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

[Type Username Here]

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.

Of course not. He was outnumbered and the occupants had a vehicle, which could technically be used as weapon.

The better question would be, if it was Jordan Davis and The Redneck one on one, would the redneck think about killing Mr. Davis or tried to kill Mr. Davis. That's an entirely different scenario.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

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).

Who's saying crimes of passion wouldn't occur without guns? I'm saying guns increase the probability of them to happen and it's obvious.

 

[Type Username Here]

We need gun control. Get over it cac.

The gun control worked wonders in Chicago and DC.

 

[Type Username Here]

Who's saying crimes of passion wouldn't occur without guns? I'm saying guns increase the probability of them to happen and it's obvious.

I don't deal with obvious, and neither do you. Do you have statistics to back that up?

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Of course not. He was outnumbered and the occupants had a vehicle, which could technically be used as weapon.

The better question would be, if it was Jordan Davis and The Redneck one on one, would the redneck think about killing Mr. Davis or tried to kill Mr. Davis. That's an entirely different scenario.

It sounds like you're almost legitimizing his reason to shoot dude. He was outnumbered? So what? There's no evidence that he was under any threat. Even if, he could've driven off. If they were one on one I don't know what would've happened. I just know he shot him for no good reason.

The bottom line is he did have a gun and he did shoot the guy and kill him over a minor argument and if he didn't not have a gun, the kid would still be alive.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

The gun makes it easier to kill people,

I ASSUMED THIS WAS THE CRUX OF COSTAS AND WHITLOCKS' ARGUMENT, BROTHER!

 

[Real]

The gun control worked wonders in Chicago and DC.

people don't need guns. get over it cac.

 

[Melt_Man]

The gun control worked wonders in Chicago and DC.

Gun control means nothing when you can hop in a car take an hour drive and get your hands on anything.

 

[Type Username Here]

It sounds like you're almost legitimizing his reason to shoot dude.

Come on man, I'm doing no such thing.

He was outnumbered? So what? There's no evidence that he was under any threat. Even if, he could've driven off. If they were one on one I don't know what would've happened. I just know he shot him for no good reason.

I'm telling you why he used a gun. If he didn't have a gun he wouldn't have introduced himself to fighting several people. No one would.

The bottom line is he did have a gun and he did shoot the guy and kill him over a minor argument and if he didn't not have a gun, the kid would still be alive.

But what about the Belcher situation? Can you be so sure of that.

 

[Type Username Here]

I ASSUMED THIS WAS THE CRUX OF COSTAS AND WHITLOCKS' ARGUMENT, BROTHER!

It's not Terry. Whitlock said she would still be alive if Belcher didn't have a gun.

That's a silly argument.

As someone who lectures others on proving statements and data, on what does Whitlock form his argument?

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I don't deal with obvious, and neither do you. Do you have statistics to back that up?

There's no way to statistically quantify the logic of what I'm saying, which speaks for itself...unless you want to point out America's extremely high gun murder rate and draw conclusions from that. People shoot other people in heat of the moment crimes because they're scared, unstable, or in some heightened emotional state literally everyday.

I've seen this in my experiences to know this. People get into arguments over some dumb shyt. Somebody disrespected somebody at city fair or some stupid shyt like that and someone can't let their ego take an L, or they're scared of what's going to happen then the next thing you know someone's leaking on the floor. Every one of these situations wouldn't end in poisonings of stabbings if guns weren't involved. Some would, but not all. I don't see how this is even debatable.

 

[Type Username Here]

There's no way to statistically quantify the logic of what I'm saying, which speaks for itself...unless you want to point out America's extremely high gun murder rate and draw conclusions from that. People shoot other people in heat of the moment crimes because they're scared, unstable, or in some heightened emotional state literally everyday.

I've seen this in my experiences to know this. People get into arguments over some dumb shyt. Somebody disrespected somebody at city fair or some stupid shyt like that and someone can't let their ego take an L, or they're scared of what's going to happen then the next thing you know someone's leaking on the floor. Every one of these situations wouldn't end in poisonings of stabbings if guns weren't involved. Some would, but not all. I don't see how this is even debatable.

Here is some data:

The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people
• Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean

Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | guardian.co.uk

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Come on man, I'm doing no such thing.

It sounds like you are. But you don't know what he would've done if it was one on one. By the way, this case is a bit personal to me not just because it happened about 10 minutes from where I live, but it eerily reminds me of something that happened to this kid I was cool with in high school. He was leaving from playing football with his friends and some redneck in a truck almost hit him and he yelled something at him. Dude circled around, shot him in his back and killed him...over a teenager yelling a few cuss words or whatever at him. The guy that did it was some kind of white supremacist weirdo who already did time for killing another black dude.

Some motherfukkers are just crazy and you can't hypothesize what they would do in any scenario because they're irrational.

I'm telling you why he used a gun. If he didn't have a gun he wouldn't have introduced himself to fighting several people. No one would.

If you agree he wouldn't have killed him if he didn't have a gun, there's really nothing left to say. The presence of guns leads to preventable deaths that wouldn't have happened if guns were involved. That's not even necessarily a pro-gun control position, it's just reality.

But what about the Belcher situation? Can you be so sure of that.

Like I said, I have no idea what would've happened if he didn't have a gun.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Here is some data:



Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country | News | guardian.co.uk

That's neither here nor there though. Nobody's saying there's a 1:1 relationship between number or guns and murder rates. Obviously there's a ton of factors that go into murder rates, primarily of the socioeconomic variety. I'm saying that there are plenty of murders that do occur that would not have if guns weren't there. I'm not even trying to turn this into a gun control debate. I'm just calling it like it is.

 

[Type Username Here]

Some motherfukkers are just crazy and you can't hypothesize what they would do in any scenario because they're irrational.

Irrational people do irrational things regardless of weapon choices. That is exactly my point. Thousands of people died on Sept. 11 because of box-cutters and fake explosives were used to take control of planes to use as weapons.

If you agree he wouldn't have killed him if he didn't have a gun, there's really nothing left to say. The presence of guns leads to preventable deaths that wouldn't have happened if guns were involved. That's not even necessarily a pro-gun control position, it's just reality.

Yes, in certain situations, that is true. In this Belcher situation? Well, here is the only logical position to take:

Like I said, I have no idea what would've happened if he didn't have a gun.

Which is my point. Whitlock and Costas made a profoundly ignorant assumption based on nothing but emotions.