Link to article below.

 

Whitlock: After Belcher tragic murder-suicide, why are Chiefs playing? - NFL News | FOX Sports on MSN

 

Excerpts:

 

"How many young people have to die senselessly? How many lives have to be ruined before we realize the right to bear arms doesn’t protect us from a government equipped with stealth bombers, predator drones, tanks and nuclear weapons?

 

 

Our current gun culture simply 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.

 

 

...What I believe is, if he didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.

 

...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."

 

He went from asking if was appropriate to hold the game - a reasonable question. Then went into a full attack on basic Constitutional rights - no so reasonable IMHO.

 

A terrible tragedy for sure. But to blame it all on a piece of machinery so quickly and so specifically discounts the tragedy at hand.

 

Let's break down what he said.

 

He feels a lot of people die senselessly AND that the main reason for the original right (defense against the govt) isn't as applicable today. Not sure how we can disagree with either point.

 

He says that the availability of guns leads to a dangerous escalation of issues that do not call for a gun. Hard to argue that.

 

He says he believes that if the dude didn't have a gun then there would not have been a death. Hard to answer that one. Could be right. Did he go over with the intent to kill? If so, the gun is irrelevant. If NOT then having the gun made the issue worse.

 

He believes handguns do not help our safety. Obviously, that's a view that is not held by most. Guns DO enhance safety. However, again, possessing them leads too often to using them in situations that would not seem to require a gun. That's obviously on the person possessing the gun but no one can argue that the possession of guns leads to deaths in cases where death was not planned ahead of time.

 

People should absolutely have the right to be arms for hunting and to protect their family. That doesn't mean the current laws are full-proof and not worthy of debate.

Why would NBC even allow him to make the rant? Make a small statement about the event fine but not what he did.

Why would NBC even allow him to make the rant? Make a small statement about the event fine but not what he did.

 

You mean why would they allow him to talk about something that will catch the attention of millions?

To 31. There is an argument against the his conclusions.

 

Even I do not subscribe to the main reason for the 2nd was to protect people specifically from the government. It was more due to the fact that there was no standing army and no intent to keep a standing army. Thus citizens were expected to be armed when defense was required. But that is whole different thread. But histories greatest general rejects the conclusion in any case.

 

This debate happens during every high profile shooting incident. Those that jump so quickly to the side taken seem to forget with liberty comes personal and collective responsibility. Where is the commentary on the personal responsibility Belcher had as a gun owner - and a father and family man. Availability of a weapon did not cause him to forsake the later - though he did that first.

If he'd have strangled his GF with a thighmaster, would we be banning Suzanne Somers? Would Costas made a stance to take Three's Company off of cable?

Let's break down what he said.

 

He feels a lot of people die senselessly AND that the main reason for the original right (defense against the govt) isn't as applicable today. Not sure how we can disagree with either point.

 

He says that the availability of guns leads to a dangerous escalation of issues that do not call for a gun. Hard to argue that.

 

He says he believes that if the dude didn't have a gun then there would not have been a death. Hard to answer that one. Could be right. Did he go over with the intent to kill? If so, the gun is irrelevant. If NOT then having the gun made the issue worse.

 

He believes handguns do not help our safety. Obviously, that's a view that is not held by most. Guns DO enhance safety. However, again, possessing them leads too often to using them in situations that would not seem to require a gun. That's obviously on the person possessing the gun but no one can argue that the possession of guns leads to deaths in cases where death was not planned ahead of time.

 

People should absolutely have the right to be arms for hunting and to protect their family. That doesn't mean the current laws are full-proof and not worthy of debate.

People die senselessly by a lot of different causes. Maybe it isn't as applicable today but does that mean we do away with it?

 

I've been in arguments with people when guns were around and no one was shot. It's placing blame in the wrong place. The gun didn't jump into his hand and fire itself.

 

Just dumb on Whitlocks part. He shot her 9 times. That's a lot of rage. No reason to believe that at least she wouldn't still be dead.

 

Again, dumb on Whitlocks part. As far as guns lead to deaths in cases where death was not planned, that isn't true. A person making a decision to use a gun lead to the death. Same as if they used a knife or a bat or any other weapon.

If he'd have strangled his GF with a thighmaster, would we be banning Suzanne Somers? Would Costas made a stance to take Three's Company off of cable?

 

Spin - I hold you in high regard which is why I will be 100% honest and say your response is disappointing.

 

This country has a gun problem in regards to gun violence. The debate is around and should be around how to minimize it without violating the rights of the innocent.

 

As with almost all controversial topics I find too many people (on both sides of the argument) who simply want to stick their head in the sand and are not able to continuously evaluate where we are as a society.

People die senselessly by a lot of different causes. Maybe it isn't as applicable today but does that mean we do away with it?

