For those of you who missed it, the pro football world was rocked on Saturday by news that Kansas City Chiefs player Jovan Belcher shot and killed his girlfriend (and mother of their three-month-old daughter) that morning after an argument; he then drove to Arrowhead Stadium and blew his head off, in front of his coaches no less. There's nothing I can say about this act in itself that hasn't been said already, except for a couple of random thoughts.
1) A murder-suicide is not a "tragedy," it's a crime. A tragedy is when you lose the brakes on your car and go off the road and die. If it happens because someone has tampered with those brakes, it ceases to be a tragedy and becomes second-degree murder. So let's stop calling it that on TV, please.
2) Some of Belcher's teammates were posting on Twitter Saturday night comments to the effect of "So sorry for you, bro [meaning Belcher]. We'll miss you, good buddy," etc. I don't want to be too harsh on them for saying they'll miss their teammate, but what the heck? Because of his actions, their child will grow up never knowing her mother. It's sad that he took his own life as well (now she'll never know her father, either), but this is all on him. If you can't realize that, you've got a screwy value system indeed.
All of which gets to the main thrust of my commentary. During halftime on NBC's Sunday Night Football, sportscaster Bob Costas gave a short "opinion" piece, which he regularly does about current athletics issues, and of course this time it was about the murder-suicide. Costas gave a very moving speech about the need to pray for the family and friends of those involved and expressed the hope that they can all find peace and some kind of happiness soon. Oh, wait--no he didn't. He used the opportunity to make a 90-second pitch for gun control. Costas approvingly quoted at length a Kansas City sportswriter, Jason Whitlock, who blamed the shooting on "gun culture." I suppose this is slightly correct, as you do in fact need a gun to shoot someone, but the gist of his argument was that people get killed because having these weapons causes minor spats over loud music or whatever to get heated, someone pulls a gun, and bang--lots of dead people. "Handguns do not enhance our safety," Whitlock (and Costas) claimed, and ended with these appalling words: "If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins [his girlfriend] would both be alive today."
What. The. @#$%?!?!
In this one statement, you have multiple displays of liberalism in its worst forms. First, there's the belief that what people do is not their fault, it's society's fault. Apparently Belcher was just a nice guy until he got access to a gun (a legally purchased gun, for the record), and then turned into a killer. Except he wasn't. I hate to speak ill of the dead, but from what we know of this guy now, he seems to have been a malignant bully since adolescence and exhibiting violent behavior at least as far back as his college days. So yeah, I'm pretty sure if his girlfriend hadn't met her end from a bullet, it would have been from a knife or fist (and God only knows what kind of abuse was going on behind the scenes). Second, there's the liberal notion that they can make people better by controlling their lives, which is where gun control policy comes in: Take away people's means of being violent to each other, and they will no longer be violent at all. And finally, you have the willful ignorance that stems from overlooking all the evidence that contradicts these beliefs.
As most of you are no doubt aware (and as it only took me a few minutes to look up), gun control and firearms murder rates are in fact inverse to each other. During the same period in the late 20th century in which gun sales in America peaked, pushing the total number to about 200 million owned, murder rates fell by nearly 40 percent. Meanwhile, Britain practically banned the ownership of handguns at this time, and then saw a rise in gun-related crimes of 40 percent in two years. Cases of armed robbery in London rose from four in 1954 to over 1,700 by 1998. But none of this matters to liberals.
On top of all this, there's the liberal assumption that guns are racist because more black people die from firearms incidents more often than whites; therefore, they must be part of a conspiracy by "The Man" to oppress African-Americans. Costas himself was a bit more oblique on this point, but Whitlock made it explicit, saying in an interview, "I believe the NRA is the new KKK. And that the arming of so many black youths...and loading up our community with drugs, and then just having an open shooting gallery, is the work of people who obviously don't have our best interests [at heart}." This is the sort of crap Jeremiah Wright and other racist crackpots have been spewing for years, and it's just as racially divisive as the actual KKK.
