Reports are coming out that the Cheifs player was drinking heavily before shooting and killing his girlfriend.
So why isn't alchohol up for the blame? Or how about him just being an idiot?
Bob Costas said " they would still both be alive if they didnt have a gun"?
Yea because grabbing a kitchen knife is soooooo much harder........
Don't get me wrong I think effective gun control is beneficial. But I also think responsible individuals who want to protect themselves should be able to.
I get your point. alcohol seems the 1st effect on that killing. but guns do not bring great amount of advertise money and other benefits, the things alcoholic beverage companies bring. I'm guessing, alcohol is a harder choice to point out as a scapegoat compared to guns because of that. and we cannot forget that US is a different country than many other in terms of allowing owning a gun. that has to be a problem if you want no one to die by bullet penetration.
I wonder if this thought has ever crossed a killer "Im not going to kill that person anymore because I don't have access to a gun"
Me thinks not.
Because personal accountability is a non-factor anymore. If someone does something wrong, there must be an underlying evil that forced their hand.
If Belcher had killed someone while driving drunk, would Costas be calling for automobiles to be banned? To me, it's a similar argument. No gun has ever made the decision to kill someone.
exactly.Originally Posted by Bronco70
For the record, I'm not a full-on gun whacko.
I believe in limited gun control - background checks, strict limits on automatic weapons, etc. But a law abiding citizen should be allowed to arm himself against potential danger. Good training/education is key. From time to time, someone who has every right to own a gun will do something bad with it. But this is far less dangerous than taking guns completely away from good people.
On the other hand, generally killing with a knife takes a little more determination, or at least it seems that way to my untrained eyes (clarifications welcome). I can't ram a knife into a skull in just any old fashion, and knife wounds seem to have a smaller cross-section than bullet wounds. If it's harder to kill someone with a knife, than when people are drunk, they hare less laikely to be able to use a knife3 effectively.
None of this absolves responsiblity for the shooter, of course.
Regardless of how easy or hard it is to use this weapon or that to kill a person, it all starts with one person wanting to kill another. It's the will of the person. Instead of addressing that fact we look to make it harder for a person to do what they desire instead of acknowledging that any person who wants to kill another person is dangerous, gun or no gun.
Let's not forget that there are about as many guns in this country as there are people. Many regular folks own guns. Yet, the mere presence of a gun doesn't lead a person to use it at every whim or in response to every insult. The reality is that people seldom want to take the life of another. In the instances where they do it's horrific and shocking. That should tell you something. Again, in a country where there are as many guns as people murder is not so common that we shrug it off. Obviously the guns are not to blame.
Why does it have to be "Instead of..."? Why not "In addition to..."?
Its also easy to beat people to death or bash there heads with a blunt object. Both very common as using a gun.
I disagree that it is equally easy. Only one requires, at the very least, considerable force to be exerted.
*their
just sayin'
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
