If a gun and a knife aren't that different, why do so many people spend so much time defending the Second Amendment? After all, you could always defend your home with a bowie knife after Obama confiscated all of the guns.

The actual problem is the murderer, not the weapon. Such a basic concept that people bizarrely fail to understand.

?

You think murder with a knife is as easy as murder with a gun?
If so, why are 7 out of 10 US murders committed with a firearm?
There are an order of magnitude more knives (and bare hands) than there are guns in America, so you'd think that would make them the more likely murder weapon if it was just as easy.

Begin the draft!

I'd choose option 12), hang out with Mitsuko until she kills me.

after Obama confiscated all of the guns.

At knifepoint!

Ron: What is the difference between having a gun at your disposal and a knife at your disposal in a domestic violence situation such as the one Belcher was in?

My grandfather was a ER surgeon for several decades, and loved to talk about the gory details of his job with his grandchildren (this is a large part of why he was officially the Awesomest Granddad Ever). The three main things I took away were:

1. If you are wearing thin clothing and fall off of a motorcycle on a gravel road then you will have a very unpleasant time.
2. Men shouldn't wear wedding rings, because they get caught in the machinery at your industrial job and cause a lot more of your hand to be ripped off than you might expect.
3. Stab wounds are very survivable, but stab wounds in the gut often resulted in the stabee spending a lifetime wearing a colostomy bag.

Grandpa also had a collection of Civil War amputation kits, and two pool tables in the basement.

Grandpa also had a collection of Civil War amputation kits, and two pool tables in the basement.

1%-er!

(So jealous.)

I dont think that Sharon Tate or Nicole Brown Simpson were thanking their lucky stars that their assailants didn't have guns.

No, what's bizarre is failing to understand the basic concept that both the murderer and the weapon can be problems.

It's not even a moral judgement where we call it a "problem." It's just the basics of the act. Murder with projectile weapons is faster and easier than murder with a proximity weapon. What the hell do you think people *want handguns?!* What the hell is the big rush to have a gun "for self defense" if not to put a distance of remove from you and the attacker?

This isn't hard, and Ray's so locked into being outraged at Bob Costas for daring to be "liberal" on a football telecast that he's incapable of even thinking about the damned problem at hand.

If a gun and a knife aren't that different, why do so many people spend so much time defending the Second Amendment? After all, you could always defend your home with a bowie knife after Obama confiscated all of the guns.

I tried that with a Sam Bowie knife and the handle broke.

It's not even a moral judgement where we call it a "problem." It's just the basics of the act. Murder with projectile weapons is faster and easier than murder with a proximity weapon.

An inconvenient truth, apparently.

Yeah, I missed where a couch was a steel cage separating the guy from the girl.

So he goes over the couch and is on her within 0.6 seconds.

Except that there is a chance that it takes longer, or that he slips or trips. And since she is presumably not nailed to the floor, she can move while he is doing that. Perhaps she can then make a move to get outside or behind a door.

Where with a gun, none of that is available.

9) A razor-edged boomerang with hockey mask

The razor-edged boomerang would be a really badass way to commit suicide.

The actual problem is the murderer, not the weapon. Such a basic concept that people bizarrely fail to understand.

If you take the knife away from the murderer, and replace it with a pillow, or a spoon, or a live salmon, he still might be able to use those things to kill you, but he's going to have to work an awful lot harder at it.

If someone wanted to kill me, I sure wouldn't want to make it any easier for them than absolutely necessary. I'd imagine that most people feel the same way.

9) A razor-edged boomerang with hockey mask


The razor-edged boomerang would be a really badass way to commit suicide.

That is a bit of a confusing one. Is the hockey mask meant to protect you against possible boomerang blowback? Is it attached to the boomerang? Are you obligated to take the mask, or can you leave it and just take the boomerang? Is it one of those cage goalie masks? Old-school slab of plastic with a strap? A modern-stlye one with Mike Tyson painted on the side? Too ambiguous for me.

If someone wanted to kill me, I sure wouldn't want to make it any easier for them than absolutely necessary. I'd imagine that most people feel the same way.

No, if someone wanted to kill you I'd want to make it as easy as possible for them!

(I kid! I kid!)

Except that there is a chance that it takes longer, or that he slips or trips. And since she is presumably not nailed to the floor, she canmove while he is doing that. Perhaps she can then make a move to get outside or behind a door.

Where wiht a gun, none of that is available.

Oh FFS, guns are not super duper death ray blasters. The majority of shooters will miss a human sized target with a handgun at anything much farther away than stabbing distance unless they've actually practiced their shooting. It's hard to shoot accurately with a handgun; especially in an actual confrontation when your emotions are high and adrenaline is surging.

If we're going to posit ridiculous scenarios where an NFL linebacker somehow is unable to catch his girlfriend when they're both standing in the kitchen together, we should consider the far more likely scenario that he flat out misses her with his handgun while she runs away.

The majority of shooters will miss a human sized target with a handgun at anything much farther away than stabbing distance unless they've actually practiced their shooting.

So it's your contention that the majority of gun owners don't ever practice? Then why do they need guns in the first place, if they aren't going to do the necessary preparation to use them effectively? Isn't that awfully dangerous, letting untrained people wildly brandish firearms in uncontrolled situations?

If we're going to posit ridiculous scenarios where an NFL linebacker somehow is unable to catch his girlfriend when they're both standing in the kitchen together, we should consider the far more likely scenario that he flat out misses her with his handgun while she runs away.

There's nothing stopping him from running after her while he shoots. As such, she's still better off with the knife than the gun.

Oh FFS, guns are are not super duper death ray blasters.