Even so, I blame Costas more in this case than Whitlock. You have to blame the latter for the original words, but he's just a local hack. Costas has a reputation (he's also a left-winger and was a definite Bush-basher, but that gets less attention). A lot of people, myself included, deliberately tuned in to SNF's halftime coverage to see what he, as someone with authority on sports culture, would say about this, and instead got liberal proselytizing. And Costas had to know this would be a controversial thing to say, especially so soon after the act itself. Nonetheless, he chose to use his time on-air to exploit a horrific incident for political purposes. This is shameful.
But the Democrats, of course, have no sense of shame.
62 comments:
Yes, and on the same day, on Staten Island, a man picked up a metal baseball bat and beat his wife to death in front of his teenage children. Of course, he wasn't a baseball star, but whatevs. Bob won't suggest banning baseball bats because men beat their wives to death.
Oh, and then there's the young man who killed his mother and stepfather with a bow and arrow!
Stabbings, hackings with axes, beatings, poisonings...these are all on the rise. But it's guns Costas is worried about.
Oh, and if the KKK wanted to kill black people, they wouldn't GIVE them guns. They'd just shoot them themselves.
I saw this when it happened and I couldn't believe the bullsh*t spewing from his mouth. There was no factual or logical basis for anything he said... it was all made up scapegoating.
"One thing I do know, if the public didn't have guns two more people would be alive today" -- bullsh*t! When someone wants to kill, they find a way Bob... you assh*le.
Bev, that's it exactly. Having brought up Britain in my post, I'll add that while there has been a drop more recently in crimes involving a gun in the U.K., the crime rate overall has still risen, only now the deadly weapons involved are knives, clubs and sometimes a good-ol'-fashioned bare-knuckled beatdown.
I wonder what the nanny state response to this development will be, if/when they acknowledge it. Surely they won't advocate amputating people's hands....right?
Andrew, what can I say? I don't know what's worse, using this event for political grandstanding, or the possibility that Costas genuinely believes what he's saying--that if Belcher hadn't been able to get his hands on a gun, he would have been like "oh well, guess I'll let her live" and then calmed down and everything would be hunky-dory.
As you say, bulls***.
I am uncertain that this is what Whitlock was talking about but here locally in Jax there was an incident where some 45 year old putz shot and killed unarmed teens. He was arrested for murder, I think first but it might be second, not sure.
Anyways the guy says he just went there to politely ask the kids to turn the music in their car down and the kids got nasty and threatened to shoot him so he shot first. No gun was found in the teens car. His lawyer is going to try the Stand Your Ground defence and teh prosecution responded to that with the politically correct way to say "Good Luck with that".
T-Rav as to Costas I think we need to reconsider his cogent argument.
Honestly T-Rav don't you think the world would be a better place if we just uninented the gun. This is the responsibility of America's dagerous Invention culture which should be addressed next. We are all about Inventoing the next luxory and destroying the Ozone of the planet and increasing Carbon Foot prints. When do we ever take the time to gaze at our navels and say "Maybe we just don't need that."
Uninvention will also help the economy. Getting rid of the assembly line for instance would quadripple the number of workers needed to build cars. And those are good paying union jobs.
Indi: "Uninvention"! Why didn't I think of that?
My fb blew-up with negative reactions to this "journalistic opportunity"... which is how I learned about it - been WAY to busy to notice otherwise.
RE KKK≠NRA, saw this article: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/12/sorry-libs-nra-was-there-to-help-blacks-defend-themselves-from-kkk-democrats-not-the-other-way-around/
Indi, I heard something about the Jacksonville incident, but to be honest I haven't really looked into it, so I can't comment on that until I do.
As to "uninventing" things: I have no doubt liberals would do that if they could. As you point out, it does make a lot of sense--if you're an unhinged Luddite, that is.
