28 replies to this topic

[TheOldBreed]

While I don't agree with Costas, the line of thought that someone will just do the same thing with a different weapon is asinine. Guns remove much of the human element from inflicting harm on someone. It can be done from a distance and it is the bullet doing the damage, not the actual person. Stabbing or bashing someone's brains in is a lot more brutal. For some people that doesn't matter because they are truly sick in the head, but for a lot of others, they never would have committed the crimes they did without the assistance of a gun.

Shooting someone is easy. You keep your hands clean and its often one shot and done. That's not the case with other weaponry.

Ok....so you essentially make the same points that I did, but in a better way. Read my post again; I said that he could have used another weapon, but the gun made it easier.

I like how some of you guys are playing word games. Sure an AR-15 may technically be classified as a " semi-automatic hunting rifle"....but we really know it is not. AR-15 has two modes: safe or semi-auto; the M16A2 has safe, semi-auto, or 3 round burst. None of the weapons in the M16 family except for the obsolete M16A1 (this family includes AR-15s) has a fully automatic mode of fire. So the only real difference between the AR-15 and the other weapons in that family is 3 round burst; that difference is not enough to classify one as a hunting rifle and another as an assault rifle...they are essentially the same thing. And that's just talking about the ARs and not the other assault rifle type weapons that are out there.

Also FYI the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired March 2, 2004.

[Mr. Belding]

If Mr. Belcher did not have a relationship with this woman, she would probably still be alive.

Ban interpersonal relationships.

[Mr. Belding]

Awesome d/p.

[Rubi]

He's right. We should just magically take away all the guns so battles are fought with melee weapons and explosives.

I'm good with light saber duels

[thatlookseasy]

No weapon should be banned. Assault rifles especially. The 2nd amendment states the citizen militia should have the same firepower as the tyrannical government.

God this country is becoming fuging sissified, and disgraceful.

Agreed. If I have a few million dollars lying around and I want to buy a tank I should be able to dammit.

And who is the government to tell me I cant buy enriched uranium? This is america, I thought this was a free country

[YourMomsLover]

I thought we were talking about banning handguns?

Tanks and uranium....what?

[PhillyB]

i'm pretty ambivalent on the gun control issue as i see significant pros and cons to either one, but if we're going to analyze the constitutional aspect of it it's important to note that the second amendment was written in a historical context where a firearm was a muzzle-loading musket or flintlock pistol, taking at least thirty seconds between shots to reload (and that's if you're a trained expert.) There's not a technological equivalency between that and a semiautomatic handgun or rifle, and that's something important to keep in mind.

[Darth Biscuit]

i'm pretty ambivalent on the gun control issue as i see significant pros and cons to either one, but if we're going to analyze the constitutional aspect of it it's important to note that the second amendment was written in a historical context where a firearm was a muzzle-loading musket or flintlock pistol, taking at least thirty seconds between shots to reload (and that's if you're a trained expert.) There's not a technological equivalency between that and a semiautomatic handgun or rifle, and that's something important to keep in mind.

While I understand the sentiment of what you're getting at... it does say...

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It does not say keep and bear GUNS... and what I mean by that is equivalency... if it was written in the time of knives and arrows, would it really matter?

If the gov't or some other entity had automatic weapons and the people had rocks it wouldn't do the people much good.

Note that the previous comment is in no way advocating we should be allowed to have automatic weapons... I'm just saying that if we are allowed by the constitution to "bear arms" they need to be reasonably equivalent to the standard of arms in the world at any given time.

In 200 years from now when there are (insert futuristic weapon here), will the second amendment still be relevant?

[PhillyB]

I'm just saying that if we are allowed by the constitution to "bear arms" they need to be reasonably equivalent to the standard of arms in the world at any given time.

In 200 years from now when there are (insert futuristic weapon here), will the second amendment still be relevant?

yeah this is exactly the point i was trying to make. there has to be a reasonable equivalency to continue using the second amendment as the foundational argument for firearms proliferation; it's going to get to a point where that argument will need new legs to stand on entirely or lose credibility (which, fortunately for most of the gun nuts, won't matter as most of them don't care too much about factual credibility and willingly insulate themselves from it in favor of ideological justification.

[Frash Brastard]

Actually you could not be more incorrect.

Our per capita non gun related violent crimes are on par with other civilized countries. When we add in gun violence our violent crime rate skyrockets.

Like I said, problem isn't as simple as going down to that number by outlawing guns. Which other civilized countries are we talking about here? Switzerland? Have you seen their firearms politics?

[Panthers_Lover]

The issue here isn't really about guns and banning them ... it's about Costas taking this "opportunity" to spout his political views. Actually, to allow him to read someone else's political views and agree with them. It was an inappropriate time and place.

If he wanted to give some sort of opinion about any of it, he could have talked about domestic violence in general. The gun issue? Nope. Not appropriate.

[thatlookseasy]

I thought we were talking about banning handguns?

Tanks and uranium....what?

Others were talking about banning handguns. You brought up the idea that all guns should be legal- the Scalia opinion if you will

[FurdTurgason]

i'm pretty ambivalent on the gun control issue as i see significant pros and cons to either one, but if we're going to analyze the constitutional aspect of it it's important to note that the second amendment was written in a historical context where a firearm was a muzzle-loading musket or flintlock pistol, taking at least thirty seconds between shots to reload (and that's if you're a trained expert.) There's not a technological equivalency between that and a semiautomatic handgun or rifle, and that's something important to keep in mind.

Very well put. I'm all for someone owning a pistol to protect their home, but when someone goes Smitty it's too easy for very bad things to happen. Imagine how many people would be dead if we could just clench our fist and they fall down dead. Guns eliminate the cooling off period. People would still be murdered without them, but to think that guns don't affect the murder rate is wrong.

[cookinwithgas]

Bullshit it WAS the appropriate time and place. I'm sick of this - after every crazy gun related incident, people whine that it's not the time - of course to you it's not the time because your arguments lose steam when confronted with the reality of the situation. All Costas said was that we should talk about it - that's why the OP had to inject his own beliefs instead of simply posting what Costas said:

"Well, you knew it was coming. In the aftermath of the nearly unfathomable events in Kansas City, that most mindless of sports clichés was heard yet again: Something like this really puts it all in perspective. Well, if so, that sort of perspective has a very short shelf-life since we will inevitably hear about the perspective we have supposedly again regained the next time ugly reality intrudes upon our games. Please, those who need tragedies to continually recalibrate their sense of proportion about sports would seem to have little hope of ever truly achieving perspective. You want some actual perspective on this? Well, a bit of it comes from the Kansas City-based writer Jason Whitlock with whom I do not always agree, but who today said it so well that we may as well just quote or paraphrase from the end of his article.

"Our current gun culture,"Whitlock wrote, "ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead."

"Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it. In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions, and their possible connection to football will be analyzed. Who knows?"

"But here," wrote Jason Whitlock," is what I believe. If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today."

There is NOTHING in there that does not jibe with the consensus here - that having a gun makes this kind of thing easier, etc.

If Javon had a fuging baseball bat and not a gun, I doubt he could have bashed his own head in to death.