Bob Costas Was Wrong!
Costas was wrong about one thing:
The forum he chose to discuss the things he was right about.
And before the heads pop off of every pro-gun guy in the nation let me explain two things:
I'm not talking about taking away your right to own a gun.
Costas wasn't talking about taking away people's rights to own a gun.
Unless the person doesn't have the mental capacity to own a gun.
Do you see the distinction?
Before you tell me that guns don't kill people and that spoons can't make you fat, listen for one minute, would you?
There are too many people dying in the moment when a person who legally bought a gun decides that the gun is his way out of his problem.
It is a fixable problem.
If we can talk about it.
Yet the anger over what Costas said is reason to believe that there will never be a discussion on it.
Never.
Since I think this is a decent forum to discuss the debate, let's go.
1). I would hope that all would agree that people being slaughtered on the streets is not a good thing. If you don't agree with that, please stop reading because you don't have respect for anyone's life. If you do agree, let's see if there is something to discuss.
2). We've already established that responsible gun-owners should be able to have all the guns they want, right? What types of guns should be accessible? How much ammunition should you be able to buy?
You say there should be no limit on anything?
All right. Let's pretend I go along with that. Do you think people who are unlimited in their abilities to purchase anything from a .22 to a rocket launcher should have to show differing degrees of competence?
I do.
3). Let's debunk a couple of things.
Comparing shooting down 12 in a church is different than having a car accident and claiming a life or two lives or three lives. I always get the 'should we ban cars speech'. It isn't the same. It's apples to oranges.
Also, breathe deep...no one said we are banning guns.
(Remember that - Costas didn't say that and neither am I).
Secondly, the old fork doesn't make you fat deal doesn't work either. In fact, it's a disservice to an honest discussion. Forks main purpose in life isn't to make people overweight. In fact, in most cases even if used irresponsibly they don't guarantee obesity. They don't guarantee the fact that you using it irresponsibly will kill seven innocent people sitting at the table next to you.
Guns when used with callous indifference often cause death.
Of innocent people.
Also, more guns won't solve the problem because very often we don't have a responsible gun owner there in the nick of time to save the day.
Would one guy with a gun have stopped the theater shooting? The guy was dressed for the end of days! He would have gunned down the gun savior.
4). So where are we in our discussion?
You want your guns. You have the right to own them. You want as many as you can get.
Fine.
I'll give you all of that.
Give me one thing.
Keep them out of the hands - legally - of those who shouldn't have them.
It is the responsibility of the guy who makes the gun to do so.
I realize that the illegal purchase of guns will always go down, but let's stop a little of the senselessness in the legal purchase realm, huh?
Can we do that little?
What is set right now isn't working.
That is what Costas was trying to say.
People who are not stable enough to have the rights that are treasured are partaking in ownership.
Legal ownership simply by filling out a form on the Internet or at WalMart.
(Spare me, please, the 'only criminals will have guns' argument that you are so fond of).
Case-by-case there was a moment when someone had a passing thought like:
"This freaking nut-job shouldn't have a gun."
And he still bought a gun anyway. In ten minutes. They gave him a free box of bullets!
5). How do we solve it?
From the outside looking in.
You can describe me as such:
I don't own a gun. I appreciate the rights of those who do. I have never been shot.
I have a simple request:
Don't shoot me. Or my loved ones.
Don't shoot some kid going to a movie.
Don't shoot a woman playing the organ at church.
Don't shoot the mother of someone's kid.
As the guy described above I believe that I have the right to raise questions because all of the above continues to happen on a bi-nightly basis.
If you are described as such:
Gun owner. You don't believe in gun laws. You don't want to talk about it with a commie-liberal.
What really is your point-of-view?
I won't bite your head off if you offer a workable solution.
That's all Costas was doing.
He wasn't stepping on your right to own a gun.
He was exercising his right to talk about what he considered to be a senseless act.
He wanted to know how it could be avoided in the future.
He may have stated it wrong because he was emotional about the loss of life.
But he was just wondering if gun-enthusiasts would join the discussion.