Incidentally, Costas has come out today and defended his anti-gun remarks, saying "I think most reasonable people think we do not have sufficient controls on the availability of guns and ammunition." So I guess we have to uninvent gunpowder, too. Also, this sounds suspiciously close to the "I don't know anybody who voted for Reagan!" line.
rla, here's your link: LINK
Yes, this has been drawing quite a lot of criticism from people, for understandable reasons. A number of Costas' media buddies, though, have of course praised him for "taking a stand" on gun violence--which is probably why he doesn't feel the need to retract anything.
Bev: The "ban the baseball bat" argument has been used since the 60s to counter the hoplophobe's gun grabbing and it's a proven loser. The point is that a gun is a far more efficient weapon than a bat or golf club at killing people and they are correct.
The most successful argument so far is that self defense is a civil right and during a crime when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. The civil rights analogy also works by framing the issue similarly to things like acceptance of gays which the leftists can understand. Most of the people like Costas are the "hoplophobes" or fearful of weapons - in particular ordinary people owning guns.
Fight hoplophobia, give to the NRA.
As an aside, anyone notice that within weeks of Obama's re-election gun control - absent for the last 4 years from the national dialog - is now back on the table? To bad Republicans can't learn from this and put abortion in the closet until the appropriate time.
yeah, he really "spoke truth to power" ... or something...
rla, definitely "or something." :-)
K, I don't think we're really arguing about the comparative efficiency of weapons. Granted, I'd rather face a baseball bat than a gun, but at close range, either can do you a lot of harm.
Point is, though, you're right--self-defense is a civil right (not to mention a constitutional one), and I think playing on that wins the argument for us a lot of times. As rla's link indicates, minority groups who otherwise aren't big fans of us can agree that gun ownership is an excellent way to deal with oppression and violence.
It's been said before, but there are several other factors beside the fact a gun was used that contributed to the crime: 1) habitual use of booze and pain pills; 2) he was raised by a single mother and had no father figure in his life; 3) a culture of black-on-black violence that society doesn't acknowledge or it simply accepts and excuses.
Each of these things was more likely to have contributed to the shooting than "gun culture". Gang members overwhelmingly come from single mother households. If we were to be honest, we would need to "responsibly regulate" single motherhood first before even considering further "gun reform".
In this case, though, the guy was a violent sociopath and a terrible person. We really needn't look any farther than that.
T-RAV: Bottom line - the "baseball bat" argument doesn't convince anyone who isn't already against gun control. People fearful of people with weapons want to get rid of the guns first. Then the knives and then the big sticks. In Japan, if you dress up like Harry Potter for a comics convention you aren't allowed to have a wand more than 6 inches long because it might be used as a weapon.
There's another element that's rarely mentioned in the context of gun control. A big city newspaper some years ago, I forget which one, decided to show all the murders in the city on a map as they happened. The vast majority of murders (95% plus)were in the black communities. The message was that gun crime was mainly an urban black problem. That also explains why a black Presidential candidate could ignore gun control as an issue - but now can express his solidarity to the black community by going back to it.
rlaWTX
Great Point!
I think you might want to invite Whitlock to read Malcolm X's ballot or the bullet speach and then defend his comments.
Look, the bottom line is, as long as peopel like Costas are given free reign and access they can and will vilify any opposing viewpoint. It does not matter what our counter argument is no matter how reasoned and logical. They will always have the last word. We could agree with their issue and still be vilified for agreeing as a "flip-flop".
wahsatchmo, all excellent points and certainly ones you will never hear Costas or anyone else on NBC talking about. Especially the single mother thing. Some time ago, I saw a review for AMC's now-canceled The Killing, which features a cop who's also a single mother with a messy home life. A lot of people were attacking the show in the comments because it had the gall to suggest that a one-parent household wasn't every bit as stable as a two-parent one. They'll never admit it might be true.
I also read that Belcher was (as many bullies are) very manipulative as a youth and convincing lots of adults he was a stand-up kid; which may explain why no one around him saw this coming. In that context, his suicide may not have been from shame, but from an unwillingness to go to prison and be seen for what he was. But that's pure speculation on my part.