No one said they were. Only that they were more effective murder weapons than knives. Which anyone without their head up their asses would readily admit. It's not even close to a question.

2/3 of gunshot victims are fatalities. 1/3 of those attacked with other weapons are fatalities.

That is a bit of a confusing one. Is the hockey mask meant to protect you against possible boomerang blowback? Is it attached to the boomerang? Are you obligated to take the mask, or can you leave it and just take the boomerang? Is it one of those cage goalie masks? Old-school slab of plastic with a strap? A modern-stlye one with Mike Tyson painted on the side? Too ambiguous for me.

I think that the razor-edged boomerang is such a ridiculous weapon that you only choose it if you're trying to work the "don't #### with me I'm a crazed psychopath" angle. The hockey mask doubles down on that if it's the old school style. You're telling everyone else that they're about to become Johnny Depp in Nightmare on Elm Street. It's psychological warfare.

Conversely, if the hockey mask is something like the headgear that John Buck wears then it'd be really useful. The problem with the razor-edged boomerang is that if you score a hit you lose your weapon and have to go retrieve it. In this situation your foe might not be entirely dead and might, in fact, still be actively trying to take you out with the nunchucks or the RPG. In this case a little body armor would be very appreciated. You can go in with head lowered and head butt the razor-edged boomerang deeper into whatever vital organ it has lodged itself in.

The weapon of choice from the melee list is the sniper rifle. If you're engaged in a kill or be killed elimination game and you have access to the only accurate, long-distance kill weapon on the island, you take it immediately.

Oh FFS, guns are not super duper death ray blasters. The majority of shooters will miss a human sized target with a handgun at anything much farther away than stabbing distance unless they've actually practiced their shooting. It's hard to shoot accurately with a handgun; especially in an actual confrontation when your emotions are high and adrenaline is surging.

As opposed to the ease of stabbing a struggling person with a knife? You assume that those same emotions that make them unable to aim have no effect on any other action.

If we're going to posit ridiculous scenarios where an NFL linebacker somehow is unable to catch his girlfriend when they're both standing in the kitchen together, we should consider the far more likely scenario that he flat out misses her with his handgun while she runs away.

Sure, if you want. I never said he would not catch her, only that it would take longer (and ignoring that his mother was there and may have been able to intervene then). Every additional bit of time is to her benefit. Is that really so hard to understand?

If you have a pissed off NFL linebacker in a room with you, do you prefer they have a gun or a knife?

So it's your contention that the majority of gun owners don't ever practice?

Most that I know don't practice, no. Certainly not regularly or rigorously.

Then why do they need guns in the first place?

Who cares? Freedom isn't served by determining what people "need" and forbidding everything they don't.

Isn't that awfully dangerous, letting untrained people wildly brandish firearms in uncontrolled situations?

You're not as stupid as this question.

There's nothing stopping him from running after her while he shoots. As such, she's still better off with the knife than the gun.

Have you ever tried chasing somebody while shooting a handgun accurately at them? She'd be MUCH safer if he was doing that as opposed to chasing her with a knife.

No one said they were. Only that they were more effective murder weapons than knives. Which anyone without their head up their asses would readily admit. It's not even close to a question.

Of course guns are superior, but it's because of the quality that doesn't matter in the scenario we've been discussing here; range. When you're a woman standing in the kitchen with an NFL linebacker and he's trying to kill you, it doesn't matter if he's got a knife or a gun. You're screwed either way.

Of course guns are superior, but it's because of the quality that doesn't matter in the scenario we've been discussing here; range. When you're a woman standing in the kitchen with an NFL linebacker and he's trying to kill you, it doesn't matter if he's got a knife or a gun. You're screwed either way.

This assumes a lot of things. Has there been any indication of the layout and size of the kitchen, as well as where the were each located, as well as his mother? My own kitchen has a permanent island which would certain complicate your simple scenario even without the mother being there.

This assumes a lot of things. Has there been any indication of the layout and size of the kitchen, as well as where the were each located, as well as his mother? My own kitchen has a permanent island which would certain complicate your simple scenario even without the mother being there

Plus, it's a kitchen. Where there are, you know, other knives readily available to be grabbed as a defensive measure. A bit more likely than other guns.

This assumes a lot of things. Has there been any indication of the layout and size of the kitchen, as well as where the were each located, as well as his mother? My own kitchen has a permanent island which would certain complicate your simple scenario even without the mother being there

Plus, it's a kitchen. Where there are, you know, other knives readily available to be grabbed as a defensive measure. A bit more likely than other guns.

Guys, we're talking about an NFL linebacker here. His entire job is to chase down fast, agile men who are as big and strong as he is, and tackle them. Catching and physically overpowering his girlfriend, who is not a world class athlete, would be child's play for him.

Who cares? Freedom isn't served by determining what people "need" and forbidding everything they don't.

It matters because that freedom has consequences. There are 12,000 firearms deaths annually in the United States. So that cost needs to be weighed against any benefit the possession of firearms brings.

It's refreshing to know that the Promise To Women made by Bob Costas, Sam, and Steve is clear:

If your man doesn't own a gun, you will be relatively safe from domestic violence.

You certainly, according to Costas, won't die.

You will be relatively safer, to a meaningful degree, according to Sam and Steve. Otherwise, there is no point to their argument. Because if you have a 95% chance of dying or getting seriously hurt with a gun, and a 93% chance of dying or getting seriously hurt without a gun, then there is no bleeping point to the #### they are shoveling.

Guys, we're talking about an NFL linebacker here. His entire job is to chase down fast, agile men who are as big and strong as he is, and tackle them. Catching and physically overpowering his girlfriend, who is not a world class athlete, would be child's play for him.