For that he wasn't wrong.
The forum he chose to discuss the things he was right about.
And before the heads pop off of every pro-gun guy in the nation let me explain two things:
I'm not talking about taking away your right to own a gun.
Costas wasn't talking about taking away people's rights to own a gun.
Unless the person doesn't have the mental capacity to own a gun.
Do you see the distinction?
Before you tell me that guns don't kill people and that spoons can't make you fat, listen for one minute, would you?
There are too many people dying in the moment when a person who legally bought a gun decides that the gun is his way out of his problem.
It is a fixable problem.
If we can talk about it.
Yet the anger over what Costas said is reason to believe that there will never be a discussion on it.
Never.
Since I think this is a decent forum to discuss the debate, let's go.
1). I would hope that all would agree that people being slaughtered on the streets is not a good thing. If you don't agree with that, please stop reading because you don't have respect for anyone's life. If you do agree, let's see if there is something to discuss.
2). We've already established that responsible gun-owners should be able to have all the guns they want, right? What types of guns should be accessible? How much ammunition should you be able to buy?
You say there should be no limit on anything?
All right. Let's pretend I go along with that. Do you think people who are unlimited in their abilities to purchase anything from a .22 to a rocket launcher should have to show differing degrees of competence?
I do.
3). Let's debunk a couple of things.
Comparing shooting down 12 in a church is different than having a car accident and claiming a life or two lives or three lives. I always get the 'should we ban cars speech'. It isn't the same. It's apples to oranges.
Also, breathe deep...no one said we are banning guns.
(Remember that - Costas didn't say that and neither am I).
Secondly, the old fork doesn't make you fat deal doesn't work either. In fact, it's a disservice to an honest discussion. Forks main purpose in life isn't to make people overweight. In fact, in most cases even if used irresponsibly they don't guarantee obesity. They don't guarantee the fact that you using it irresponsibly will kill seven innocent people sitting at the table next to you.
Guns when used with callous indifference often cause death.
Of innocent people.
Also, more guns won't solve the problem because very often we don't have a responsible gun owner there in the nick of time to save the day.
Would one guy with a gun have stopped the theater shooting? The guy was dressed for the end of days! He would have gunned down the gun savior.
4). So where are we in our discussion?
You want your guns. You have the right to own them. You want as many as you can get.
Fine.
I'll give you all of that.
Give me one thing.
Keep them out of the hands - legally - of those who shouldn't have them.
It is the responsibility of the guy who makes the gun to do so.
I realize that the illegal purchase of guns will always go down, but let's stop a little of the senselessness in the legal purchase realm, huh?
Can we do that little?
What is set right now isn't working.
That is what Costas was trying to say.
People who are not stable enough to have the rights that are treasured are partaking in ownership.
Legal ownership simply by filling out a form on the Internet or at WalMart.
(Spare me, please, the 'only criminals will have guns' argument that you are so fond of).
Case-by-case there was a moment when someone had a passing thought like:
"This freaking nut-job shouldn't have a gun."
And he still bought a gun anyway. In ten minutes. They gave him a free box of bullets!
5). How do we solve it?
From the outside looking in.
You can describe me as such:
I don't own a gun. I appreciate the rights of those who do. I have never been shot.
I have a simple request:
Don't shoot me. Or my loved ones.
Don't shoot some kid going to a movie.
Don't shoot a woman playing the organ at church.
Don't shoot the mother of someone's kid.
As the guy described above I believe that I have the right to raise questions because all of the above continues to happen on a bi-nightly basis.
If you are described as such:
Gun owner. You don't believe in gun laws. You don't want to talk about it with a commie-liberal.
What really is your point-of-view?
I won't bite your head off if you offer a workable solution.
That's all Costas was doing.
He wasn't stepping on your right to own a gun.
He was exercising his right to talk about what he considered to be a senseless act.
He wanted to know how it could be avoided in the future.
He may have stated it wrong because he was emotional about the loss of life.
But he was just wondering if gun-enthusiasts would join the discussion.
For that he wasn't wrong.
Comments