He has issued the following challenge to those who advocate a "pro-gun" position:
“Here’s what I would say to anybody who any time they hear the word guns automatically goes off, like, ‘Oh, they’re going to repeal the Second Amendment,’” Costas said. “Let’s make a bet, you and me. Let’s say over the next five years we’ll do a Google search. We’ll have an independent party monitor it. You keep track of how many good and constructive things are associated with athletes having a gun, and I’ll keep track of all the tragedies and criminality and folly. And let’s see who comes out ahead or behind as the case may be.”Costas can name incidents where sports personalities have demonstrated a less than responsible attitude toward firearms.
And, as a prior post I did pointed out, positive uses of guns are newsworthy, but rare.
Face it: the truth is against you.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/bob-costas-gun-control-105339.htm
Costas has the bully pulpit, and is saying sensible and appropriate things. Guns do nothing but harm to public figures. Most of the sports bigs are too full of themselves anyway. Add a gun to that, and KABOOM! you join Placido Burris in de Big House. All gun ownership is for cowardly morons, but it's especially stupid when you have NOTHING to gain and a WHOLE LOT TO LOSE as a big time playa in some sport.
ReplyDeleteMake that same bet about the general public.
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty much what I do on this blog. Guns do more harm than good. It's clear to anyone who's not biased or a flat-out liar.
DeleteFalse, Mikeb. You reject facts that counter your narrative.
DeleteOne of the biased flat out liars chiming in.
DeleteFirst, we'll have to do a comparison between sports figures and the general public about rates of violence and criminal behavior.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not a comparison between sports figures and the general public on good and bad uses of guns, just rating the general public on good uses and bad uses of guns.
DeleteYou missed the point. We need to know whether athletes commit crimes at a higher rate than the average population. If they do, Costas's bet is invalid.
DeleteBS, if we are judging the general public. In fact, the general public includes athletes.
DeleteStatistics fail--Anonymous...
DeleteThen why do you put so much importance on statistics? You use them to prove your sides argument all the time. Yet when statistics come out that don't support your side, you call them bogus. GC isn't denouncing statistics, he's just saying it's his rules for collecting and classifying statistics, or it's all lies. Since GC is not a statistical expert, it's only his opinion, which I am not willing to accept because he has proven himself to be a liar.
DeleteI have another bet for Bob. We'll search google for reports on athletes doing bad things under the influence of alcohol, and compare that to the number of stories of them drinking responsibly, and if there are more of the former, we'll repeal the 21st amendment. Fair?
ReplyDeleteEvasion.
DeleteCostas' "challenge" is predicated on the dubious notion that a Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right is contingent on a favorable statistical outcome. As Jeff Snyder brilliantly explains, that ain't the case:
ReplyDeleteFor the sake of discussion, let's assume that keeping and bearing arms suitable for self-defense is a bona fide individual right. If so, the fact that 100,000 people a year murder others with firearms, while one man alone uses a firearm to save a life, provides no basis for curbing the individual liberty to own and bear arms. Each individual must, because of his inherent, autonomous ethical freedom, be respected as an end in himself; no prior restraint may be imposed upon his right to own and bear firearms.
Actually we can go further. Under an individual right view, the fact that 100,000 people a year murder innocents with firearms, and no one uses a firearm to protect himself or others provides no basis for a prior restraint. Individuals must still be possessed of a right to own firearms because their ethical freedom contains the potentiality of using firearms for good. That is, people can use this tool for good, if they turn to it with a good will.
You're a prince, Kurt. 100,000 murders vs. 1 single DGU and you'd still demand your right to own guns. It's too bad you're not an island unto yourself. Guys like you are dangerous for a society of humans trying to live together.
Delete100,000 murders vs. 1 single DGU and you'd still demand your right to own guns.
DeleteDid you miss the second paragraph? 100,000 murders vs. zero defensive gun uses does precisely nothing to alter my fundamental human right to keep and bear arms, and only a fanatical forcible citizen disarmament extremist would dispute that fact.
No, we're only dangerous to those who yearn to control every aspect of the lives of good citizens and to those who would perpetrate violence against innocents.
Delete100,000 to one, there's a trade off.
Delete100,000 dead to one survivor.
I'm willing to give up my gun rights to save 100,000 people. I'm willing to give up my life to save 100,000 people.
The ratio gets like that when the government has successfully prevented its good citizens from defending themselves with the best tools. Hell, it probably is 100,000:1 in jolly ol England.
DeleteTS, do you agree with Kurt's extremist position on gun rights. Does the "right" to keep and bear trump any amount of down side? He said 100,000 murders and one single life saved would not sway him.
DeleteThat's tough talk. Do you agree with it? How about you ss?
Make it a 100,000,000 to one (or to zero) if you want. Make it the rest of humanity if you think that makes me any more monstrous than you already think I am.
DeleteThe numbers are irrelevant.
Look at what I said. Numbers like that means you're doing something wrong. It's only the criminals using guns, so why on earth would you look at that and say "let's restrict the good people even more"?
DeleteBut since you are so willing to speculate on numbers, please tell us what you think the ratio is in the UK.
TS, that's BS since the American government has not prevented its people from defending themselves. You yourself have claimed there thousands of more times Americans use their guns to defend themselves, than guns are used to kill, that wouldn't be possible if the government was preventing Americans from defending themselves.
DeleteIf we give up rights to gain safety, we give up what makes us human. Once we lose that, what purpose is there in living?
