General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNothing that Bob Costas said is untrue and he has a right to say it even if it weren't.
If FOX "News" can get billions to lie to the nation under the guise of news, help justify an illegal war that kills thousands Costas can say what he said without being smeared for it. Why is it that pro-gun folks from the NRA can say what they want about guns but people for sane gun laws and enforcement are smeared for their statements? This kind of stuff is partly what is wrong with the country right now.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
dballance
(5,756 posts)
Walk away
(9,494 posts)The country is moving back to the Left and sanity. We are ending wars and resistant to starting new ones, objecting to the sabre rattling of our allies and turning away from the gun culture. It has just begun but you can feel it in the harping desperation of the 2nd Amendments extremists. The grown ups are tuning out their rhetoric and moving away from their extreme views. The pendulum swings slowly at first.
that he has the right to say what he wants, but i think he is wrong. I also think you are wrong, we have had surging gun sales in this country in the past 6 or 7 years. This man shot his girlfriend 9 times, he is like 6'2 and 260lbs, he could have strangled her, stabbed her, beat her, he obviously wanted her dead, let's not forget OJ Simpson did not need a gun to do what he did!
wake.up.america
(3,334 posts)MrDiaz
(731 posts)the criminals who commit crime have them, until you can think of a REAL way to get guns out of the hands of criminals, I do not believe you should be trying to get them out of law-abiding citizens hands. IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE. If you banned guns the law abiding citizens would be forced to turn them in or get rid of them or whatever, but the criminals would not, because they are criminals...breaking the law of the land is kinda what they do!
when a bad guy sticks a gun in your face or ribs, he's gonna allow you a time out so you can fumble and reach for your piece? I was awakend at 2 in the morning once while stationed overseas. What I can still recall plainly that day was a really big flashlight in my face and the indelible image of a giant fucking nickel-plated revolver flashing in the flashlight's beam. Even if I HAD had a gun under my pillow - how would things have improved for me as I grappled for it???
Face it. Unless you're prepared to walk around with your piece IN HAND, it's not gonna be much of a deterrent. And if you DO do that, look for lots of trouble and shakedowns as you go about your day.
MrDiaz
(731 posts)that you are better off without a weapon to defend yourself when the situation is presented. You are fine with a society that would allow criminals to have weapons but not citizens because the citizens would not be able to properly use it...but the criminals can...and you are cool with that
JEB
(4,748 posts)I know that sooner or later one of these delusional fools will scrape up enough fear to work themselves into a frenzy and actually try to use their dangerous toys. Mostly they just like to fondle their guns (it makes them feel better) and bitch about OJ. Harmless insecure people living in fear for the most part.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)The ones you describe.
JEB
(4,748 posts)That is mostly what I see attending. And the people willing to make money via their fears.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)You go to lots of gun shows then?
I have more than a dozen guns altogether and I've NEVER been to a gun show.
JEB
(4,748 posts)but the NRA and the vocal blind supporters of the NRA's partisan inspired positions are the public face of gun owners. I frequent gun shows for some of the other assorted items that occasionally show up. They have become less and less interesting with the Camo crew selling assault rifles and NRA conspiracy theories taking much of the space. All the guns I have came from family or were purchased directly from their owners. The NRA does not represent the best interests of the majority of gun owners. It presents a wedge issue that divides the country. Costas was right to point out that guns have devastating power and should not be available to everyone.
Big Gay Al
(11 posts)I don't have 2 dozen guns, I've got maybe half a dozen, but I rarely go to gun shows. I can probably count how many I've been to on one hand, and I'm 56. In fact, the last 2 gun shows I was at, I was working for a friend who owns a gun store. So I wasn't even looking for anything then.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)a stereotype in which you guys like to spread. How many people do you REALLY see running around showing their guns off? What makes you think that a gun suddenly makes someone feel better? It will be interesting to see your response because i know plenty of gun owners who never do this. The ONLY thing a gun makes me feel or any other gun owner i know of is the feeling of safety, because I know I have a better statistical chance of defending myself if I am attacked.
JEB
(4,748 posts)I only said that guns were mainly a way of comforting people who live in fear...with which you seem to agree. Statistics?
