Bob Costas: 'If Javon didn't own a gun he and his gf would be alive'

Collectively, blunt instruments and "personal weapons" (hands, feet, etc. . . ) account for about 10% of all murders. Firearms account for 67%. Guns make it easier to kill. That's their intended purpose. This isn't controversial.
So when guns are banned, what does history show us happens?
Think UK!
Murder rate by guns remains the same.
Murder rate by knives increases.
Ban knives?
Require licensing to purchase a butter knife?
Age restrictions on purchase of butter knives?
It is happening in the UK right now, a kid can buy a home, join the army, smoke, drink in A restaurant but cannot buy a butter knife!!
 
Usually. But lately we seem to be getting the kind of dregs who just call women that name, and black people other names, as a matter of course. That is how they interact with women and minorities. So it's become kinda hard to tell who is new and who isn't.

If you act like a cunt, then expect to be called one. If you're going to dish out your sexist hateful crap, then expect it right back at ya. Grow up.
 
I thought it was an old poster under a new name as well. Seems to be a lot of that on this site. (Not asking this in a negative way) What type of, if any, advertising do you do for this site Damo? How would someone new actually find this site?

We don't advertise. New people find this place either through Google searches, or through word of mouth.
 
It's really not asking a lot. You kind of lower the tone of the whole board w/ some of your posts.

It'll fall on deaf ears, but posting like that only really reflects on you - it doesn't say anything about who you are targeting. You might not care about that, but that's just how it is.

You always say the right thing, that's why I can close my eyes, put my hands over my ears, and sing "I can't hear you" when you start talking about SS privatization. You're just too good otherwise. But everyone has a wart. :)
 
It's really not asking a lot. You kind of lower the tone of the whole board w/ some of your posts.

It'll fall on deaf ears, but posting like that only really reflects on you - it doesn't say anything about who you are targeting. You might not care about that, but that's just how it is.

I'll take you seriously when I see you direct your criticism towards Darla. Until then, pfffft.
 
Collectively, blunt instruments and "personal weapons" (hands, feet, etc. . . ) account for about 10% of all murders. Firearms account for 67%. Guns make it easier to kill. That's their intended purpose. This isn't controversial.

Anyway, back to the point of this thread...

I see no one has addressed this. It seems pretty simple to me.
 
You always say the right thing, that's why I can close my eyes, put my hands over my ears, and sing "I can't hear you" when you start talking about SS privatization. You're just too good otherwise. But everyone has a wart. :)

You'll come around. Privatization is actually the progressive thing to do. But hey, I don't want to hijack the thread or anything.
 
I don't know what his politics are but he's a lot better looking than Rush. That gives him some leeway, sorry. :)
Sorry, neither one of them do anything for me. Besides, issues like domestic violence are very important issues. I dont' want to hear some wannabe journalist marginalize such a topic by hyping it during a ball game. It's inappropriate.
 
Collectively, blunt instruments and "personal weapons" (hands, feet, etc. . . ) account for about 10% of all murders. Firearms account for 67%. Guns make it easier to kill. That's their intended purpose. This isn't controversial.

Easier is a relative term so how exactly does one quantify it? Easier then a knife? Yes, marginally. You still need to hit a vital area or artery to be viably lethal with either instrument. Blunt objects? Again, yes, but only slightly. A blunt object to the skull or heart can be just as deadly (though not as immediately so) and hitting someone in the skull with a hammer is much easier than hitting someone in the head with a bullet (as someone who's shot more than everyone else on this board combined). The advantage of guns is that they do not risk the attacker, not that they are significantly easier to kill someone with.
 
Sorry, neither one of them do anything for me. Besides, issues like domestic violence are very important issues. I dont' want to hear some wannabe journalist marginalize such a topic by hyping it during a ball game. It's inappropriate.

The guy was a sports star Mott, I don't think it was inappropriate at all. I think there is a tremendous amount of domestic violence in the sports world and it's high time they started talking about it. IMO
 
Easier is a relative term so how exactly does one quantify it? Easier then a knife? Yes, marginally. You still need to hit a vital area or artery to be viably lethal with either instrument. Blunt objects? Again, yes, but only slightly. A blunt object to the skull or heart can be just as deadly (though not as immediately so) and hitting someone in the skull with a hammer is much easier than hitting someone in the head with a bullet (as someone who's shot more than everyone else on this board combined). The advantage of guns is that they do not risk the attacker, not that they are significantly easier to kill someone with.

It's common sense. It isn't marginally easier than a knife - with a knife, you have to get in close and it's much tougher emotionally for most people at that point.

But the biggest thing people are ignoring with the "easier" argument is that a knife or blunt instrument or whatever it is aside from a gun can be fended off much more effectively by the victim. The victim stands a fighting chance, and if he/she can just keep their vital organs protected, they may be able to stall long enough to get some kind of help, or make the perp work much harder to kill them.

With a gun, there isn't much you can do.
 
The guy was a sports star Mott, I don't think it was inappropriate at all. I think there is a tremendous amount of domestic violence in the sports world and it's high time they started talking about it. IMO

Costas wasn't talking about domestic violence though he was talking about guns. His position was that without a gun the two of them would be alive today.

Edit: And from what I've read so far I haven't seen any reports of domestic violence in their relationship just that their relationship was very rocky and not going well.
 
The guy was a sports star Mott, I don't think it was inappropriate at all. I think there is a tremendous amount of domestic violence in the sports world and it's high time they started talking about it. IMO

There is domestic violence everywhere in our society.
 
Costas wasn't talking about domestic violence though he was talking about guns. His position was that without a gun the two of them would be alive today.

Edit: And from what I've read so far I haven't seen any reports of domestic violence in their relationship just that their relationship was very rocky and not going well.

Well if this was the first instance, it was a doozy huh!

That's true, he wasn't talking about DV, I went and read his entire statement again. I actually strongly agree with him, but he was talking about guns. I believe he had every right to though. I really don't consider it inappropriate. Every time we have a national incident of gun violence (like the mass shootings), we are always told it's an inappropriate time to talk about it. I think that's kinda manipulative.
 
It's common sense. It isn't marginally easier than a knife - with a knife, you have to get in close and it's much tougher emotionally for most people at that point.

But the biggest thing people are ignoring with the "easier" argument is that a knife or blunt instrument or whatever it is aside from a gun can be fended off much more effectively by the victim. The victim stands a fighting chance, and if he/she can just keep their vital organs protected, they may be able to stall long enough to get some kind of help, or make the perp work much harder to kill them.

With a gun, there isn't much you can do.
do you shoot?
 
Back
Top