And yet he shot her. What a dunce.

Guys, we're talking about an NFL linebacker here. His entire job is to chase down fast, agile men who are as big and strong as he is, and tackle them. Catching and physically overpowering his girlfriend, who is not a world class athlete, would be child's play for him.

I'm sure, but I think the argument, vis a vis that vs. a gun is that the action to kill with a gun takes less than a second. No matter how strong you are, humans are slower than guns. In the space you have to approach, fight, overpower, and kill, you will be able to consider WTF you are actually doing longer. He obviously felt like crap enough to go kill himself immediately, and with the time it actually would have taken to kill her there is a real greater possibility he would have felt that sooner and simply might not have finished due to the time involved. It is simply oversell that he's a sledgehammer and she's an ant; humans do really take actual time to kill physically.


...Sam, and Steve is clear: If your man doesn't own a gun, you will be relatively safe from domestic violence.

I don't even have to read back to know you simply made this up.

Because if you have a 95% chance of dying with a gun, and a 93% chance of dying without a gun, then there is no bleeping point to the #### they are shoveling.

Try finding and quoting the actual statistics, Ray. Come on, you can do it!

We've got a new Joe. Or is it an old Joe?

Back in my kitchen working days we used to throwing pairing knives at each other for fun. I don't think we would have shot pistols at one another for fun.

It matters because that freedom has consequences. There are 12,000 firearms deaths annually in the United States. So that cost needs to be weighed against any benefit the possession of firearms brings.

Everything has consequences. But we've already made the cost-benefit analysis in the US regarding private ownership of firearms. Your side was crushed. If you guys want to make another political push for gun control, that'd be awesome. Best gift you could give the hapless GOP.

I think that the razor-edged boomerang is such a ridiculous weapon that you only choose it if you're trying to work the "don't #### with me I'm a crazed psychopath" angle. The hockey mask doubles down on that if it's the old school style. You're telling everyone else that they're about to become Johnny Depp in Nightmare on Elm Street. It's psychological warfare.

I am so very, very disappointed.

Guys, we're talking about an NFL linebacker here. His entire job is to chase down fast, agile men who are as big and strong as he is, and tackle them. Catching and physically overpowering his girlfriend, who is not a world class athlete, would be child's play for him.

For him, no doubt. But not every drunken lout who flies into a rage is quite so well equipped as an NFL linebacker. That's the more pertinent point.

I'll put it this way: I've met about 15 or 20 Primates in person, and every last one of them would be far deadlier trying to kill someone with a gun than with a knife. That most definitely includes Mr. 95% - 93% above, though he's such a softie I doubt if he'd ever even try to kill a tax collector.

Guys, we're talking about an NFL linebacker here. His entire job is to chase down fast, agile men who are as big and strong as he is, and tackle them. Catching and physically overpowering his girlfriend, who is not a world class athlete, would be child's play for him.

And yet he shot her. What a dunce.

Yes, he had a gun. But try to keep up here; we're discussing a scenario where he had a knife instead. And the sad truth is that if he wanted her dead, it wouldn't have made any difference whether he had a gun or a knife.

And the sad truth is that if he wanted her dead, it wouldn't have made any difference whether he had a gun or a knife.

Um, yes it would have. He'd have to try a helluva lot harder to kill her with a knife and there is also a chance that if he was holding a knife instead of a gun it never to that point.

Everything has consequences. But we've already made the cost-benefit analysis in the US regarding private ownership of firearms. Your side was crushed. If you guys want to make another political push for gun control, that'd be awesome. Best gift you could give the hapless GOP.

Nah, we'd rather just let y'alls keep wrapping yourselves around the security blanket of a bunch of dying rednecks and one percenters, and leave the demographic targeting to the pros. Your consolation is that you can keep taking their money on Intrade, but that'll be our little secret.

Alright, back to Jericho. Last episode featured the EMP blast at the end of the episode.

And the sad truth is that if he wanted her dead, it wouldn't have made any difference whether he had a gun or a knife.

That isn't the truth, that's a supposition you're making. The truth is that he shot her with a gun, and she is dead.

But we've already made the cost-benefit analysis in the US regarding private ownership of firearms.

When? A decision was made in the late 18th Century, but I don't know that I would call it a cost-benefit analysis. And if somebody actually did a cost-benefit analysis today, would it necessarily have the same inputs or results as it would for 18th Century society, when the country was far more rural, and firearms were quite different than they are today?

EDIT: If the 2nd Amended were limited to sabers and flintlocks, I don't think it would be as big of an issue today.

That isn't the truth, that's a supposition you're making. The truth is that he shot her with a gun, and she is dead.

Thank you for validating my post 1029.

And the sad truth is that if he wanted her dead, it wouldn't have made any difference whether he had a gun or a knife.

That isn't the truth, that's a supposition you're making. The truth is that he shot her with a gun, and she is dead.

But you (and Bob Costas) are making a supposition that if he didn't have a gun, she wouldn't have been killed. That's simply wishful thinking. One could equally make the supposition that if he didn't have a gun, he would have used a knife and killed his mother as well in a state of crazed bloodlust. We should be thankful he had a gun instead of a knife, thereby saving lives.

Thank you for validating my post 1029.

Mmm, no.

It does boggle my mind how someone who #### his pants to avoid the draft, outdid Woody Allen in 'adopting' an underage girlfriend to get around age of consent laws, and makes Joe Walsh (the politician and the deadbeat dad loser, not the guitarist whose only crime was being part of the Eagles) look like father of the year has become such a family values, he-man hero...