DeleteOK, Mikeb, if you didn't like that Jeff Snyder quote, here's another, from the same book. For the sake of argument, he's making the hypothetical assumption that restrictive gun laws will save more lives than would be saved by unrestricted access to lifesaving firepower--almost as if the notion that "guns do more harm than good" was real, rather than a silly fantasy:
DeleteTake, for example, gun prohibition as a means of eliminating gun crime, on the assumption that the evidence is clear that if gun crime can be eliminated more people's lives will be saved than lost (the avowed greatest good assumed to be the preservation of the greatest number of lives). All are deprived of arms to eliminate the harm caused by those who would otherwise abuse their freedoms by using firearms to commit crimes. Let's assume this law works, that is, in fact achieves its goal of eliminating all gun crime, and thereby maximizes lives saved.
It is evident from this example, first, that the individual's liberty to own firearms depends on whether sufficient others are using them to produce desired results. In this case, we have posited that they have not, that is, that more people are dying from gun crimes than are being saved by persons defending themselves with guns. The utilitarian "solution" to maximize aggregate welfare is thus to deprive all individuals of the liberty to own firearms. The scope of an individual's freedom, then, is not a function of the respect due him as an independent agent having free will, and does not depend on his own conduct, but is instead a function of how his fellow citizens behave and the results they achieve.
Second, the individual's private good is not merely subordinate to realization of the aggregate greatest good, but is freely sacrificed to securing that greatest good. The obverse of the fact that more lives are saved by gun prohibition is that some, having been deprived of an effective tool of self-defense, will of necessity lose their lives, so that others, admittedly more numerous, will live.
In short, some are sacrificed so that others, comprising a greater number, may live.
Utilitarianism sanctions human sacrifice, both great and small, as long as it is for "the greatest good of the greatest number." Utilitarianism justifies using some people as cannon fodder merely as a means to the fulfillment of others' ends-- so long as those who are to be sacrificed are not too numerous.
TS: "It's only the criminals using guns, so why on earth would you look at that and say "let's restrict the good people even more"? "
DeleteWell, not really. Many gun crimes are done by law-abiding gun owners who go bad. Plus, almost all of the guns used by the real criminals come from you law-abiding gun owners. That's why we say let's restrict the law abiding even more.
But, didn't you know that? I mean, are you really asking ME that question?
"If we give up rights to gain safety, we give up what makes us human. Once we lose that, what purpose is there in living?"
DeleteYou haven't given up any rights. The second amendment is alive and well. If safety concerns (a main reason for all laws) makes you want to kill yourself, why aren't you dead already?
Anonymous, you're correct that we aren't giving up our rights. We're fighting your side in our efforts to preserve and exercise our rights. Just because you're pathetic losers doesn't mean there hasn't been a battle going on.
Delete"You yourself have claimed there thousands of more times Americans use their guns to defend themselves, than guns are used to kill..."
DeleteDo you want to show me a quote where I said that? You won't find, because I don't that game where some comparison of DGUs to gun crimes matters for rights. What I said here, is that his policies will increase the ratio which he is using as a metric to justify his policies.
The American government isn't restricting my right to self defense, but my state government is- and the federal government is letting them. This has been a state issue, and most states have been good about this in the past 20 years. What I spoke to was what a higher ratio means.
Going back to my question, Mike- what do you suppose the ratio of gun crimes to DGUs is in the UK?
There goes GC again, prove him wrong and he starts shouting insults.
DeleteTS said,
Delete"The ratio gets like that when the government has successfully prevented its good citizens from defending themselves with the best tools."
TS then said,
"The American government isn't restricting my right to self defense,but my state government is- and the federal government is letting them.
So you want to have it both ways and claim you are right either way. Laughable.
TS, You conveniently skipped the point of my comment.
Delete"Many gun crimes are done by law-abiding gun owners who go bad. Plus, almost all of the guns used by the real criminals come from you law-abiding gun owners. That's why we say let's restrict the law abiding even more."
The ratio of gun crimes to DGUs in the UK is probably somewhat less than it is here. What's that got to do with it though? Should they adopt the US guns-for-everyone policy in order to make the ratio look better? I don't think so, since although their ratio might be worse, their murder rate (notice I didn't say gun murder rate) is pretty fucking good, compared to ours.
What I am doing is pointing out what an awful metric bad vs. good gun use is as a justification for gun control. You agree that UK has a worse ratio than we do. So does that mean they need even more gun control even more badly than we do? You freely admit that gun control reduces legitimate acts of self-defense more than it will reduce bad uses. So this "guns do more harm than good" meme of yours keeps getting more pronounced as you add more gun control. Now do you see why that metric doesn't mean squat?
Delete"So you want to have it both ways and claim you are right either way. Laughable."
DeleteMy first comment was about what a high ratio means, as I explained above. My second comment was when you said my rights aren't being restricted, to which I said yes they are, but I had to clarify that it is my state government restricting me since you explicitly said the "American government" wasn't restricting my rights.
What is "having it both ways" about those two comments?
Do you get dizzy from all these convoluted attempts at catching me out?
Delete"You freely admit that gun control reduces legitimate acts of self-defense more than it will reduce bad uses."
I love that one.
Yeah, I should not have used those words. You don't "freely admit" to anything that might make your ideas look bad. But what does that mean when you said the UK probably has a higher ratio of gun crimes to DGUs than we do? Are their laws stifling legitimate self-defense or not?
DeleteBecause in both comments you clearly ended up blaming the federal government, even though you claimed you were not.
DeleteI never said the federal government was blameless. They are at fault for letting the state violate my right to self-defense when it is their duty to uphold the rights of the citizens.
DeleteTS said,
Delete"the government has successfully prevented its good citizens from defending themselves"
"and the federal government is letting them."
Both times you blame the federal government. It's a little hard to lie when your own words prove you are lying.
If one thought that athletes were going to report all the times that they use guns for protection, this would be a fair bet. But why would athletes want to bring such attention to themselves, especially when the head honchos at the NFL or MLB have such distain for guns.
ReplyDelete