Whovian
(2,866 posts)I've been drawn on twice. Both times I feel I was lucky that I didn't have a gun because if I went for mine the person holding the gun would have pulled the trigger.
The real world isn't a TV crime show or John Wayne movie.
I have also found that if you keep a big-ass dog in your home you will most likely not have people breaking into your home negating violence for all parties.
So you believe that you would be safer with no weapon if you are being attacked with someone who has one...that is what your saying?
Whovian
(2,866 posts)Cool, just wanted to confirm that u are in favor of a society that allows the criminals to have guns and law abiding citizens unable to do so.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)Just because perfect conditions for self-defense don't exist doesn't mean that you can't effectively defend yourself. Thousands of people do it every day in this country. An armed chance is far better than an unarmed chance when facing a deadly threat.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)They told the number of football players in a given strata that admitted to be "packin'". It was an astounding number - to me anyways. After a year or so, NONE of these jocks had sucessfully defended themselves (or anyone else) with their guns. NONE! They DID however precipitate bodily harm to THEMSELVES and loved ones! Yeah - I'll take my chances without one. I don't let the MSM paranoia drive my fears.
spin
(17,493 posts)with a knife. In all cases the attack ended when my friends showed they were armed. The attacker probably realized that bringing a knife to a gun fight is a bad plan. A concealed handgun can easily stop a large rapist who plans to attack a small female.
Obviously the best tactic to avoid being in a dangerous situation is to not be there. That can involve using something called "situational awareness." Most people walk around with a cell phone glued to their ear and consequently are targets for predators. Merely being aware of your surroundings and alert may cause a dangerous individual to pick a different victim.
Of course situational awareness is no 100% guarantee against being a victim. If you find yourself facing an armed individual it wise to realize that in most cases your attacker is using the weapon to cause you to comply with his desires. If all he wants is your money it is best to simply give him your wallet. You may be a martial arts expert with the skill necessary to disarm him or you may be carrying your own legal weapon, however you should be aware that replacing your health is far more difficult than replacing your money, your ID and your credit cards.
But in a few instances you may realize that your attacker is unstable and extremely aggressive and there is an excellent chance that he plans to send you to the hospital for an extended stay or put you six feet under even after you give up your wallet. In such a situation it is worth using your martial arts skills or your weapon as you have little to lose by doing so.
I do see your point about having your weapon in your hand. I have a concealed weapons permit and I carry a snub nosed .38 caliber revolver in my pants pocket. Fortunately I have never had a reason to draw my weapon but there have been a couple of times where my situational awareness alerted me and I found myself in a potentially dangerous situation. I placed my hand in my pocket on the revolver and was ready to draw it and shoot an attacker if TRULY necessary.
One time I was in a store late at night and I thought the two other guys in the store at the same time could have been planning to rob the clerk. (This store was in a somewhat dangerous area of Tampa and had been robbed in the past.)
I backed up couple of yards and observed the situation with my hand in my pocket. One of the two guys was at the counter and asked me if I wished to check out before him. I politely refused. He then discovered he had left his wallet in his car and left to get it. He seemed somewhat surprised that I didn't check out during the four or five minutes it took him to return. He decided to pay for his purchases and left with his buddy. I stayed around for another ten minutes talking to the clerk and then left. I often stopped at that store on my way to work on the graveyard shift to buy a pack of cigars and frequently had a friendly conversation with the clerk. That night I was late to work by fifteen minutes but since I was the shift supervisor I didn't get any grief for not being on time.
Now I am not a cop or a vigilante and I don't go looking for trouble. Had the two guys actually pulled weapons and robbed the store I would have simply observed and memorized important details about their appearances to tell to the police. If they would have turned violent, I would have drawn my weapon and attempted to stop them. (I personally do not plan to ever pull my revolver unless I have a legitimate reason to use it and it will come out smoking. To show that you have a weapon can stop an attack but can also escalate the situation unnecessarily.)
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)But lets say you (and or others in a well-armed society) manage to draw your guns in response to an event. Every bullet that flys is gonna find THE bad guy? THAT happens only on the big screen. Real life is sadly, much different.