You are confusing Family Values groups for people who actually care about family values. To the former, it's not about how much you want to help families, but about how much you hate Democrats, gays, and abortions. By all accounts President Obama is an excellent husband and father, but to the Family Values voters he's worse than Newt, Joe Walsh, and diaper shitter David Vitter. Child molester Nugent is A-OK because he is "repulsed by gay sex".

Being a draft dodger and chickenhawk doesn't matter (see Romney, Newt, Cheney, Bush, Rush, Bolton, etc.) doesn't matter as long as you hunt deer with assault rifles, threaten to kill the Democratic president, and advocate for an atomic bombing of Iraq. Rhetoric matters to these people, nothing else.

But you (and Bob Costas) are making a supposition that if he didn't have a gun, she wouldn't have been killed. That's simply wishful thinking.

#1031 is that far out of whack to you? Asking honestly.

But you (and Bob Costas) are making a supposition that if he didn't have a gun, she wouldn't have been killed.

I can't speak for Bob Costas, but that isn't a supposition I'm making. The supposition I'm making is that in the vast majority of circumstances, a gun is a far more lethal weapon than a knife.

One could make the supposition that if he didn't have a gun, he would have used a knife and killed his mother as well in a state of crazed bloodlust. We should be thankful he had a gun instead of a knife, thereby saving lives.

Oh, yes, of course. That. You betcha.

Back to stick versus automatic: I learned in the first place on an automatic, but all of the cars I drove between 1980 and early this year were standard transmission. One of them was a pretty seriously underpowered car; the stick made it possible to compensate for that. And I had a whole host of standard transmission habits, like downshifting on hills and doing clutch-in coasts in parking lots. Now I drive a hybrid. Ain't no such thing as a standard transmission hybrid. It's its own beast.

Mmm, no.

Mmm, mmm-ha.

That isn't the truth, that's a supposition you're making. The truth is that he shot her with a gun, and she is dead.

Thank you for validating my post 1029.

I'm utterly baffled by your comment here Ray, completely baffled, I assume you are just playing around...


Post # 1051 I get OTOH

But you (and Bob Costas) are making a supposition that if he didn't have a gun, she wouldn't have been killed.

I think in a very specific sense this criticism of Costas is accurate. He doesn't know that sans a gun those two people wouldn't be dead. No one does. Murder can and does happen without guns. I think what most people in this thread are saying is that in a large enough sample size more guns = more murders.

Bob Costas says he made a 'mistake' while talking about gun control at halftime of Sunday Night Football game

Costas started the firestorm with the halftime comments in which he said, 'If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins (the girlfriend he killed) would both be alive today.'


Apparently, according to Bob Costas, no man has ever beaten a woman to death in a domestic violence situation. No man has ever used a knife or his hands. All men in the throws of jealous rages search for a gun, and, failing to find one, go sit down and calmly play XBox.

All victims of domestic violence are shot with guns.

Now that Costas has marginalized himself, maybe the adults in the NFL football audience can discuss the issue intelligently. Presuming they don't want to just, you know, watch football.

Yes. Yours is the only conceivable interpretation of Costas' remarks. It's not possible he meant that having a gun handy makes it a little easier to give in to rage in a way that's irredeemable. It's clear that the only 'adult' interpretation of Costas' remarks is to pretend you have no idea what he means, and to stretch what he said well past the point of absurdity.

Sigh.

There's no point in going any further. You're already your own parody.

The only mistake Costas made was forgetting he lived in a country full of hysterical, juvenile boneheads who can't grasp the need to balance rights to gun ownership against the problems that come with essentially unfettered rights to gun ownership.

I'm sure, but I think the argument, vis a vis that vs. a gun is that the action to kill with a gun takes less than a second. No matter how strong you are, humans are slower than guns. In the space you have to approach, fight, overpower, and kill, you will be able to consider WTF you are actually doing longer. He obviously felt like crap enough to go kill himself immediately, and with the time it actually would have taken to kill her there is a real greater possibility he would have felt that sooner and simply might not have finished due to the time involved. It is simply oversell that he's a sledgehammer and she's an ant; humans do really take actual time to kill physically.

This. The idea that the time and effort to kill someone with a knife is no different than the time and effort it takes to kill someone with a knife is not reasonable.

It's more trying on the conscience and one's humanity to stab someone at close range enough times to kill them, than mortally shoot them from a distance. That would deter some killings by knife that would succeed by gun.

In other words, the rage that provokes the act is neither permanent nor absolute. It could fade before success.

So what is Costas' solution? Outlaw all the guns in the country? If so, that seems completely unrealistic, especially considering how many are in circulation already. The weapon was a relatively mundane handgun, purchased legally that he had previously used for sport shooting at a range; what form gun control that could ever reasonably be passed would prevent this?

And then Jericho got stupid.

Yes. Yours is the only conceivable interpretation of Costas' remarks. It's not possible he meant that having a gun handy makes it a little easier to give in to rage in a way that's irredeemable. It's clear that the only 'adult' interpretation of Costas' remarks is to pretend you have no idea what he means, and to stretch what he said well past the point of absurdity.

Sigh.

There's no point in going any further. You're already your own parody.

Or you are, Something Other. Costas said what he meant and meant what he said. If he wants to walk his comments back, he's free to do so. I've not seen him do that anywhere, despite people alibi'ing for him here.

He meant that having a gun made it "a little easier" to kill someone? Then (a) there was no point to his comment, because it doesn't move the needle much, and (b) "a little easier" is a far cry from "they would be alive today if he had no gun." He didn't say "You know, there is a small chance that they would be alive today if he had no gun." He said "they would be alive." 'Dead' and 'alive' are two very different states.

And (b) "a little easier" is a far cry from "they would be alive today if he had no gun."

