Speaking about the Kansas City Chiefs Linebacker Javon Belcher murder- suicide that has gripped national attention for the past couple days, Costas began to comment on the nature of the gun culture we have in our society right now.
Quoting from Fox Sports Commentator, Jason Whitlock, Costas said that "Hand Guns do not increase our safety... In the coming days, Jovan Belcher's actions and their possible connection to football will be analyzed. Who knows? But here, wrote Jason Whitlock, is what I believe. If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today."
Costas recieved much backlash through social media, particularly from country singer and long time NRA member Ted Nugent.
Following such a tragic event, it really puzzles me how people can still be in favor of so many protections on gun rights. The US is averaging 20 mass shootings per year. I get that the pro-gun side is trying to be safe, but I personally haven't heard many stories of gun owners using the gun for protectional purposes that they claim they need them for.
In the words of Bob Costas in a later interview regarding NFL players and guns, "Even if all those guns were obtained legally, you can’t have 65 guys in their 20s – aggressive young men subject to impulses, without something bad happening."
What do you think about the gun control we have at the moment? Was Costas wrong in speaking out against guns?
8 comments:
Gun culture is kind of an anomaly in American society. On one hand, you have people who want to protect their family from people with guns, but on the other hand, those same people are going out and buying more guns. It's just weird. What's interesting about guns, though, isn't that they're so common, it's that they're so easy to purchase. At the moment, I think our gun control laws are rather lax, but I'm not sure how to impose more regulation without an outright ban.
Costas was not wrong about speaking out against guns in the slightest. This was a topic that wasn't mentioned during the campaign season (avoided, even) and bringing it to attention is a notable move. With luck, he might be able to shed some of the negative reception that NBC got for their fantastic Olympics coverage.
The Second Amendment causes some problems here because of interpretation. There are two versions of it, and this is a case where commas make all the difference. The first implies that only State militias would be able to handle weapons, while the second, more populist one suggests that everybody should be able to own guns. So this is another interpretation case. However, it should be completely understandable to institute a more rigorous registration process, simply to filter out people who don't find it worth the trouble to purchase a gun.
All stories of "protectional purposes" come from Southern states with legislatures that are either weak or incompetent and pass silly laws like Florida's Stand Your Ground business. It should really be taken on a case by case basis; Zimmerman was legally in the right for killing Martin in self-defense, but a woman faces charges for firing a warning shot at her abusive boyfriend. Ted Nugent and his like spend a little too much time around their lead bullets to think laws like this are useful at all.
It doesn't surprise me that people are still are in favor of gun rights following this tragic event; for the polling assignment for class, I did gun control and multiple polls that were taken following such shootings showed that public opinion barely shifted. People may think of these events as rare and distant to their immediate life and thus do not cause any heightened fear for them. Though, this does not apply to someone kind of paranoid like me.
I'm not sure if gun regulation/bans are the solution. Though a gun is easier to use than, say, a knife and thus someone can be more reckless with a gun, there are other objects capable of killing people that murderers could resort to. The real problem is a person's desire to kill and I think encouraging less violence would attack the root of the problem, although a ban on guns may have more of an immediate effect. In that regard, I sort of agree that Costas was "blam[ing] tools instead of human failings"(Nugent).
..."sort of" because I still think that guns should be banned because they're essentially killing devices and I wish everyone could just get along or at least not need them. Ahahaha.
Costas was definitely not wrong in voicing his opinion against guns. Whatever criticism he received was undeserved.
Was Costas "wrong" to voice his opinions on gun control? No. But was Costas "wrong" to voice his opinions during Sunday Night Football? In a way, Yes. Having lived in the South, I know that Sunday Night Football is a treasured tradition that many families spend part of their Sunday nights dedicated to. Additionally, public opinion regarding gun control leans very much towards protecting the Second Amendment, in its entirety. I think it's safe to say that Costas will face some heat from Southerners in the days to come.
However, it should be noted that not ALL Southerners feel this way. There is a significant number of people in the South that hold values supporting stricter gun control. Labeling the South as a whole is unacceptable. Not to harp on Mr. Murray, but I disagree in calling Southern legislatures "either weak or incompetent." Sure such laws may seem flawed, even absurd to somebody from say, California. But taken in the context of the states they were passed in, specifically the high regard for the protection of gun rights in these states, laws banning guns are simply not possible. Unless, of course, a constitutional amendment is passed to more strictly regulate guns. But that's a different topic to discuss at a different date. Besides, it's almost midnight and we have gov tomorrow... :)
In response to Brandon, I'll revise what I had said about Southerners--it was an unfair generalization. It was pretty over the top, and reading his response made me realize that everyone cares about gun control to some extent. Both sides don't agree on how to go about this, but both liberals and conservatives alike can agree that gun control laws are necessary. The only difference lies in what is considered necessary.
With that in mind, it seems like a national dialogue about firearms of all types is something that could force bipartisanship between the parties. I wouldn't go so far as to say a constitutional amendment be made, but it would be a pretty hefty piece of legislation. The issue gets drowned out midst all of the other ones, but its still important.
The gun control issue is one that I think people see as a two-sided issue: either you think guns should be outlawed, or you think guns should be able to be purchased. This is a mistake, for regulation of guns is not the same thing preventing all people from buying them, only some. However, the regulation of guns is so complicated since only previous instances of violence are really used to determine whether someone can buy a gun, not their mental health record, stuff like that.
I agree with this quote, "I personally haven't heard many stories of gun owners using the gun for protectional purposes that they claim they need them for." Seriously, I've never heard of someone using a gun to protect themselves (unless you count Zimmerman, which I personally don't).
Gun control is a touchy topic. I feel like one of the reasons that Costas faced so much backlash was because, while what he was saying may have been true, and we do have serious issues about overly accessible guns, a lot of people make a connection between guns and personal safety. When Costas made statements against the proliferation of guns in American societies, some of his viewers took that to mean that he didn't respect their desire for personal safety. Myself, I think that we could have a much more cogent conversation about gun rights if we could loose this idea that guns=safety, or that their primary purpose is to protect, and any increase on gun regulation puts people in intense danger.
I agree that it was inappropriate timing for Costas to launch into a gun control speech during a Sunday Night Football game. I don't believe in the outright ban of guns. I also think there is a difference between shooting for sport and shooting to kill people. Making guns illegal would be unfair to those who enjoy going hunting and spending time at the shooting range.
When I think of guns I think about shooting for sport. I have been to Cabelas and been around those purchasing guns. Background checks and extensive paper work are required before being able to pick up the rifle. Longer background checks are required for those purchasing handguns.
Having family in the Midwest, guns are part of the culture. In no way am I trying to stereotype people in the Midwest, but it isn't uncommon to go out on the farm and shoot a few squirrels and cans. Gun collecting has personal significance. Almost every man who has hunting experience can recall the type of gun they learned to hunt with.
While I do agree that guns should not be allowed into the hands of "bad" people, I don't agree with any such proposal to outright ban guns.
As a gun owner myself, I can attest to what Sam said about California's gun-purchasing process. You have to fill out loads of paperwork, get a background check, and then wait 10 days before being able to pick up the gun after purchasing it. The waiting period is meant to let people "think" about their purchase in case they were planning on doing something stupid after getting in a fight or having some other bad thing happen to them. All that being said, California is one of the more strict states on gun ownership compared to many others. The process I described helps weed out potentially harmful gun owners. If more states had processes similar to California's, I think the chances of guns going into the wrong hands would be significantly decreased. As for the actual subject of the post, Costas' rant: I think he had no place doing something like that on TV with a semi-captive audience when he should have been doing his job instead.
Post a Comment