You know - what's deflating to ANY argument you can try to make is the facts and figures from other developed nations with much less prevalence of guns in the hands of their citizens. That and the ever-so-conveniently-ignored part of the 2nd amendment detailing a WELL ORGANIZED MILITIA There's nothing "organized" about folks walking around with a piece in their pocket or on their hip.
spin
(17,493 posts)Text of the Second Amendment:
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.
We can waste a lot of electrons debating the meaning of the wording of the Second Amendment but in my opinion it would be wisest to discuss the actual wording and the definition of the words at the time it was written.
For example I will post an excerpt from a pro-gun attorney on this issue:
The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions
***snip***
The above analysis leads us finally to the term "well regulated." What did these two words mean at the time of ratification? Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different? We begin this analysis by examining how the term "regulate" was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.
It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.
This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.
This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
Obviously you can counter by quoting an attorney who supports your side of the issue. This might make a great topic for a new post in this group and could lead to a lot of interesting debate.
You stated:
But lets say you (and or others in a well-armed society) manage to draw your guns in response to an event. Every bullet that flys is gonna find THE bad guy? THAT happens only on the big screen. Real life is sadly, much different.
What you said is logical and therefore you should have little problem finding news stories that discuss civilians who were legally carrying a firearm in public and accidentally shot an innocent bystander. I will await your results.
You also stated:
You know - what's deflating to ANY argument you can try to make is the facts and figures from other developed nations with much less prevalence of guns in the hands of their citizens.
This is an argument often used by your side of the issue but in my opinion it has several major problems.
1) Obviously in a nation with very few firearms you will have very few deaths caused by these weapons. In the United States we have an estimated 300,000,000 firearms owned by 80,000,000 individuals. How many exist in England and Wales?
Firearm Certificates in England and Wales 2009/10 SUMMARY
• There were 141,775 firearm certificates on issue on 31 March 2010, an increase of two per cent compared with 138,728 on issue at the end of March 2009.
• 580,653 shotgun certificates were on issue on 31 March 2010, one per cent more than the 574,946 on issue at the end of March 2009.
• Around one per cent of new applications for firearm certificates and two per cent of new applications for shotgun certificates were refused in 2009/10.
• There were 3,182 registered firearm dealers on 31 March 2010, an increase of 12 per cent on last year, and 57 per cent higher than on 31 March 2006. The main reason for this increase is thought to be due to new legislation requiring persons who deal in air weapons to be registered as firearms dealers which was introduced in October 2007.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/police-research/hosb0511/hosb0511?view=Binary
Therefore the U.S. has over 300 times the amount of firearms in the hands of civilians. We also have a much higher percentage of handguns. It is not surprising that more people died because of firearms in our nation than the UK.
I will agree that if we could reduce the number of firearms to the level seen in the UK we would have far fewer deaths caused by guns. This is largely impossible because of ...
2) Comparing nations is somewhat foolish as there are usually significant differences in culture. In the U.S. we have a strong gun culture based on our history and our views of ourselves. Other nations do not and therefore have been willing to accept strong restrictions on gun ownership that would never be accepted in many areas of our nation.
3) Our Constitution grants civilians the right to own firearms. Our Supreme Court has upheld this right but has allowed some restriction. Citizens in many other nations have no such right.
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
3) Civilians in other many nations have far more trust in their government than here in the U.S. In other nations citizens have often been willing to turn in their weapons than they would here. The registration and/or confiscation of firearms would prove a daunting task and could lead to a revolt or the breakup of our nation. It might be possible but the cost would be enormous and bloodshed would result. The disadvantages of an effort to confiscate firearms would outweigh the advantages.
Fla_Democrat
(2,622 posts)is to self defense. The gun just makes it a little easier for the 98lb woman to defend herself from the 230lb man. 
rDigital
(2,239 posts)
barbtries
(31,308 posts)just pull the trigger over and over. just pull the trigger. anything else would be a lot harder, and he might even have had time to stop and think about what he was doing before she was dead.
sadbear
(4,340 posts)that's not there when you strangle or stab someone multiple times. You're right. A gun makes it much too easy.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)My main argument for gun ownership is to protect ourselves from the dangerous and illegal police state we have become. I do not propose having shoot outs with law enforcement or anyone. I do believe that we should be able to protect our way of life on a semi-level playing field instead of being fish in a barrel.