Belcher himself probably would be alive today. I doubt he would have successfully knifed himself to death with all those men around to stop and/or treat him.

And then Jericho got stupid.

I really thought it started stupid. It was no better than another post-apocalypse show, Jeremiah, which wasn't particularly good itself.

So what is Costas' solution? Outlaw all the guns in the country? If so, that seems completely unrealistic, especially considering how many are in circulation already. The weapon was a relatively mundane handgun, purchased legally that he had previously used for sport shooting at a range; what form gun control that could ever reasonably be passed would prevent this?

As I said a few pages ago, I personally give up... I've used guns, I've hunted, I have some family that are self-described gun nuts - if I were some godlike being who could remove the 2nd Amendment, a couple centuries of jurisprudence, and Americans love of guns in a snap without anyone being the wiser, I probably would... but I can't.

Given that the state of the national debate, the fact that gun control is losing argument (in fact, I can even understand and agree with plenty of logic as to why it 'doesn't work') -- I guess I would just ask the NRA folks to offer some solutions to the following issues. These aren't meant as gotchas -- I'm just honestly asking, what can we do about these issues? ... and as aside, please - don't offer up a "if everyone was packing, everywhere, and all the time" -- I don't want to live in a world like that.

1) How do we deal with 'straw buyers'? I understand that banning firearms in Chicago hasn't done a damn thing to keep them out of gangbangers hands... and I'm not looking to go after gun shops -- but come on, I think we all know there are some unscrupulous shop owners who are well aware of their selling to straw buyers. What sorts of laws would be acceptable to NRA folks? Would life sentences for straw buyers be amendable? Some sort of system where chronic sellers to straw buyers are legally whacked big-time? I understand the concerns against extensive registration and licensing -- but help me out here... how do we keep guns from so easily flowing from legal markets to blackmarket/illegal ownership? Can't we all agree that it happens far too much? What's the answer?

2) How do we keep guns out of the hands of 'nuts'? Gun show loopholes and the like -- again, I'm perfectly cognizant of the fears regarding IDs, background checks, etc. But - how do we ensure that people who shouldn't own guns are prevented from owning them? How do we identify such people? How do we stop them from being legal purchasers?

Throw me a bone... help me understand a solution that isn't rooted in wild west fantasy.

Bummer, I missed the whole stick shift conversation. For what it's worth, I drive a stick now, and unless I don't have a choice, will probably never buy anything but a stick. They're simply more fun to drive, and they actually help keep me awake when I'm driving in traffic. I mess around on the internet looking at cars as I'm only quasi in the market for a new one, but if the car I'm looking at isn't available in a stick, I'll just click to another model.

They're simply more fun to drive

That's it entirely.

This gun-knife thing is thoroughly ridiculous.

In 2009 there was something like a 10:9 gun:knife ratio in aggravated assaults (which the FBI defines as assaults with intent to kill or do very serious bodily harm) and something like a 10:2 gun:knife ratio in murders. There is some noise in this -- people generally aren't going to shoot to wound -- but the point is that in general it's far easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife. We also know that we don't know very much about the specifics of the Belcher situation and can't say for certain what would or would not have happened in any given scenario. Thus:

1. Bob Costas is right in the implied general point that guns make it easier to kill someone than knives do.
2. Bob Costas may or may not have been right in his specific claim about Belcher, and in stating it with certainty he was grandstanding and talking out of his ass.
3. Bob Costas should be kneed in the nuts at least once a week.

These points both seem blindingly obvious. I should say that point #3 has nothing to do with the statements about Belcher and is more of a general truth.

I really thought it started stupid. It was no better than another post-apocalypse show, Jeremiah, which wasn't particularly good itself.

I thought the first 5 episodes were pretty good , suspenseful, and interesting. But now its just fallen back to typical network hour long drama stuff. Everything is so petty and melodramatic now.

Last time I checked, I would say that 99.9% of the mass murders in this country are done with a gun. When you look up past and present serial killers there are a lot that use other methods such as a knife, strangulation etc to kill their victims. So what does that say about the mental state of the killer or killers in each scenario?

These points both seem blindingly obvious. I should say that point #3 has nothing to do with the statements about Belcher and is more of a general truth.

And very well said.

It is still unfathomable to me that people are arguing that mechanized projectile weapons that fire rounds faster than any human being can move don't facilitate ease of killing. It's like you guys don't even know what a gun is for.

Last time I checked, I would say that 99.9% of the mass murders in this country are done with a gun. When you look up past and present serial killers there are a lot that use other methods such as a knife, strangulation etc to kill their victims. So what does that say about the mental state of the killer or killers in each scenario?

I guess one is going for volume, and one gets some kind of fulfilment out of more intimate methods of killing.

How long would a serial killer be a serial killer if he fired a gun to kill his prey?

Plus serial killers aren't really killing people in a rage or in a fight.

Plus serial killers aren't really killing people in a rage or in a fight.

Well, apparently Ray and the chorus have simply chosen to completely ignore the state of mind of a potential killer and assume all murders are exactly the same.

Everything has consequences. But we've already made the cost-benefit analysis in the US regarding private ownership of firearms. Your side was crushed. If you guys want to make another political push for gun control, that'd be awesome. Best gift you could give the hapless GOP.

Nah, we'd rather just let y'alls keep wrapping yourselves around the security blanket of a bunch of dying rednecks and one percenters, and leave the demographic targeting to the pros. Your consolation is that you can keep taking their money on Intrade, but that'll be our little secret.

This seems like an appropriate time to bring out that quote you're so fond of... think it goes something along the lines of, "That's the yelp of a beaten cur."

