to try and lead a coup against the U.S. Constitution during a halftime segment, and he's still employed? Strange.





posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trustfund
No one is taking away your guns.

Especially as long as the corporate gun lobby (NRA) is bribing politicians strong.


c'mon, if you took away the discussions on guns, abortion, religion, and taxes...right-wingers would be speechless



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by sensible1
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


Costas is right. This is like the tobacco industries denial of cigarettes causing cancer.. We have the largest gun culture and gun ownership per capita and the largest percent of gun deaths per capita.. Its a undeniable stat. And they are Absolutely related.


Are they related? I'm not so sure. As it turns out, most of the rural areas of this country...you know, the ones that typically have the highest rates of gun ownership...tend to have fairly low homicide rates. Compare that to cities with strict gun bans such as Chicago, Baltimore and Washington DC. That latter group will have homicide rates as much as 10 times higher.

Guns aren't the problem and neither are about a hundred million responsible gun owners. You won't accomplish anything with a gun ban except to turn responsible, law abiding citizens into criminals. The others who already had criminal intent aren't going to care about your gun ban, and there's more than enough evidence of that in the example cities provided.
edit on 5-12-2012 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
i would be willing to bet that a large majority of the people who have posted here didn't see what Costas said, or even the entire replay. They probably just saw their favorite news program put their own spin on what was said.


and for those who say that he's a sportswriter and he isn't allowed to comment......
then keep all news and political pundits from ever mentioning sports



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by sensible1
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


Costas is right. This is like the tobacco industries denial of cigarettes causing cancer.. We have the largest gun culture and gun ownership per capita and the largest percent of gun deaths per capita.. Its a undeniable stat. And they are Absolutely related.


Are they related? I'm not so sure. As it turns out, most of the rural areas of this country...you know, the ones that typically have the highest rates of gun ownership...tend to have fairly low homicide rates. Compare that to cities with strict gun bans such as Chicago, Baltimore and Washington DC. That latter group will have homicide rates as much as 10 times higher.

Guns aren't the problem and neither are about a hundred million responsible gun owners. You won't accomplish anything with a gun ban except to turn responsible, law abiding citizens into criminals. The others who already had criminal intent aren't going to care about your gun ban, and there's more than enough evidence of that in the example cities provided.
edit on 5-12-2012 by vor78 because: (no reason given)


More people have died from violence in Chicago over the last five years, than troops have died in Afghanistan.

So it's statistically safer to go to Afghanistan than Chicago.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Hey what can we say about this, why not go the Mexican route (if you thought banning knives was bad wait to you see this bad boy). And just ban toy guns while your at, because we all know that small parts are dangerous for children, with the dumbing down of everyone the adults might choke as well....... I can see it now the reality of The Christmas Story happening, "You'll shoot your eye out!" or Nerf sent kid to the hospital with an eye infection. What's next banning children making a gun sign with their hands, with the whole attacking people with their fists and such that may not be too far off.... The guy doesnt even know what he's talking about, theirs plent of other issues the player had. (I still can't believe what I read wow....)

www.breitbart.com...

abcnews.go.com...





top topics
 
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join