My Son was reading from his "facts of the day" from his smart phone yesterday. Americans are like (I don't remember the exact number) 1400 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)Try to imagine these assaults with bow and arrow, or Ninja throwing stars, or a thong like David used to take down Goliath! Heh - these dirty Harry types are driven by movies - and it's NOTHING like the movies when the lead begins to fly!
didn't seem to stop and think about it!
barbtries
(31,308 posts)but then we never find out about the murders that DIDN'T happen. I could easily be one of those, but then we'll never know.
neverforget
(9,513 posts)33 murders per week with knives or 1704 in 2010
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Russia has literally zero civilian handguns and their murder rate is almost 3x our murder rate (5.22 vs 14.18 per 100k population). People will use what is available. It's not the objects, it's the people doing the killing. A whole lot of them.
http://chartsbin.com/view/1454
neverforget
(9,513 posts)rDigital
(2,239 posts)
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)People don't just go off and shoot someone unless they have major issues that have not been addressed. i also think he wanted her dead and would have made it happen one way or another.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)we've had surging gun sales because the poxnews watchers and the rest of the LIV's have been made afraid because they have been told the gay, kenyan, socialist POTUS
is going to take their penises from them. Sane, law abiding citizens are entitled to have a legal weapon. Period. The rest need to go to a cave somewhere and stay there. 11 people shot, in one day, in Chicago. That's the right inherent in owning a gun?
Also who cares if you're still angry about OJ. Not relevant here. He was found not guilty. Period. Oh and by the way, guns don't kill people, people kill people or something like that. Crazy mf's need to be denied the right to own guns. period. "if it don't fit, you got to acquit."
Patiod
(11,816 posts)justanidea
(291 posts)Almost every time I go to the shooting range, I meet a first time gun owner.
20 years ago only a few states had concealed carry. Now 49 do.
Sorry but I don't see any trend of people "turning away from gun culture"
hack89
(39,181 posts)gun control is a smoking ruin in America. State after state has passed pro-gun legislation over the past 20 years - the fact that only one state presently bans concealed carry shows just how much the tide has changed.
rurallib
(64,688 posts)and do the fluff crap that King was doing? One thing about Costas compared to most of the so-called news people - he at least has some standards.
Flashmann
(2,140 posts)Yeah....Along with principles and journalistic integrity....Things a faux "journalist" wouldn't be slightly acquainted with....
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)Is that really controversial?
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)It won't be right away, but will be still have a prominent on the air role in 2-3 years? Impossible to to do anything but speculate, but we all remember the Dixie Chicks
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)on Costas? Probably, but who cares.
I admire folks who stand up for what is right and put their incomes/career/celebritystatus on the line when doing so.
Dr. Strange
(26,058 posts)we all remember what happened when Limbaugh gave his opinion of Donovan McNabb.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)bluemarkers
(536 posts)Man shot his wife then himself. The wife called police thanksgiving weekend when she kicked him out - she said he had guns and had a temper - she felt unsafe.
http://www.wral.com/authorities-investigating-shooting-in-apex/11837829/
I'm not into guns, but I've always felt that guns are too easy. Too easy to pull the trigger, it's almost a detachment, just a flick of a finger. otoh, fists, knives, metal pipes, etc are more physical and maybe[/b would give the victim a chance to escape and survive.
I don't know, a person determined to kill seems to usually succeed though.
I was floored with Costas' opinion, agreed with it. Popped the corn waiting for the fox circus.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Sorry, but I disagree. Costas was hired to discuss sports. He has the right to speak his mind when he's not on the clock, or if that's what he's asked to talk about.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts).
1gobluedem
(6,664 posts)And part of it took place at a sports facility. Doesn't seem that far fetched to me.