Indi, I think Whitlock getting the point would require more brain cells than he can muster.
Just for laughs, Whitlock's little online bio or whatever describes him as "agenda-free." Ha!
"I think most reasonable people think we do not have sufficient controls on the availability of guns and ammunition."
Help me out, I'm never sure, is this an example of circular logic? It seems to me that Costas is suggesting that the mark of reason is thinking there are insufficient gun controls, thereby affirming that it is a reasonable suggestion to control guns. Or am I reading too deep?
K, I'll go you one better. In Britain, people have actually been arrested for pulling a toy gun on their would-be muggers. Because it caused fear and "emotional trauma," etc. Good grief.
Anyway, we're not talking about the best gun-rights pitch, we're talking about the utter hypocrisy and myopia of people like Costas, who don't know what they're talking about.
Bev, as Breitbart and others argued, don't change the politics, change the culture. The rest will follow. Cracking down on morons like Costas is the first step.
On the efficacy of various weapons, I saw an episode of Mythbusters about bringing a knife to a gunfight and they demonstrated that the knife fighter has some pretty good odds. Of course, that's one highly controlled situation, but it shows that deadliness of the weapon is dependent on more than just the nature of the weapon.
tryanmax, I think that's more like a tautology. Circular logic is more like saying "Most reasonable think the availability of guns and ammunition should be limited, because that's a reasonable policy to pursue."
Either way, I read it more as an example of intellectual isolation and arrogance: Everyone who's smart will agree with Costas that gun control is a good thing; if you disagree, you're probably not a "reasonable" person. Gee, thanks.
The football player was a piece of garbage who given his size, could have killed his girlfriend almost as easily with his hands. The problem was him, not his gun.
I'm not a gun guy, but I've got no problem with other people owning them.
If prosecuters wanted to start stacking even more years then they do now on dealers with guns in their possession, I'd be fine with that. Such a move wouldn't convince dealers to disarm, but it would keep them off the streets for more time.
T-Rav, I think they're related. I think Costas shows a real lack of judgment here. He is misusing a position he has been give for the purpose of talking sports to talk politics. Like all liberals, it doesn't occur to him that he's full of crap or that his views are the least bit controversial. I suspect he thought that everyone would agree with him.
And I think it's intensely stupid for him to actually believe that the presence of the gun is what caused this murder. This guy made a decision to kill her and he would have done it any number of ways.
Believe it or not, most murders don't even involve guns in this country.
Anthony, That's true and that's something conservatives need to start pointing out. Guns are the great equalizer because a woman with a gun can stop a man from killing her, a woman without a gun... can't.
tryanmax, I have no doubt that's the case. If you know what you're doing, you could throw it and disable someone before they could get a shot off.
That said, I'd just as soon bring a gun to a gunfight. :-)
Anthony, I'm with you. I'm all for gun rights, but I don't personally own one, and in fact I've only been to a shooting range once (though I did nail my target perfectly).
As for the football player, like I said above, I have no doubt that we'll hear more soon about all kinds of abuse going on before this. This kind of violence doesn't just come out of the blue (okay, occasionally it does, but that's very rare). It's already clear this Belcher guy had a nefarious past.
Andrew, that's what I mean. It's the "I don't know anyone who voted for Reagan!" syndrome all over again. All the smart people I know agree with me, therefore it must be true, etc etc.
You think it's intensely stupid to say the gun's presence caused her murder because it is intensely stupid. If he didn't have a gun, he would have used a knife or, like Anthony pointed out, simply beat her to death. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
On another note, what is it with sportscasters and liberal politics? Keith Olbermann used to be one too.
Folks, I need to step out for a couple hours. Talk amongst yourselves.
Um...okay. Harumph. Harumph. I miss John Madden and Pat Summeral. Harumph.
"...as Breitbart and others argued, don't change the politics, change the culture. The rest will follow. Cracking down on morons like Costas is the first step."