1) How do we deal with 'straw buyers'? I understand that banning firearms in Chicago hasn't done a damn thing to keep them out of gangbangers hands... and I'm not looking to go after gun shops -- but come on, I think we all know there are some unscrupulous shop owners who are well aware of their selling to straw buyers.

Strange complaint coming from someone who insists "Fast and Furious" is a non-issue. But who cares about a bunch of dead Mexicans, right?

How long would a serial killer be a serial killer if he fired a gun to kill his prey?

Zodiac.

It's like you guys don't even know what a gun is for.

Shut up, I do SO know! It's to take my mind off my 2-inch penis.

Son of Sam speaks out for Gun control

Son of Sam and Bob Costas have something in common

Has anyone compared the Belcher tragedy with the Chris Benoit tragedy? Seem remarkably similiar, I wonder if steiod abuse and concusions will surface for Belcher. Seems like it could extreme harmful to the NFL.

I don't see what this has to do with Gun control.

2/3 of gunshot victims are fatalities. 1/3 of those attacked with other weapons are fatalities.

This is incorrect. Less than half of gunshot victims die, and of the ones who do, nearly 60 percent are suicides. — source

***

When? A decision was made in the late 18th Century, but I don't know that I would call it a cost-benefit analysis. And if somebody actually did a cost-benefit analysis today, would it necessarily have the same inputs or results as it would for 18th Century society, when the country was far more rural, and firearms were quite different than they are today?

Belcher himself probably would be alive today. I doubt he would have successfully knifed himself to death with all those men around to stop and/or treat him.

Borrowing The Good Face's utilitarian streak for a moment, if we're going to do a cost-benefit analysis of gun ownership, we should also do one for murders killing themselves.

1. Bob Costas is right in the implied general point that guns make it easier to kill someone than knives do.
2. Bob Costas may or may not have been right in his specific claim about Belcher, and in stating it with certainty he was grandstanding and talking out of his ass.
3. Bob Costas should be kneed in the nuts at least once a week.

I agree

Last time I checked, I would say that 99.9% of the mass murders in this country are done with a gun.

In countries with very strict and effective gun control laws (such as China) you do have mass murder sprees being carried out by knife/machete, I would also count incidents of deliberately driving a vehicle onto a crowd as amass murder spree, obviously a gun makes a spree/mass killer more effective, but some angry sociopaths who want to kill en masse will find a way irrespective of weaponry at hand.

I also notice that every time some spree killer goes off in a restaurant or movie theatre, some on the gun lobby start blabbering about how if an armed citizen was there... but how much do you ever hear of a mass killer being downed in the act by a random citizen with a gun- at least in this country- I'm not saying it doesn't happen- it happens in Israel- but there you have people who are armed, trained and really on guard at all times- her ewe have people like George Zimmerman

Ain't no such thing as a standard transmission hybrid

Really? I may never get a hybrid then. Not that I can afford anything but driving my 1999 Civic till I die. That car will long outlive me.

How long would a serial killer be a serial killer if he fired a gun to kill his prey?


Zodiac.

Son of Sam

there are more
many more

I also notice that every time some spree killer goes off in a restaurant or movie theatre, some on the gun lobby start blabbering about how if an armed citizen was there... but how much do you ever hear of a mass killer being downed in the act by a random citizen with a gun- at least in this country-

But look at where such shootings have tended to happen. The people killed at the Army base in Texas were unarmed, by policy. Columbine was a no-gun zone. I believe the Virginia Tech campus was a no-gun zone. The movie theater in Aurora banned firearm possession on its property. Those killers were shooting fish in a barrel. They knew their victims were highly unlikely to be armed.

but there you have people who are armed, trained and really on guard at all times- her ewe have people like George Zimmerman

Speaking of whom, we now know he had more than a couple minor scratches after his encounter with Trayvon Martin.

If only we allowed guns in schools and darkened movie theaters. Then we'd all be much safe.

Those killers were shooting fish in a barrel. They knew their victims were highly unlikely to be armed.


Right, these were areas where 0% of people would have guns instead of gun-friendly areas where the number would be maybe 0.2%. Deterrence!

This isn't a gun problem--this is a culture problem, where we've glamorized killers in movies for decades. But can we change the culture problem?

This isn't a gun problem--this is a culture problem, where we've glamorized killers in movies for decades. But can we change the culture problem?

More accurately, it's a breakdown-of-the-family problem, but that's way too uncomfortable of a topic for people like Bob Costas.

Also a 24-hour-media problem. Life has always been vicious and violent, but you didn't hear about it as much.

(FYI - my "also" is not meant as an agreement with snapper kehoskie.)

More accurately, it's a breakdown-of-the-family problem, but that's way too uncomfortable of a topic for people like Bob Costas.

It's an uncomfortable topic for everyone.

1) How do we deal with 'straw buyers'? I understand that banning firearms in Chicago hasn't done a damn thing to keep them out of gangbangers hands... and I'm not looking to go after gun shops -- but come on, I think we all know there are some unscrupulous shop owners who are well aware of their selling to straw buyers. What sorts of laws would be acceptable to NRA folks? Would life sentences for straw buyers be amendable? Some sort of system where chronic sellers to straw buyers are legally whacked big-time? I understand the concerns against extensive registration and licensing -- but help me out here... how do we keep guns from so easily flowing from legal markets to blackmarket/illegal ownership? Can't we all agree that it happens far too much? What's the answer?

There's no answer as long as the NRA has an effective veto power on all gun legislation. Not that you don't know that already.

