Jason Whitlock and Bob Costas jumped aboard the crazy train- Re: Belcher and Guns

[Type Username Here]

The article by Whitlock made some valid points, but this right here, that Bob Costas read verbatim last night, is just absurd:

In the coming days, Belcher’s actions will be analyzed through the lens of concussions and head injuries. Who knows? Maybe brain damage triggered his violent overreaction to a fight with his girlfriend. What I believe is, if he didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.

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

 

[thekingsmen]

Most likely not his own view but the view of who runs the Companies that want a country without citizens having guns. This was an agenda set out.

 

[Fillerguy]

i kind of agree Dude wouldve most likely beat the mess outta her

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Crazy train?

 

[Type Username Here]

i kind of agree Dude wouldve most likely beat the mess outta her

Crazy train?

Yea, the crazy train.

The gun wasn't the reason he killed her. That's what they are insinuating.

You have a gun Vic, does that make you automatically kill someone every-time you are enraged? I don't think it does.

The focus should be on the mental health of this "man" who killed this woman and left a 3 month old without parents.

That's something NO ONE ever talks about during these shootings. Mental Health issues.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Yea, the crazy train.

The gun wasn't the reason he killed her. That's what they are insinuating.

You have a gun Vic, does that make you automatically kill someone every-time you are enraged? I don't think it does.

The focus should be on the mental health of this "man" who killed this woman and left a 3 month old without parents.

That's something NO ONE ever talks about during these shootings. Mental Health issues.

I agree with the point about his mental health, but people spaz out sometimes, especially people who may have mental problems from being hit in the head several times for years. And it's usually not a good idea for mentally unstable people to have guns nearby.

All he said was that he believes he wouldn't have killed her if he didn't have a gun. Can he prove that? Or course not and he didn't claim that. But he might be right. It's certainly not crazy talk by any stretch. Maybe if he didn't have a gun, he would've just beat her ass badly like Fillerguy said. It was clearly a crime of passion, not a premeditated murder.

 

[Type Username Here]

I agree with the point about his mental health, but people spaz out sometimes, especially people who may have mental problems from being hit in the head several times for years. And it's usually not a good idea for mentally unstable people to have guns nearby.

All he said was that he believes he wouldn't have killed her if he didn't have a gun. Can he prove that? Or course not and he didn't claim that. But he might be right. It's certainly not crazy talk by any stretch. Maybe if he didn't have a gun, he would've just beat her ass badly like Fillerguy said. It was clearly a crime of passion, not a premeditated murder.

Is there any evidence of this? I'm not saying you are wrong, but are you assuming or have you seen something that points to this being true.

It doesn't change the point that the gun was the means of doing something he wanted to do. Dude wasn't right in the head for some reason. If he grabbed a knife instead and stabbed her what would be the excuse?

People stab each other all the time, especially over crimes of passion.

I'm all for the argument of automatics and rifles making it easier to commit mass killings, even though I don't agree with it, I can see the validity of the point. Here? This just screams of naivety.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Is there any evidence of this? I'm not saying you are wrong, but are you assuming or have you seen something that points to this being true.

Yeah. His girl came home late from a concert and they got into an argument about who knows what and killed her. Cops would call that a crime of passion. It wasn't a plotted murder.

It doesn't change the point that the gun was the means of doing something he wanted to do. Dude wasn't right in the head for some reason. If he grabbed a knife instead and stabbed her what would be the excuse?

People stab each other all the time, especially over crimes of passion.

I'm all for the argument of automatics and rifles making it easier to commit mass killings, even though I don't agree with it, I can see the validity of the point. Here? This just screams of naivety.

Just because crimes of passion with knifes exist doesn't automatically mean that any time someone shoots someone in a crime of passion that they would've just killed someone by some other means. A lot of people are off and react off impulse and if you've got a gun, that's a pretty quick and easy way to kill someone. Some people can shoot someone can't bring themselves to go up to someone and stick a blade in them.

