Anytime you think you can, feel free to cite an example of me hijacking a gun thread.
Flipping the coin, do you think a “roid raging elite athlete” should have easy access to handguns? BTW, I agree that there should be some sort of restriction when it comes to the mentally ill, but for the most part the fact that someone is mentally ill can’t be found out until they are processed into a facility…which just isn’t done that often.
I really didn’t think that trying to further discourse by pointing out that certain words and phrases are show-stoppers to be avoided was such a hijack..on the other hand, making this personal and addressing the posters instead of the poster’s points might be, so I think I’ll just skip this low-hanging fruit and get back to the topic at hand.
Am I the only one who doesn’t see what he said as being about gun control? He doesn’t use the phrase “gun control”, or refer to any laws or anything.
Senor-You agree it’s easier to shoot someone than stab them, or beat them to death, right?
Generally, sure. That doesn’t make the statement “they’d be alive if not for the presence of guns” true.
Would “It’s more likely they’d be alive if not for the presence of guns” be more accurate?
I’ll skip past the question of what’s an appropriate forum, but the “no chance for refutation” is just the way it has been for the 25 years since the Fairness Doctrine was tossed out. Rush Limbaugh gets to spew crap for three hours every day, and you don’t have the right to even buy ads on his show to rebut him.
So no chance for refutation? Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
Depends…are murder/suicide rates significantly less in countries with heavy gun control than in the US? I have no idea, to be honest, and this isn’t really the thread for that.
My main question in this thread was about how kosher using something like a halftime show is to espouse a politically charged view point. Several 'dopers have indicated that it’s cool, several that it’s inappropriate. My personal thought is that it depends on who’s gore is being oxed, as to how well someone will take it. If someone like this Costas guy decided to talk about outlawing abortion or how Obama’s tax plan or re-election will destroy the country (or whatever from either side), I think that things will shift…but maybe not. That’s why I’m asking the question here…hopefully 'dopers will think through the ramifications of if someone says something like this that they don’t agree with, and see if they are cool with it if the shoe were on the other foot.
I wasn’t aware that Sunday Night Football was spun off from Meet The Press. I watched a football game and politics broke out. Who knew?
Time, place and manner. It always comes down to that.
Incidentally, if I recall, there was a network set up to compete in the marketplace of ideas. It failed, but you can feel free to try again. Then you can espouse anything and everything to your heart’s content, just so long as you don’t hijack it with a football game.
There is that. I’ve heard tons of refutation on most of the radio talk shows today, including sports shows that spent a great deal more time today refuting him then he spent on his original statement. Just a smidgen of irony there, wouldn’t you say? On various news/talk shows the topic is getting wide discussion, and the internet, well…here we are, aren’t we?
Even for a guy like that, it’s still a hell of a lot easier to kill someone, and the odds of success a lot more certain, by shooting them full of bullet holes than to kill them with their bare hands, or with whatever blunt instruments are lying around the room.
Don’t know how accurate it is, because there weren’t links to follow back to the source, but it says here that women who are victims of domestic violence are five times more likely to be killed if their abuser owns a firearm.
But the common sense of it seems hard to argue with, regardless of the multiple. I think Atrios said it best: "this isn’t really debatable. As human beings we’re capable of losing our shit, especially if we throw some drugs and alcohol into the mix…I get that people (mostly wrongly, but it isn’t totally insane) think that there’s some value in owning a gun for self-defense, but to deny the obvious - that in heated situation, if gun, death more likely - is mind boggling.
“It’s really easy to kill somebody with a gun. It’s pretty hard otherwise, even if you really want to.”
And there’s no connection between gun laws and shootings? I’m addressing the cause and effect here, not the issue of what topic is appropriate for what forum - but granted maybe this comparison is too inexact to be useful.
The issue isn’t the strength or weakness of the arguments, it’s peoples’ attention spans - and what the hell, the strength of lobbying organizations. And it may also reflect gun culture, which is arguably what Whitlock was talking about in the first place.
Just to throw a few other thoughts out there: a panel discussion with some researched arguments (even if it was on SNF) would have been better than Costas speaking for a minute; the statement that they would be alive if not for guns is baloney; and was there a word uttered about spousal abuse? That would have been at least as valid a topic as guns. Just as I started typing that sentence I saw this.
Maybe you missed the part where I said, “I’ll skip past the question of what’s an appropriate forum.”
Feel free to take it up with whoever is arguing the point that you’d like to pretend I addressed.
Please don’t talk in code. I can’t hear the dog whistle.
Belcher wanted her dead in a bad way so he shot her nine times. To think he could not have focused that rage through another instrument of death seems to be wishful thinking to me.
Costas has always been a hack, proven again by the fact that he “borrowed” from Jason Whitlock rather than come up with his own statement. Sure, he has the right to say what he wants, so ultimately any issue with what he said is between him and the powers that be at NBC. I don’t watch SNF for political commentary just like I don’t watch Meet the Press to catch game scores.
I think he’s talking about Air America Radio, which didn’t have the advertising clout of right wing radio because(duh!) big businesses don’t like to advertise on stations that won’t kiss their collective asses.
Except for one thing: that is the whole point of the thread, whether or not the forum was appropriate or not. Your caveat makes you nothing but a kibitzer. Instead, I chose to address the substance of your comment as if it were actually applicable. I didn’t expect you to bob and weave like you’re doing.
So, if you’d care to actually address the point, I’ll address your comment.
Any complaints about all the sports stations that spent hours complaining about Costas’ 3 minute commentary? “That kind of talk has nothing to do with sports, so we are dedicating the rest of our sports show talking about it!”
Was the discussion on the sports stations about whether his talking points were correct or were they discussing whether he should have made the statements as part of a sports broadcast? Sports stations discussing sports broadcasting is amusingly meta and not off topic. Sports stations arguing either side of gun control are off topic.
They were saying that he shouldn’t be talking about such things during a sports broadcast. Over and over and over again, almost every hour during the day. There are three stations in Portland dedicated to sports…except for today, when they were dedicated to Costas’ three minute rant.