Fox Sports Speaks the Truth on Handguns


Sadly, I don't have time enough to do anything but post this:

If you can't find out why you (and Whitlock) are wrong in that, you never will.
Jesus, another white guy with a face like a child molester trying to convince us that killing machines make us safer.
I find it incredibly convenient that a tragedy seemingly destined to revive talk of chronic brain injuries and professional football has been so suddenly and completely side-tracked into a largely-unrelated discussion about gun rights.

That just seems waaay too perfect for the NFL, who has struggled to fend off the mounting evidence and calls for reform, to get a news-cycle-gift like this dropped into its lap. And further waaaay too coincidental that Bob Costas would just happen to underline *that exact point* on Sunday Night Football.

But, hey, it's not the first time a tragedy caused by our Nation-wide dysfunctional (mis)handling of mental health issues gets ignored in favor of a perennial screaming match about guns. And I'm sure it won't be the last.
I support gun rights, and I'm generally skeptical of gun control. Still, I am not so foolish as to say that the presence of guns has no effect on crimes. That's idiotic.

What's also idiotic is to say that a crazed NFL linebacker couldn't easily kill a woman with his bare hands.
This is the saddest gun hating piece offered up in a while.

There's not even an argument, so as a counter response I say:

"Government guns don't make us safer. They just don't."

Offer still stands Mercury: Free firearm lessons from me, your resident batshit-crazy/justice-loving veteran. Once you learn the value of self defense, you'll never forget it.
Also, another data point for anyone who wants to chime in on this discussion:
From Portland have lived in Chicago for the past 4 years. At my club last week had to sit and listen as an alderman and a judge discussed their new handguns, and how easy they got them. It is impossible for me to have one here legally, yet these two 'public servants' had no problems. This is the issue. Us not them thinking. The mayor is always surronded buy armed protection, as are the rich. The rest of us? Good luck. Prohibition does not work, at all.
@ lysenko:
true, a crazed NFL linebacker can easily kill a woman with his bare hands, but not as easily and quickly as he can by simply moving his forefinger a half-inch.

@ fidelity:
you know, as often as i disagree with you and some of your points, the other half of the time i agree. for example, how can anyone not be happy about how things turned out in the story you linked to?

but i haven't heard any suggestions from you about how to avoid shit like what this sloppy KC chief did.....and *that* story is the norm these days -- the story you linked to is, unfortunately, the anomaly.

i would agree with you 100% of the time on these issues if i had more faith in the intelligence and morality of my fellow man. but i don't. and i've been proven right in this time and time again. children should not have access to firearms, even if they're 20 or 30 years of age.
It's a simple fact that the more easily available guns are, the more they will be used. And the more that they are used, the more corpses there will be, none of whom deserve to die. Culture of life my ass.
@Human - Violence is one byproduct of freedom. We can restrict freedoms by putting everyone in their own cage, and they won't commit violence.

As long as people have the ability to be free, they also have the ability to do harm to others. This can't be negated, and it's certainly no reason to call for the end of certain liberties and freedoms. If you flip back through my comments you’ll see an example I offer up of White Supremacists: they use the benign freedom of speech to advocate for the real harm to innocent people, and demonstrably the have induced harm when they inspire violence. Yet, educated people do not call for the restrictions of free speech just because some people abuse that right.

The solution is never to restrict freedoms. Lots of nations in this world allow the private ownership of the AK47 rifle or similar military arm, yet they do not have the same violence and destruction that this society has. I agree with @roc suggestions about mental health, and I think there’s more: we have a cultural problem when it comes to violence, and people can pull wild guesses out of their ass as to where this comes from and how to change it, but the answer is not to restrict free people from self-defense capabilities. Undeniably, good people (however you judge that) have the right to defend themselves.

For example: I think Goldy would be praising owning a pistol if she felt comfortable using it to defend herself from a sexual predator trying to rape her. Goldy probably doesn’t know a hammer from a barrel when it comes to a pistol, so she doesn’t know how useful that tool could be to her self-defense. Additionally, Goldy probably is not going to rationally deny a pistol to a person who is in wheel chair when they have no other means of self-defense, nor would Goldy rationally call for a disarmament of police officers. Goldy must not see the utility of a self-defense at this time, or, she does not understand how a pistol expands her self-defense capabilities, but it is completely rational to see the utility of such a versatile self-defense option, and why this defensive option must be given to certain people in society. But the question becomes, if it’s good enough for cops, and if people in wheel chairs can/should use it, then why can’t I, or you, or anyone? Self-defense is a Right.

I’m somewhat reminded of Frederick Douglas: “Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.” Violence is one byproduct of freedom.
@guspasho - The amount of violence in a society is NOT dependent upon the amount of guns in a society.

For example, in Mexico, firearms are illegal to own. Then, in Iraq and the Middle East, virtually every home as an AK47, similarly in Russia, too. If your theory was correct then Mexico would have no violence and the Middle East and Russia would be exploding with violence.

In Switzerland, every man who is in the Army (militia) keeps his rifle at home. Just about every man in the country has a fully automatic rifle in their closet, along with 70 rounds of ammo. The first murder with one of these rifles occurred a year or so ago, and it was the first since like the 1960's or something. The government even hosts shooting events where the government provides free ammo to any citizen wishing to participate.
I don't like guns. I don't like the god damned wannabe superheroes that pretend they can whip out a pistol in any situation and make things better. I don't like my facebook friends that talk about how they would've prevented some national tragedy if only they'd been there strapped, and I don't like hearing about all the other ways people die each day, because we all know that even if more people die from car accidents, cars aren't implicitly designed to kill and anyone with any common sense knows the distinction. I definitely don't like hearing from the lunatics that scream about how they need an assault rifle, a bazooka, and an M-1 Abrams because this country wouldn't have been founded if our ancestors didn't have a lead pipe full of buckshot to defend themselves.

That said, I agree with roc that given everything we've been seeing about brain injury in football recently, that could prove far more useful a discussion than beating the dead horse about guns. Though the gun certainly made it easier, we don't know if Belcher or Perkins would still be alive if he didn't have a gun. If the early reports are true, it's highly likely both would still be alive if his brain trauma had not occurred or had been properly cared for.