TDale313
(7,822 posts)This was by far the biggest thing to happen in the Football world this week.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)
Johnny2X2X
(24,209 posts)It's not like he just starting talking about guns out of the blue. This was the biggest sports story of the weekend. An NFL player shot and killed his girl friend and himself. Guns were a part of that story.
riverbendviewgal
(4,396 posts)I have my firearms license but don't own gun.
I need DU to help me get Gun control off my favorite group. Don't how I got that on my profile. I can not find a way to change this. HELP PLEASE!!!!!
barbtries
(31,308 posts)i know i did. i think you just go to the group and look for the button that says, "trash this group."
hope that helps
riverbendviewgal
(4,396 posts)will I be able to see a post in the general discussion on a gun control if I do trash the group?
barbtries
(31,308 posts)for instance, i'm seeing and even posting in this thread. 
petronius
(26,696 posts)most frequently over the past 90 days - post 5 times in a different Group, and it will change. (Or just wait until those GC & RKBA posts are 90 days old)...
riverbendviewgal
(4,396 posts)so it seems the only way I can get the labeling on my profile forum favorite name changed is to trash the group.
petronius
(26,696 posts)And looking at your post history, it doesn't seem like you have 4 or more posts in any single Group other than GC & RKBA. If that label is troubling you, go drop 3 quick replies into E/E (you have 2 posts there already) and it will change...
riverbendviewgal
(4,396 posts)I trashed RKBA but my profile still shows it is my favorite group...
petronius
(26,696 posts)past 90 days, so 3 more would make that one your new 'favorite' group. But it really doesn't matter which one you choose - as soon as you have more posts in any single group outside the main forums than you do in GC & RKBA, then that other group will become your favorite.
How about the Canada Group? http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1087
riverbendviewgal
(4,396 posts)I understand now what to do. Your paitience is appreciated.
free420
(3 posts)keep it locked up in the back of the closet for more of a doomsday situation. I have no grand illusions of stopping a robber in the middle of the night. However I find that almost everyone I know who keeps a gun for "home protection" are just itching to shoot someone. Hell, they will even tell you. Same with concealed. People who conceal and carry want the shit to go down so they can use their gun. If I was to carry my gun I would want it to be seen and used as a deterrent. Criminals usually pray on the weak and most are gonna keep on walking if they see a gun strapped to your side... As for the law and finding sensible solutions there is still a lot we can do. Most people don't want all guns to be taken away but there is a line that needs to be drawn. If our Forefathers could have foreseen a fully automatic assault rifle with armor piercing bullets that can rip through a classroom of kids in less then a minute then our constitution would be much different.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Not one. I know at least 15 people with permits, and this is also an open carry state. None of them carry LOOKING for trouble. Finding such trouble is hazardous to your freedom, and even in a totally justified shooting, can cost you everything, your job, your home, etc.
"If our Forefathers could have foreseen a fully automatic assault rifle with armor piercing bullets that can rip through a classroom of kids in less then a minute then our constitution would be much different."
I don't suppose you can point to a single shooting where that occurred?
(By the way, getting shot with AP is generally less damaging than normal rounds, because the bullet will pass through without expanding, and will therefore do less damage because it won't impart as much energy in the body)
(also, there existed a 20 shot rifle the year the 2nd Amendment was ratified. Read of the lewis and clark expedition to see it used in the field. Girandoni Repeating Rifle)
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Maybe its Karma.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)I've had two good friends killed in gun "accidents." Mike Donnelly when we were junior high students and Mike Hammers, a work related close friend. I have never known a single person that has ever successfully "protected" themselves OR their property with a gun. Not one. Ever. Zero. That is the reality I have seen with my own eyes.
The NRA should be disbanded.
Big Gay Al
(11 posts)I've saved my life several times just by having a gun. And I'd much rather see the bad guys go away than have to pull the trigger on anyone.
The most fun I have, is target shooting. I don't hunt. I don't like to kill animals. I like to eat them, but I don't like killing.
I don't begrudge hunters their joy though. I see nothing wrong with hunting. In fact, I think the deer hunting season needs to be expanded. There's too damn many of them out there running into my car!!
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Which should I put more credence into? An anonymous internet post or my life experience of 59 years?