2) How do we keep guns out of the hands of 'nuts'? Gun show loopholes and the like -- again, I'm perfectly cognizant of the fears regarding IDs, background checks, etc. But - how do we ensure that people who shouldn't own guns are prevented from owning them? How do we identify such people? How do we stop them from being legal purchasers?

There's no answer as long as the NRA has an effective veto power on all gun legislation. Not that you don't know that already.

--------------------------------------------------

Everything has consequences. But we've already made the cost-benefit analysis in the US regarding private ownership of firearms. Your side was crushed. If you guys want to make another political push for gun control, that'd be awesome. Best gift you could give the hapless GOP.

Nah, we'd rather just let y'alls keep wrapping yourselves around the security blanket of a bunch of dying rednecks and one percenters, and leave the demographic targeting to the pros. Your consolation is that you can keep taking their money on Intrade, but that'll be our little secret.

This seems like an appropriate time to bring out that quote you're so fond of... think it goes something along the lines of, "That's the yelp of a beaten cur."

No question who's the beaten cur in what passes for gun debates, but in terms of issues I care about, it's always been way down my list. And as long as the IRS has more guns than you do and can squeeze enough money out of you every year, I can live with whatever private arsenal you choose to keep.

This isn't a gun problem--this is a culture problem, where we've glamorized killers in movies for decades. But can we change the culture problem?

More accurately, it's a breakdown-of-the-family problem,

More accurately, it's both. More family stability = fewer violent deaths, and fewer guns = few violent deaths. Combine the two, and the violent death rate plummets.

but that's way too uncomfortable of a topic for people like Bob Costas.

Yeah, I can just imagine what sort of reception he'd get if he started in on yet another non-sports topic.

Anyway, #### this gun ####. Starting at 8:00 TCM is showing 24 straight hours of Barbara Stanwyck movies, the first of four such Wednesday / Thursday tributes this month. Someone please be sure to tell Ray to crank up his DVD recorder.

8:00 PM
LADIES OF LEISURE (1930)

A wealthy artist faces family pressure when he falls for a model with a past.
Dir: Frank Capra Cast: Barbara Stanwyck , Ralph Graves , Lowell Sherman .
BW-100 mins, TV-PG,

9:45 PM
THIS IS MY AFFAIR (1937)

A saloon singer tries to reform a gangster, not knowing he's really an undercover detective.
Dir: William A. Seiter Cast: Robert Taylor , Barbara Stanwyck , Victor McLaglen .
BW-101 mins, TV-PG,

11:45 PM
OTHER LOVE, THE (1947)

A concert pianist dying of tuberculosis fall for her doctor.
Dir: Andre DeToth Cast: Barbara Stanwyck , David Niven , Richard Conte .
BW-93 mins, TV-G, CC,

1:30 AM
MESSAGE TO GARCIA, A (1936)

A fiery Cuban woman guides an emissary from the U.S. president through the jungles of war-torn Cuba.
Dir: George Marshall Cast: Wallace Beery , Barbara Stanwyck , John Boles .
BW-85 mins, TV-G,

3:00 AM
STELLA DALLAS (1937)

After divorcing a society man, a small-town woman tries to build a better life for their daughter.
Dir: King Vidor Cast: Barbara Stanwyck , John Boles , Anne Shirley .
BW-106 mins, TV-G, CC,

4:49 AM
MIRACLE AT LOURDES (1939)

BW-11 mins,

5:00 AM
MIRACLE WOMAN, THE (1931)

A phony faith healer fights the temptation to go straight when she falls for a blind man.
Dir: Frank Capra Cast: Barbara Stanwyck , David Manners , Sam Hardy .
BW-90 mins, TV-PG,

6 Thursday

6:45 AM
SO BIG (1932)

A farmer's widow takes on the land and her late husband's tempestuous son.
Dir: William A. Wellman Cast: Barbara Stanwyck , George Brent , Dickie Moore .
BW-81 mins, TV-G,

8:15 AM
BITTER TEA OF GENERAL YEN, THE (1932)

An American missionary falls in love with a Chinese warlord.
Dir: Frank R. Capra Cast: Barbara Stanwyck , Nils Asther , Toshia Mori .
BW-87 mins, TV-PG, CC,

9:45 AM
BABY FACE (1933)

A beautiful schemer sleeps her way to the top of a banking empire.
Dir: Alfred E. Green Cast: Barbara Stanwyck , George Brent , Donald Cook .
BW-76 mins, TV-PG, CC,

11:15 AM
GOLDEN BOY (1939)

A crooked promoter lures a young violinist to give up music for boxing.
Dir: Rouben Mamoulian Cast: Barbara Stanwyck , Adolphe Menjou , William Holden .
BW-99 mins, TV-PG,

1:00 PM
MEET JOHN DOE (1941)

A reporter's fraudulent story turns a tramp into a national hero and makes him a pawn of big business.
Dir: Frank Capra Cast: Gary Cooper , Barbara Stanwyck , Edward Arnold .
BW-122 mins, TV-G, CC,

3:15 PM
EXECUTIVE SUITE (1954)

When a business magnate dies, his board of directors fights over who should run the company.
Dir: Robert Wise Cast: William Holden , June Allyson , Barbara Stanwyck .
BW-105 mins, TV-PG, CC,

5:00 PM
WALK ON THE WILD SIDE (1962)

A penniless farmer tracks the woman he loves to a New Orleans brothel.
Dir: Edward Dmytryk Cast: Laurence Harvey , Capucine , Jane Fonda .
C-114 mins, TV-PG, CC, Letterbox Format

7:00 PM
BARBARA STANWYCK: FIRE AND DESIRE (1991)

Barbara Stanwyck's multi-faceted career reveals uncanny reflections of her off-screen life.
Dir: Richard Schnickel Cast: Sally Field ,
C-46 mins, TV-G,

Life has always been vicious and violent, but you didn't hear about it as much.