 

I've been in arguments with people when guns were around and no one was shot. It's placing blame in the wrong place. The gun didn't jump into his hand and fire itself.

 

Just dumb on Whitlocks part. He shot her 9 times. That's a lot of rage. No reason to believe that at least she wouldn't still be dead.

 

Again, dumb on Whitlocks part. As far as guns lead to deaths in cases where death was not planned, that isn't true. A person making a decision to use a gun lead to the death. Same as if they used a knife or a bat or any other weapon.

 

"I've been in arguments when guns were around and no one was shot." Come on, WS. I've been to bars and drank beer and didn't kill anyone on the way home. Does that mean drunk driving isn't an issue?

Edit...

I don't think the discussion of the issue is out of line considering it happened in the NFL. It's topical and fair for discussion by a talking head.

 

I do think some would be holding Bob up as a spokesperson had he taken the view that reactionary comments about gun control are ill-conceived and out of line.

 

A. It seems appropriate that a major network would allow a sports broadcasting icon to editorialize on such a major sports-related event. I have no issue with that.

 

2. Murders and suicides with guns are a combination of things. In this case; I'm guessing an unstable person and ready availability of a handgun. Guns don't kill people, but people with guns kill people.

 

D. I believe, without a doubt, that the girlfriend would be dead even if Mr. Belcher didn't have a handgun at the ready. Having the handgun just made the job much easier.

 

 

And as I've often said - if you have a compulsion to go out and kill someone - whether by gun, knife or whatever - take one for the team first.

A. It seems appropriate that a major network would allow a sports broadcasting icon to editorialize on such a major sports-related event. I have no issue with that.

 

2. Murders and suicides with guns are a combination of things. In this case; I'm guessing an unstable person and ready availability of a handgun. Guns don't kill people, but people with guns kill people.

 

D. I believe, without a doubt, that the girlfriend would be dead even if Mr. Belcher didn't have a handgun at the ready. Having the handgun just made the job much easier.

 

 

And as I've often said - if you have a compulsion to go out and kill someone - whether by gun, knife or whatever - take one for the team first.

 

A

2

D

 

??

A.

2.

D.

 

A

2

D

 

??

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

Papa does this all the time. I'm not sure where he got it, but Kevin McCallister's big brother (Buzz) in the movie Home Alone says this. :lol:

Spin - I hold you in high regard which is why I will be 100% honest and say your response is disappointing.

 

This country has a gun problem in regards to gun violence. The debate is around and should be around how to minimize it without violating the rights of the innocent.

 

As with almost all controversial topics I find too many people (on both sides of the argument) who simply want to stick their head in the sand and are not able to continuously evaluate where we are as a society.

Clyde, I don't disagree that there are issues with gun violence. My point was Costas was out of line. I'm sure he got that latitude from NBC based on his reputation, but he stepped across a line that I wish he hadn't. Not only was that not the platform, IMO, his stance left no room for interpretation. I'll go as far as somewhat misguided.

 

I'll agree with the post above that this young man would have taken the life of that young lady and later himself with something else if a gun hadn't been his weapon of choice.

 

My head is far from the sand on the issue, however, my comment had nothing to do with the issue as much as Costas/NBC airing it. Out of place in my opinion.

Clyde, I don't disagree that there are issues with gun violence. My point was Costas was out of line. I'm sure he got that latitude from NBC based on his reputation, but he stepped across a line that I wish he hadn't. Not only was that not the platform, IMO, his stance left no room for interpretation. I'll go as far as somewhat misguided.

 

I'll agree with the post above that this young man would have taken the life of that young lady and later himself with something else if a gun hadn't been his weapon of choice.

 

My head is far from the sand on the issue, however, my comment had nothing to do with the issue as much as Costas/NBC airing it. Out of place in my opinion.

 

We disagree on it being the place. No biggie.

 

I don't see how anyone can say with certainty the young lady was going to die if a gun wasn't around. That takes a lot of assumption and clairvoyance. Unless he told someone he was going to the house to kill his girlfriend then there is no way we can draw any conclusions with any reasonable amount of certainty.

We disagree on it being the place. No biggie.

 

I don't see how anyone can say with certainty the young lady was going to die if a gun wasn't around. That takes a lot of assumption and clairvoyance. Unless he told someone he was going to the house to kill his girlfriend then there is no way we can draw any conclusions with any reasonable amount of certainty.

Clyde, I'm no Miss Cleo, but have to believe if he wanted to kill her he could have strangled her, stabbed her, snapped her neck,,,,you get my point. To assume he felt more comfortable to kill her because he had a gun is a stretch every bit as much as assuming if he didn't have a gun she'd still be alive, Costas' comment not withstanding.