Another gun related controversy for James Harrison

And he's 100% right! IMHO

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/12/05/james-harrison-says-kc-tragedy-not-a-gun-problem/

James Harrison is right and Bob Costas and Jason Whitlock are wrong about this issue. I was furious when Costas used his national platform of SNF on NBC to exploit the tragedy in KC by making a socio-political statement. Harrison is right! If a gun had not been available to Jovan Belcher, a knife or a baseball bat or his hands would have been. Keep standing up for the Second Amendment, James.

Hope this isn't too political, TTF, but since we have a Steeler player speaking out on it I thought it was appropriate to post here.

 

Guns don't kill people... People kill people

NHe's right!

 

Yeah if he stabbed her would Costa be calling for all knives to be taken away from people.

 

I agree 100 percent with James . I have lost friends because of them commiting suicide, And i have friends that are in prison, for killing someone, and none of those times did i blame the weapon that caused these event's....... I can tell you this i will nvr give up my guns,..

 

Why can't these dumb azzes see if you take guns from law abiding citizens, only the criminals will have guns? Course then the FU(*&^G brains in DC would provide mandatory counselling for us victims, while the killer knocks back a few brews and reloads

 

Well, to steal a Rush L. analogy which I happened to hear as I rarely am in the car when he is on, but he doesn't blame Costas for saying stupid stuff. He blames the microphone. I mean if the stinking microphone hadn't been on no one would have heard the comments. No it isn't him....it was the mics fault.

 

"If not a gun, a knife or ___ would have done the same thing..." I think that sometimes that's the case and the crimes would have had the exact same results, sometimes it's not and they would have been different. Guns are obviously different in what they can do and how people are willing to use them (easier to shoot than to strangle or slice?). There's simply no denying that some crimes would have the same outcome even if the person didn't have a gun, and there's no denying some crimes wouldn't have been as bad, or maybe not happened, if they didn't have a gun. I have no idea which is the case with Belcher because I know nothing about him or the situation. I can make assumptions which might be true, but even then we're only talking about one tragedy instead of all of them, which is what laws are for. I also think it's not as simple as "let's take all the guns away from the good people so only criminals have them." I think it's more about making guns harder to get to make sure only good people get them in the first place.

I do think that this is pretty political though, because it's not so much a right or wrong thing as an opinion thing.

 

If someone wants to do something bad enough, they will find a way to do it.
Nothing political about it.
We have a bridge in my hometown,that people have been jumping off of to kill themselves, for years.
Our community spent about a million dollars(no exagerration), to put up a fence, on this bridge, that would be hard to climb, to try and prevent this.
Within a year of this project being completed, someone determined to take their life, just drove their car onto the bridge, parked it, then climbed onto the roof of the car, to get over the fence, and jumped to their death.
Sorry for sounding like a preacher, or a moral of the story, kinda person, but this is an honest to god true story, from my hometown.
If someone wants to do something bad enough.
They will.
Nuthin political about it.
Edit...
I think this should be moved from "Steeler`s Talk", at this point.
I agree with Silverback, and appreciate that he speaks his mind, even when not "politically correct", but, I truly don`t see this as Steeler related.
And I have never said that about another thread.
Ain`t like we can`t talk about it in another forum...

 

take my guns , "go head".

 

Charlton Heston sed it best...
But, that aint the point...
We`re here to talk football...
Not gun rights...

 

well in our state the two go hand in hand bleed. conceal carry. just sayin.

 

Actually, the "only criminals will have guns" argument is beyond cliche. And doesn't follow logic. No criminal "worries" about others carrying. It doesn't make them think twice about busting into your home. Seriously.

 

??
I think you meant the argument that criminals will think twice about robbing someone.

The "only criminals having guns" is pretty spot on. If you make handguns illegal, only a criminal will have one.

 

When the OP said - "I was furious when Costas used his national platform of SNF on NBC to exploit the tragedy in KC by making a sociopolitical statement." wasn't he doing the exact same thing as Costas, just on a smaller stage?

It's really stretching it by saying it's Steeler related and not more of a political thread topic.

As usual, I don't think my social or legal position will be popular here, but I don't care. I come here to talk about the team and the game. I have already chosen the people in my personal life who I care to get deep with this stuff about or to totally avoid. But since I believe Steeler nation is wide and varied, I thought I might provide the other prospective.

For the most part I agree with Costas and just so that I am being clear and not veiling my opinion. And again, as usual, I am fine with the idea that I might be in a sever minority on this topic. But, this is coming from a gun owner and someone who has been around guns since childhood and grew up hunting with my family. There are far too many people who own guns whether it's their right or not who shouldn't (IMO). Some of them are my family members even.

Two other people above have made some pretty good rational statements that I can agree with. I am not trying to align myself with them because I don't pretend to know their full opinion across the board on this or many other social issues and I'm not trying to represent them. But Tomlin Era and Huge Snack have touched on details that broaden the scope of the "conversation".

People harp on how awful "political correctness" is all the time and try brining it up on this board and the old one, but if someone tries to raise a (gasp) liberal point of view they are labeled as unpatriotic or a trader or weak or soft or a hundred other misconceptions and untruths. During conversations like this those dissenters tend to parse their opinion against the consensus maybe to not be disliked or whatever, so, maybe some of those labels have a shred of merit.

I'm just saying, don't complain about a liberal view point and try and shout it down and complain about political correctness at the same time. So Costas said something that you find politically un-correct. So what. Which way do you want it, if that's issue you might have?

He said:

“Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it.”

"Give me one example of an athlete – I know it’s happened in society – give me one example of an athlete by virtue of his having a gun, took a dangerous situation and turned it around for the better. I can’t think of a single one. Sadly, I can think of dozens that by virtue of having a gun, a professional athlete wound up in a tragic situation."

- I personally think Costas is spot on with both points.

The only part I didn't agree with is that when he said BOTH people would be alive today if Belcher didn't have a gun. That is pure speculation and something we'll never know. She most likely would be dead, Belcher, who knows, I don't think he would go out falling on his knife like a Samurai.

Dissension is important if you REALLY want a non-politically correct world. Discussion is equally as important if we continue this thread. Arguments are very rarely fruitful.

I hope people can keep their cool and be respectful, and at least make an attempt to not just listen, but to try and understand the opposing view and why that person might hold it. What is their true motivation?

Costas later said:

"I never mentioned the Second Amendment. I never used the words gun control. People inferred that. Now, do I believe that we need more comprehensive and sensible gun control? Yes I do. That doesn’t mean repeal the Second Amendment."​

 

But the implication of the cliche is that "outlawing guns" will make the "criminals" more prone to committing violent crime. There is no evidence that any criminal act is avoided out of "fear" that a homeowner, or car owner, or pedestrian might be carrying. Furthermore, carrying a firearm doesn't make you any safer. If someone wants to get the jump on you, they will. Period.