The "culture" has already changed and it wants no guns, lots of victims, and lots of free stuff that others pay for. Again, we cannot change the culture back to where people are self-sufficient and take care of our own. We will never control the popular culture because it belongs to Hollywood and the liberals. Andrew Breitbart is dead. And it has already been decided who the morons are and, tag, we're it.
This Day in History, 1933, Prohibition ended with the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment. So hoist a glass in celebration and remember that, on occasion, America does fix her mistakes.
This murder, then suicide really is a male thing. Actually a lot of white males do this. It is a completely horrid phenomenon that a guy gets "frustrated/POed" at his life and decides to take one or more people down with him. Dude, it is not all our faults or your g-friend/wife fault that your life sucks. Don't involve police with it and stop taking others with you.
There, I said it!
AndrewPrice said...
T-Rav, I think they're related. I think Costas shows a real lack of judgment here. He is misusing a position he has been give for the purpose of talking sports to talk politics. Like all liberals, it doesn't occur to him that he's full of crap or that his views are the least bit controversial. I suspect he thought that everyone would agree with him.
-----
I disagree with you on this point. Sometimes people take controversial stances not because they believe they will win universal praise, but because they feel it is the right thing to do.
Nobody who has been paying attention to gun politics can fail to realize that it has become an issue Democrats run away from in all but the bluest areas (which means at a national level it is a non-issue).
Of course, self-righteousness and being right aren't necessarily the same thing...
AndrewPrice said...
Anthony, That's true and that's something conservatives need to start pointing out. Guns are the great equalizer because a woman with a gun can stop a man from killing her, a woman without a gun... can't.
------
I worked part time for America's Most Wanted while in grad school. We covered a lot of cases of guys that killed their girlfriends/wives. Sometimes the women did everything right in a legal sense, but of course, it didn't help (orders of protection don't impress psychos).
I've talked to literally dozens of cops about such cases and the consensus was that in such situations the woman should get a gun, call the SOB over and put him out of her misery. Better judged by twelve then carried by six.
thanks for the post, Rav. I suppose it is a tragedy for the victim, but the sentiment you express is exactly right. I think Costas is such an ass. He may have been a pretty good sports announcer when he was young, and I honestly don't know what his politics were growing up. But let me give you a saying that may apply: "If you work on a tuna boat long enough, eventually you start to smell like tuna." Now Costas may have always been a liberal dweeb, but he has worked at NBC so long, it's clear he has become a legend in his own mind.
Another death that didn't involve a gun.
LINK
FYI, Costas now says it was a mistake to say this during the broadcast: LINK
Anthony, The legal system only cleans up the mess afterwards. So if a woman feels she is in danger, she needs to protect herself. No restraining order will ever stop someone who decides to kill you.
Pshh. Not only is it a non-walk-back, Bob clearly doesn't get why what he said is so controversial. And I don't buy it. If his intent was to give a bit of "perspective" as he says, across a number of areas, 90 seconds is plenty of time to give a list, with even a touch of elaboration for every item. Instead, Bob chose to deliver a specifically anti-gun message because he is an anti-gun liberal who believes one should never let a tragedy go to waste.
And, of course, he takes the opportunity in his "apology" to call the members of his audience who disagree stupid.
That's right, tryanmax-
This is baloney. He wants to discuss "domestic violence"? This is now what what this guy is an expert in?
Also, now, due to his comprehensive research, no doubt, he has decided that this is a violent-sports related problem! Unbelievable! He is just putting as many feet as he can in his mouth. This happens ALL the time to ALL sorts of people. ALL GUYS!!!! (my comment here)
Dear Amongst Yourselves: If you see Andrew, tell him hardy-har-har for me.
Cris, Maybe he meant to use the words "steroid rage" but just somehow forgot them?
Or he's an idiot...
Wow, Bev. Make me slit my wrists, why don't you? :-(
If that's the case, though--and it very well may be--then I guess there's always Plan B. Take as many of them with us as possible.
