Feud wrote:There was another
murder suicide that day in Wyoming, at a college that a friend of mine works at. Though, in that case, the guy actually killed two people and then himself.
Bob Costas didn't mention that one, maybe he hadn't even heard of it. Who's to say? The Wyoming attack was a bit different though, the killer stabbed one person to death, went onto the school campus with a bow and arrow, shot another person with it, then stabbed him and himself to death. Two murders, suicide, no gun involved.
The two cases are utterly unrelated and Bob Costas is a sports commentator discussing an event that involved professional athletics, so I don't see why you would expect him to comment on this story.
Feud wrote:Regardless of where you stand on the issue of gun control, Costas' assertion that if it weren't for a handgun that Belcher and Perkins would be alive is absurd. The guy's profession is to be large, strong, fast, and aggressive. Saying that he could not, or would not, have been able to kill her unless aided by a gun lacks both evidence and reason. And if Costas really wants to go there, the flip side of that coin is that if Perkins had been armed she might be alive today, or at least would have had a better chance against a large, violent aggressor.
Maybe, maybe not. In many socio-economic classes, there is a great deal of external pressure for men to take care of their spouses/partners and children (i.e. entirely provide for them---this is particularly true among groups where women are discouraged from working). When a man feels that he is failing, or will fail, to provide for his family, it sometimes occurs that he will choose to commit suicide, and kill his partner and/or children as an act of "mercy." This is a fairly well documented phenomenon that you can probably read up on by searching the sociological or anthropological literature.
The point is that in such cases, the killing is not an act of aggression, but an act of mercy (from the killer's point of view). The aggressor is more likely to be depressed than angry, and generally wants to make things quick and painless. The superior speed and strength are less likely to be a factor, as beating or choking a person to death fails to meet the quick and painless criteria. Assuming that the football player fell into this rationale, it is entirely possible that his partner would still be alive if not for the gun. It is, unfortunately, unknowable, but perfectly reasonable to make the claim.
Feud wrote:The question he wasn't going to ask was whether a sport that promotes aggression and frequently results in head injuries might have contributed to the behavior. Don't get me wrong, I like football and I'm not blaming the sport. But before he goes blaming the tools that someone uses he should be asking about how, why, and what contributed to them making the decision in the first place.
This question should be answered, as well. Understanding the motivation of a killer is important. Perhaps his football playing led to diminished capacity, which would have rendered him ineligible to legally own a firearm.
Feud wrote:*Fun fact: Having owned handguns for years, I've yet to shot or even aim any of them at anybody!
Irrelevant. The argument of people in favor of increased gun control is not that
all owners of firearms are killers, but that it is too easy for killers to gain access to firearms. The goal is not to minimize the number of people who own firearms, but to minimize the number of people who are likely to kill who have access to firearms. Most veterinarians are not murderers, but every once in a while a vet grabs some prescription horse tranquilizers and offs his wife. We limit access of horse tranquilizers to those that have a need for them in the hopes of preventing such murders and abuse. I don't understand why firearms should be any different (aside from the constitutional argument---laws, even constitutional ones, should be discussed, debated, and potentially changed).
xander
). I've lived in places where I went to sleep to the sound of gunfire. I wold love to see violence go down, but I feel that punishing the honest citizens isn't the way to go about it. One may say that a criminal wouldn't take a gun if they didn't think that they would face an armed citizen, but the mass shootings that inspired this thread were all carried out in places where the criminal wouldn't expect to encounter armed resistance, which is exactly why they chose them.
)
I'm just protecting myself 