Steven Pinker's excellent book persuasively argues that life is significantly less vicious and violent today than ever before, and that this is among the very greatest achievements of human progress.

I know this is over 100 posts ago, but damnit, I'm going to make my joke that only I will understand. Well, Monty would understand it as well, but I doubt he's following this topic.

And stab wounds are serious, serious business.

Certainly one of the leading causes of death in Return to Ravnica limited.

It's not a huge secret that Murder per capita is relative to GDP per capita (aka, wealthier nation tend to have less murder than poor once, not a huge shocker there). but the US certainly sticks out of this .. given that they're top ten in GDP per capita but very much in the middle of the pack in terms of homicide rate (of course, there are also other factors, such as small island nations are unlikely to have much murder even if they're very poor and different country count murder in different ways as well as track them with different degree of reliability as well as many other factors, but one can compare only decent sized and relatively developed countries and still reach the same conclusion.)

The US and every other (functional) country have always limited arms to some extend, the agrument is and always have been over where the line is between protection and being more of the threat to others than being protected. I don't think anyone can make a sane arguement that I should be allowed to mount a .50 caliber machine gun on my Jeep... for self protection.

yeah, truely commited nuts are going to find ways to kill you no matter what, but the majority of murders aren't commited by truely commited nuts, they're commited by people in a fit of rage, and in a fit of rage, it's hard to argue that pulling out a pistol is the same thing as punching someone.

I have no idea if #1031 was so stupid the people/side of the argument it was specifically addressed to just ignored it or were indifferent, or so accurate they couldn't put together a response that worked for them.

Then (a) there was no blah blah squawk blah

As someone just said,

This gun-knife thing is thoroughly ridiculous.

Joe (you must be Kehoskie's sock puppet--they're can't be two of you), did this other poster make you cry and take your lunch money? Couldn't have been hard to do.

"My name's Joe Ray, and in order to be a contentious assh*le and because I have no ideas to propose, I'm going to pretend that in a fight there's no difference between having a gun, and having a knife."

Banning cars can absolutely destroy downtowns as destinations. Buffalo tried a car free Main St (and a few adjacent streets) and it just killed the bars and restaurants there, along with any night life

That's a peculiarly American phenomenon. Many European cities of various sizes have pedestrianized central districts that thrive. It's probably a matter of concentration...

Good call. In the case of Buffalo I suspect concentration has a lot to do with it. There were half-hearted efforts to get bars and restaurants to locate in downtown, but part of what killed that was the pitiful decision to locate Buffalo's shiny new campus for 15,000 students on farmland half an hour from the city center rather than downtown. THAT would have provided the necessary density. It was a lost opportunity, one that could have completely revitalized a collapsing city center. Imagine 15,000 students with the associated classrooms, dormitories, and support services injected into a dead city instead of into an empty exurb.

Look, I know you guys don't like the fact that the vast majority of humanity is not coldly rational like yourselves,

You have NO idea.

I don't understand how anyone with a functioning brain could believe the EU and the US have a ####### clue what they're doing, but everyone has a right to their opinion.

So, we're supposed to trust the actions of 'all emerging countries' as being sensible and right, but the EU and the US are clueless? Hm.

Three Kentucky counties — Owsley, McCreary and Wolfe — are the only places that rely on government programs such as Social Security, food stamps and Medicaid for more than half of income.

The results of the 2012 presidential elections by county, per AP:

Owsley: Mitt Romney 83%; Barack Obama 17.9%

McCreary: Mitt Romney 80.0%; Barack Obama 18.7%

Wolfe: Mitt Romney 60.3%; Barack Obama 38.1%

I just wanted to see this again, zonk. It's too good.

As for Brazil and Russia, they defaulted, yes. If you think the US and EU is going to get out of their current crises without a default or a full on depression, you're dreaming. You can only kick the can down the road for so long.

I have friends who say this, but they never tell me why. You're a serious person. What is innate to our system that simply ending the cap on SS, and putting a lifetime cap on Medicare and Medicaid expenditures per person (not that this is the best move, but it's quick and effective) wouldn't essentially solve? Do you think there's simply no political will, or is it that the system is so geflunkte that nothing can save it?

5: Michonne shows up and tries to kill the Governor

You left out, 'and DOES kill his daughter, Penny'. Leave out everything else and that fact alone would get Merle his terrorist designation. Great actor, and you're right, he plays crazy as well as anyone, with restraint and humor. It would make some sense for the show to send Merle off into the wilderness, to return with a rocket launcher strapped to his stump some time in Season 5.

I do think the character needs to be killed off, though. He's a good character, but not a deep one; there's not much of an arc for his character to take; it won't be possible for the group to take him in, or not destroy the Governor, which leaves Merle a man without a country. Better to use him narratively to show Daryl cleaving finally to the group by, say, killing Merle in a loyalty showdown. The aftermath of something like that would deepen Daryl's character substantially, and it seems like he's going to remain a significant figure on the show.

I think the Governor is still thinking of Merle as a plant. The best way for Merle to be a sneaky actor is for him not to know that he's acting.

Not with the death of his daughter as the direct result of Merle's actions and lies. I just can't see it.

Am I the only one who enjoyed the first hour or so of Hancock? C'mon--drunk, badly behaved superhero who gets straightened out with the help of Jason Bateman, and with Charlize Theron in a supporting role? Not as good as it could have been, but still pretty good.

So... Why is china hording gold? Is it just a hedge against dollar/euro collapse? Or are they just new to the whole "capitalism" thing?