Jen, this means we should either outlaw alcohol, cars, buggies, or horses. I'm really not sure which. Costas will probably tell us.
tryanmax: Er, yay? I don't really drink (except on Election Night when I downed a pint of Mike's Hard Lemonade), but I guess those that do can put themselves into a stupor while we go down in flames. Better than being alert, probably.
T-Rav, Maybe we ought to outlaw ALL of them plus...that should make liberals happy. Naaah, who am I trying to kid, libs are never happy no matter what.
My friend that can't make up her mind whether she is left or right (Andrew says left, but sometimes I think that's debatable) is for gun control--both hands holding firmly on piece of choice. And don't even DARE threaten to disarm her, or she pop a cap in your a$$ (not kidding either). She also says "Our guns lie around the house all the time, THEY don't harm anyone".
CrisD, I'll have you know that women are, in fact, ruining my life. My sisters made my childhood a living hell; my female friends in college got me addicted to smack; it was only the female kittens who resisted and attacked me. You think having two XX chromosomes makes you better?! Well, I'LL show you! I'LL SHOW YOU ALL!!!!!
Anthony, "better judged by twelve than carried by six" is going in my book of quotes. Hope you don't mind.
We heard one of your commenters was going off the rails here. Anyone know where we can find him?
T-Rav, Quick, hide! LINK
Andrew, I wouldn't be surprised that murders don't involve guns, in fact, the abuse leading up to the murder likely didn't involve the gun.
As for me, I like my girlfriend because she has a gun, and is responsible about it.
Bev,
I agree with you to a large extent, but I come from a state with very permissive gun laws (AZ) and the gun culture here is much more accommodating. Yes, we have had it drilled into us that guns are horrible killing devices and should be feared at all costs, but outside of Mexican on Mexican violence (and yes, I mean people from Mexico, not necessarily of Hispanic origin), our gun crime is relatively low.
I'm not a gun guy, but I bought a handgun a while back. I've never shot it, and I don't keep it loaded. I have a loaded clip ready to go in a place that's different from the pistol.
It's come up in conversation with acquaintances and colleagues of all political persuasions, and then I found out they go out to ranges and have several guns and rifles. I've been invited to go with them on several occasions, but I haven't made the time.
It still tells me that while Americans are told to hate guns, there's still a strong tie to them here. You, being from NYC, have to put up with some of the most restrictive gun laws around. Anthony Cumia of Opie & Anthony fame detailed what it took for him to renew his gun permit in NYC, and it was appalling.
For us in AZ, we can openly carry without a license. Yet I have only seen a gun once or twice on a normal citizen in forty years here. Shit! I meant thirty years. Thirrrty.
Jed, maybe it's something in the water at Rockefeller Center. Who knows?
I get why people refer to it as a "tragedy," because you're right--it is tragic for the victim. It's just one of those things that's always annoyed me, because it makes it seem like an unavoidable fate or something. No, this was something someone did. I think I started noticing it after hearing an anchor call a terrorist attack a "tragedy." Semantics are important, people.
Andrew and tryanmax, that's like a "sorry if you were offended" kind of apology. It's not really an apology at all. Sorry that people getting offended distracted from the point I was trying to make, blah blah blah. He doesn't get what's going on here at all.
Andrew and Cris, never dismiss the "Or he's an idiot" option. It's very useful.
Jen, I have to call BS. There was no Napoleon XIV. There wasn't even a Napoleon IV. I think you're trying to pull a fast one on me. I did give those guys in white coats the slip, though.
I've heard of gay people bullied for their sexuality who subsequently became very pro-Second Amendment. Further proof that it's one of those issues that can cross the ideological divide more than most.
obiwan, every girl I know who's handled a gun is a great shot with it. Just saying.
wahsatchmo, as TV's Craig Ferguson likes to say about Texas, "An armed society is a polite society."
Incidentally, you really should go shooting with your gun. An unprepared weapon is a useless weapon.
Agreed, T-Rav. I think that's going to be my Christmas gift to me--a day at the range, with rented eye and ear protection.
Post a Comment