Bob Costas and his short sided opinions

Obviously you get an idea of what side of this particular debate I'll be leaning towards.

The other night, NBC Sports broadcaster Bob Costas made statements in support of gun control that then sparked a lot of responses in agreement and disagreement. He then went on MSNBC (there's a fair minded network) to clarify what he "meant" to say. In other words somebody reminded him that more pro-gun advocates watch football than pro-gun-control advocates and that his soup was going to get cold.

Costas went on to say that he was commenting on America's "gun culture" and how the easy availability of firearms made the murder / suicide committed by Kansas City Chief's linebacker, Jovan Belcher, possible. But, that he wasn't talking about "gun control".

His words on MSNBC's "Last Word":

"What I was talking about here - and I'm sorry if that wasn't clear to everybody - , was a gun culture... I never mentioned the Second Amendment. I never mentioned the words gun control. People inferred that. Now, do I believe that we need more comprehensive and sensible gun control? Yes I do. That doesn't mean repeal the Second Amendment".

Wait, What?

There's quite a bit of double-speak in there and some undefined terminology.

For instance, what does he consider "comprehensive" and "sensible"? And, exactly how does that jibe with not repealing the Second Amendment when it clearly says "...shall not be infringed"?

This is a perfect example of how people shouldn't speak too much when emotionally affected. I understand that he's been touched by the tragedy that occurred, I get that. The last thing anyone should do is make light of what happened. But, blaming an inanimate object for what happened solves nothing.

Let's go back to the fact that the local police in Kansas City confirmed that Mr. Belcher's firearm had been lawfully obtained. That means, in our current system, Belcher would have undergone a quick check of his criminal record through NCIC using the NICS system to verify that he was not a person who would otherwise be unlawfully trying to purchase a firearm. So, tell me somebody, what right would any of us have had to tell Belcher when he was trying to lawfully obtain that item of personal property, that he couldn't have it? If somebody HAD said, "I'm sorry sir but we can't allow you to buy that firearm because we think you might kill somebody with it", how loud would Mr. Costas be that an American citizen, with no criminal background, had been denied his rights? Prior to this incident Jovan Belcher was a well liked person apparently. People are shocked that he was capable of doing this. However, if he was capable of pulling the trigger, what makes them think he wouldn't have been equally capable of ending that life in an alternate manner?

People commit horrid acts of violence against others every day. Not all of them are with firearms.

The only way to "prevent" gun related crimes of violence would be to somehow miraculously make every firearm in existence to vanish (something that the social elitists foolishly believe they can make happen). Not possible, that Pandora's Box has been opened.

Even making firearms purchases by private citizens absolutely illegal will not stop it. The only thing ever accomplished by this is the removal of firearms from the people who are least likely to do evil with them. Those willing to take another life for selfish and criminal reasons are never deterred. They always find a way. In cultures that have tried this form of social control it has always resulted in only two classes of people retaining weapons, the oppressive government and the violent criminal element they were allegedly trying to deter.

Gun Control and the simplistic theories used to support it are only half thought out assumptions based on a woefully ignorant understanding of human nature. The problem with an elitist (no matter his / her political leanings) are that they can't believe they could be wrong. They think themselves to be intelligent and well educated and therefore always correct in their ideas. This way of thinking always leads to poor results. Anyone can ALWAYS be wrong about something. What you never want to be wrong about is anything effecting individual liberty (something I think that in and of itself is what really makes and elitist sweat).

The soft-headed among us believe that if only people would just shut up and listen to them they could lead us into a cultural utopia. There's an old saying, and I have no idea who said it first: "The trouble with Paradise is that only half of the people believe it to be a nice place to live. The other half believe it to be a nice place to plunder". That's the Yin-Yang of the human coin. Good cannot exist without the counterbalance to judge it against. As long as there is evil intent there has to be a way to protect yourself from it. If that evil intent happens to have an unlawfully (or even lawfully) obtained weapon, then you'd better have one yourself or just accept victimization as a way of life.

Bob Costas, and others like him, speak often with their heart. What they fail to do is use their brain prior to doing it.