Re: Costas uses the Jevon Belcher tregedy to preach gun control at halftime........
posted at 12/3/2012 5:31 PM EST
In response to AZPAT's comment:
In response to portfolio1's comment:
How about just a LITTLE common sense.... You know... good, ole fashion common sense:
1. Most violent crimes are commited in the heat of a moment.
2. Most violent crimes are commited by men (around 86%): testosterone makes the male of the species more prone to acts of violence (that is why a bull moose during rutting season is more dangerous than a bear) and our culture teaches guys to be be tough, not to back down, etc.
3. Most violent crimes are commited by men over 15 (testosterone kicking in...)
4. Most violent crimes committed by men between the ages of 18 and 30 (no surprise there)
5. While men who let themselves become violent kill, a handy gun is the weapon of choice when available.
6. Alchohol use is correlated with violence (people are more likely to become violent when using alchohol than when not - no surprise).
So common sense does point to the tag phrase that "people kill". But since most murders are done in the heat of the moment the clear truth is that had there been no gun available at that moment then the chance of an attempted murder drops and the success of a murder attmept drops (guns are more deadly than other available means to kill).
There is also the huge, overwhelming correlation between men and murderers and also a very high correlation with age and so with testosterone levels as well.
So perhaps only women and men over say 45 should be allowed to carry guns. Of course there will not be an agreement on this. And I am not wanting to drum up a heated debate. But I am wanting to drum up a little reflection on cause and effect with the application of common sense.
Who disagrees that a pedophile should not be let around kids? I expect no one here would disagree. So by the same token, common sense, no perpetrator of a violent crime - and no person who has been decalred mentally unstable - should be allowed to own or posses a gun. Doing so should be illegal for those persons. THat is perhaps a concept most reasonable people could agree with - or at least appreciate the reasons for.
Similarly common sense says guns and alchohol do not mix. Guns in bars are just a tragedy waiting to happen. And so too at football games. Considering the number of drunk jerks (as opposed to someone is is just drunk) at sporting events keeping guns out while they let everyone drink till they can hardly walk is a good thing. A very good thing.
Clearly we will not all agree here with any one perspective, including the ones I touch on. But to be blind to the most obvious and simple things, and to be antogonistic, demeaning and even angry towards someone who wants to reduce gun related violence is just ... well... lets say it is just being dogmatic and lacking common sense.
OK... I'm for organizing a ban on testosterone. Seeing how THAT's teh obvious catalyst to this WHOLE problem. If we can't ban that, then let's outlaw men.
"common sense, no perpetrator of a violent crime - and no person who has been decalred mentally unstable - should be allowed to own or posses a gun. "
Question: Wjere have you been low these many years of attempts to crack down on owning guns? Al states require background checks before sales are complete. So, there goes your "common sense" contention as stated. It's already being done, and I have no problem with it. That is a reasonable step to take. But, while we're cracking down on legit folks trying to purchase a gun or any kind, where is the assault of criminals? The best I know of is the "trading them in for gift cards". Noble gesture, but the majority of guns truned in are NOT those related to crimes. Most have been old relics of nominal value, or thiose that have not been fired in a long time, or thoise that will not fire. Meanwhile, I'm still reading about shootings during home invasions, armed robberies, and criminal events gone bad (drug buys). Fact is that criminals WILL get guns.
Here's a thought. Instead of making new gun laws, why not enforce those already in place? Let's add, say, 25 years to any sentence for armed robbery, if a gun is involved? Include this addition to other participants, even if they did not have a/the gun. You say most guns are acquired via breakins? OK, let's add the same 25 years to the sentence if a gun is stolen in the break in. Let's start making criminals fully responsible for their crimes, no more Nice Guy, let's look at how he was raised, his teachers had it in for him, Susie jilted him at the prom, too many booze commercials, excuses.
Get tough on the criminal, NOT the public.
Az - while we obviously have different perspectives on some of this we might not be as far apart on some of it as your tone indicates. In fact, why use a demeaning tone at all?
Here are some thoughts in response to some of your comments:
1. This country already has a large population locked up and no indication of letting up. In fact prison populations in this cuntry are rising, not falling. Even as you insist regarding gun laws we already have some reasonablly tough criminal law (we might both agree that we could each find some apect that could use adjusting).
Regarding the above: According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,266,800 adults were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2010
The imprisonment rate varies widely by state; Louisiana surpasses this by about 100, but Maine incarcerates at about a fifth this rate. A report released 28 February 2008, indicates that more than 1 in 100 adults in the United States are in prison. The United States has less than 5% of the world's population and 23% of the world's prison population
According to Wikipedia (and I am not insisting on the exact value of this source but mearly that it is verifiable and likely reasonably accurate): The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world
Regarding gun laws - there are many states where guns can be purchased without the sort of background checks you imlpy are required. Gun shows in some areas are notorious for being able to circumvent such regulations.
So while I do not demean you (as your tone with comments like "where have you been" and "lets outlaw testosterone") , I do wonder why you took a hostile approach to me and to what I had to say. Seems like there is a pattern of responses like yours. Wouldn't it make more sense to acknowledge each others approaches and perspectives and see if in fact there is common ground? Because if we are all honest and not hypocritical there must be some overlap.
Going back to the testosterone thing - are you saying that you do not believe that it is a factor in behavior at all? If it does have an effect (being a pretty potent drug, though made naturally by the body, it should not surprise anyone who has taken a position that SOME drugs should be illegal) then why not talk about it in reasonable terms? It is not a matter of changing what our bodies do but of controlling our impulses when we start to consider doing evil things. You know, like taking out a gun and shooting a girl friend or wife. If a person shows that they cannot control violent impulses then they should not be allowed to have a gun... or pilot a plane perhaps. Just like if a person drinks and drives and killswhile DUI they should not be allowed to drive a car (and depending on specifics perhaps they should be in jail? - that one can be discussed)...
To others reading all the good and bad running through this thread... instead of getting dismissive and demeaning how about having conversations where points are considered and not simply dismissed with such ignorant labels as "you liberal" or "you conservative jerk"?