I don't even agree with Costas because he's just speaking conjecture. Nobody knows what would've happened if he didn't have a gun. But it's certainly not crazy to say he doesn't think he would've killed if he didn't have a gun. I've seen and heard about enough people I know shoot at people or get shot because someone was scared to death or caught up in the moment to know that "guns don't kill people" stuff is a bunch of horseshyt.

 

[Type Username Here]

Yeah. His girl came home late from a concert and they got into an argument about who knows what and killed her. Cops would call that a crime of passion. It was a plotted murder.

Do you have a source? I haven't read about this.

Just because crimes of passion with knifes exist doesn't automatically mean that any time someone shoots someone in a crime of passion that they would've just killed someone by some other means. A lot of people are off and react off impulse and if you've got a gun, that's a pretty quick and easy way to kill someone. Some people can shoot someone can't bring themselves to go up to someone and stick a blade in them.

The argument would make sense if in the course of human history, the majority of which guns were not available, people didn't stick blades into people or poison them. Especially poison.

I don't even agree with Costas because he's just speaking conjecture. Nobody knows what would've happened if he didn't have a gone. But it's certainly not crazy to say he doesn't think he would've killed if he didn't have a gun. I've seen and heard about enough people I know shoot at people because they were scared to death or caught up in the moment to know that "guns don't kill people" stuff is a bunch of horseshyt.

Guns make it easier to kill people, for sure. That's what they are designed to do. Still doesn't change Whitlock's point, which is that if Belcher didn't have a gun such a murder would not have happened. As if a Linebacker couldn't beat a small woman to death or snapped her neck if he wanted to.

 

[Melt_Man]

Most likely not his own view but the view of who runs the Companies that want a country without citizens having guns. This was an agenda set out.

You think the powers that be are worried about citizens having rifles shotguns and pistols when they can push a button five states away and have you obliterated

 

[Type Username Here]

Here's what Whitlock's argument boils down to:

He assumes that Belcher did not own the gun in question during any of the couple's other arguments/fights.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Do you have a source? I haven't read about this.

There's a thread about it in the Coliseum with the linked article. Apparently she came home late from a Trey Songz concert and they got into an argument.

The argument would make sense if in the course of human history, the majority of which guns were not available, people didn't stick blades into people or poison them. Especially poison.

lol@"throughout the course of human history." We're talking about the applicable situation. Not everybody in America in 2012 who shoots someone in the heat of a moment would slit their throat with a blade if they didn't have a gun. That's just ridiculous. You know how many weak ass dudes shoot people in the heat of the moment because they're scared to death, or their ego can't take an L on a daily basis? They wouldn't all go assassin's creed if they didn't have guns.

Guns make it easier to kill people, for sure. That's what they are designed to do. Still doesn't change Whitlock's point, which is that if Belcher didn't have a gun such a murder would not have happened. As if a Linebacker couldn't beat a small woman to death or snapped her neck if he wanted to.

He could've, but we don't know if he would've done it if he didn't have a gun. Nobody knows. We're dealing with the actions of a unstable man that happened in a manner of seconds.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

TUH, simple question, do you think that redneck would've killed Jordan Davis at the gas in Jacksonville if he didn't have a gun? Would he have instead jumped into his vehicle and choked him out with piano wire if he didn't have a gun? BE HONEST.

 

[Type Username Here]

lol@"throughout the course of human history." We're talking about the applicable situation. Not everybody in America in 2012 who shoots someone in the heat of a moment would slit their throat with a blade if they didn't have a gun. That's just ridiculous. You know how many weak ass dudes shoot people in the heat of the moment because they're scared to death, or their ego can't take an L on a daily basis? They wouldn't all go assassin's creed if they didn't have guns.

I don't know why you just brushed this argument aside as if it isn't valid. It's absolutely true. For the better part of human existence on this planet, guns were not around. Yet murders and crimes of passion have been documented to occur, even in anthropological findings.

The gun makes it easier to kill people, it's not the reason people are killed (unless you are talking about faulty weapons).

 

[Real]

We need gun control. Get over it cac.