Have a nice day, Big Gay Al.
Big Gay Al
(11 posts)What should I believe? Your anonymous post, or my 56 years of life experience, over 30 of which I've carried firearms for self defense, off and on the job, US Army, security and law enforcement.
And a pleasant evening to you too.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I'm not sure you're saying what you THINK you've said.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Big Gay Al
(11 posts)I live in Michigan, I have a Michigan Concealed Pistol License. I've carried a firearm professionally and as a citizen for over 30 years. During that time, there have been dozens of times that just having a firearm sent a would be attacker the other direction. So far, I've had to draw my weapon maybe 5 or 6 times to defend myself. I've had to actually pull the trigger in one encounter, that was on the job. (Security guard, NOT police.)
Believe me when I tell you, no sane person EVER wants to take a human life. But, when the choice is your life or theirs, their is only one viable response. If this football player was as nuts as he sounds, it doesn't matter if he used a gun or not, the result would most likely have been the same. But, it's always the favorite anti-gun nut thing to blame the gun. Don't blame the poor bad guy, his mind was taken over by the gun. He's just another victim.
Victim? Bull manure. He was a coward and a bully.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
JEB
(4,748 posts)when a bit of cold reality intrudes into Sunday Night Football. Some of the wing nuts are more outraged at Costas for speaking the truth than they are outraged at the senseless violence.
doc03
(39,086 posts)
WaitWut
(71 posts)I choose not to own a one.
I call that freedom.
Costas is a troll, always has been, and he is a good one.
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)Nice to meet you. I know a lot of folks who own guns...
...and I choose to own one.
I'm not sure I would label Costas a troll.
Bizarre third dimension thing going on here.
this thread has opened a portal.rDigital
(2,239 posts)Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)I always tell my husband that if I'm ever cloned the world would end. 
MichaelSoE
(1,576 posts)"If you teach me to shoot, I bet I can teach you to regret teaching me to shoot."
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)At first it was just because of the Home Movies connections, but it's grown on me on its own merits now.
Skittles
(171,716 posts)they just cannot handle the truth
Big Gay Al
(11 posts)The truth is not the problem. The problem is all the lies and half truths spewed by the anti-gun zealots, who would disarm us, and set up all law abiding citizens so the criminals can ply their trade with impunity.
As a friend of mine once suggested, call for a cop, an ambulance and a pizza. Then wait and see who gets there first. At least I can have pizza waiting on the other two to arrive and clean up the mess.
Skittles
(171,716 posts)and you don't seem to know the difference between a gun owner and a gun nut
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's the only topic on which the Democratic party argues like Republicans: devoid of data, shaky at best on facts, and deliberately misleading.
wonderful forum~ what can i do now. just have a look first~
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)or something like that.
TexasBushwhacker
(21,204 posts)He just said if you think hand guns make you safer, you might want to reconsider and if Belcher didn't have a gun, there's a good chance he and the mother of his 3 month old child would still be alive. Could he have strangled her or used a knife? Of course. But those require touching the victim. There's something about a gun that just makes it so easy. Nothing is as quick or as lethal. Here's the stats from the FBI on murders by method. 1/2 to 2/3 are by firearms, more than all other methods combined. Same goes for suicide - 60% by firearm, all other methods combined - hanging, poisoning, falling, etc - 40%. Over 20K accidental shootings a year (not all fatal).
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
rDigital
(2,239 posts)It's not the objects that kill other persons. It's the people.
TexasBushwhacker
(21,204 posts)So how are Russians committing all these murders? Are they using illegal firearms mostly or other methods?
rDigital
(2,239 posts)People don't follow it?
Angleae
(4,801 posts)It was NBC's time, NBC's equipment, NBC's broadcast channel, NBC's FCC airwave licence, and Costas is a NBC employee on NBC time. The government can't do anything to him but NBC can.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... about "where" and "when" Costas spoke his mind about this SPORTS related issue, agree with what he had to say?
Hmmm?
Well?
Speak up.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The murder rate is at a 40 year low, as is the sub-rate of domestic murder.
So, that's one thing that's untrue.
