Which culture do we blame this time?

For the second week in a row an NFL player has senselessly died in an off-the-field incident.  Dallas Cowboys linebacker Jerry Brown was killed while riding in a 2007 Mercedes with teammate Josh Brent, who was intoxicated and speeding when he lost control and flipped the vehicle.  Brent was previously convicted of DWI in 2009.

On December 1, Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher murdered his girlfriend then committed suicide outside the Chiefs complex.  The following night we were treated to an editorial rant on NBC by Bob Costas, who chose to highlight a column on gun culture written by Kansas City sportswriter Jason Whitlock:

“Our current gun culture,” Whitlock wrote, “ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead.”

“Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it. In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions, and their possible connection to football will be analyzed. Who knows?”

“But here,” wrote Jason Whitlock,” is what I believe. If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”

Well this week we have a different culture to decry.  Our current alcohol culture.  Let’s try something…

“Our current alcohol culture,” Whitlock wrote, “ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead.”

“Alcoholic beverages do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it. In the coming days, Josh Brent’s actions, and their possible connection to football will be analyzed. Who knows?”

“But here,” wrote Jason Whitlock,” is what I believe. If Josh Brent didn’t have access to alcohol, Jerry Brown would be alive today.”

Now sure, you could point out that far more people use alcohol responsibly than don’t.  You could argue that prohibiting alcohol wouldn’t solve anything, people who are determined to drink will find a way to get drunk.  You could demonstrate that prohibition has been tried and it doesn’t work, it merely punishes responsible, law abiding users.

Hey, we can try something again…

Now sure, you could point out that far more people use guns responsibly than don’t.  You could argue that gun control laws wouldn’t solve anything, people who are determined to murder will find a way to kill.  You could demonstrate that gun control has been tried and it doesn’t work, it merely punishes responsible, law abiding users.

You could, but no doubt Costas and Whitlock would argue that guns are unique among inanimate objects in their ability to destroy lives.  Culture wars are a funny thing, huh?

I’ll wager the firestorm of this week compelled Costas to pen a stem-winder of a follow-up for tonight’s NFL broadcast on NBC to clarify and add nuance his remarks.  Now he’s got to act troubled over another NFL fatality which has absolutely nothing to do with guns.  Back to the drawing board, Bob.

Here’s one thing I can say with certainty, Bob Costas will tread very lightly on the subject of alcohol when discussing the accident that took Jerry Brown’s life.  He, and his network, will not say anything to upset Bud Light – the Official Beer Sponsor of the NFL.

What?  You didn’t know the NFL has an official beer?  Hell yes they do.  You’ve got to wonder if the NFL and Anheuser Busch dedicate as much of their time and their resources to promote alcohol safety as the NRA does to promote gun safety.  Or is it pretty much just Here We Go?

Perhaps the best lesson we can learn from these events would be that using the personal failures of individual human beings to advance one’s political beliefs is an incredibly bad idea.  Costas, Whitlock, the ball’s in your court.

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
Nick Newell Won A MMA Championship With One Hand
  • Commander_Chico

    Some dumbass shot his own kid by mistake yesterday.


    I tend to think all such problems are caused by our Culture of Dumbassery.

    • Carl

      “I tend to think all such problems are caused by our Culture of Dumbassery.”

      And the “Culture of Freedom” that protects Dumbassery while innocent Americans die.

      • 914

        So nobody dies in any other Country that does not value freedom??

        Geez, get a grip.

        • jim_m

          Nobody dies accidentally.

          The state seems to do a pretty efficient job of murdering the civilian population once it takes away their guns. That’s why the left admires communist and fascist dictatorships. They are very good at eliminating political dissent. Permanently.

      • herddog505

        Wow. Never thought I’d see “freedom” denigrated as a Bad Thing(TM) outside of the pages of Pravda, Der Sturmer, or a similar publication.

      • Gee, Carl, I suppose that you wouldn’t object to the freedoms that you enjoy being taken away from you . . . all for your own good of course.


        You can’t outlaw stupidity. People will say and do stupid things no matter what the law says.

        • jim_m

          Carl believes that we can turn the country into Lake Wobegon, where everyone is above average intelligence. Mathematics and the concept of “average” is not something he is familiar with. He probably believes that everyone really can be above average.

        • Carl

          You can outlaw “Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater” – despite the First Amendment.

          You can outlaw “Assault Rifles” – despite the Second Amendment.

          Both take away freedoms for the greater good.

          You can’t outlaw stupidity – but you can make sure nobody, including Stupids, get asault rifles.

          • jim_m

            Just demonstrating your ignorance aren’t you? There isn’t anything magic about what people call an assault rifle. It’s just a semi automatic rifle in a small caliber. So you would out law those and have people use larger calibers that are more likely to actually kill?

            Or are you like the lefty politicians that think that putting a pistol grip on a rifle makes it far deadlier than a rifle without one?

            Assault rifle is just an arbitrary definition created by politicians in order to make a segment of rifles illegal. These are not deadlier than a hunting rifle. I can get a Ruger mini 30 that is not defined as an assault rifle that has a high cap magazine. Then what? So you will want to outlaw that. This is just an argument for making all guns illegal and you know it (or you’re too stupid to figure it out. I vote the latter since you think there is some magic about assault rifles)

            You’re so dumb you probably think that everyone can buy machine guns too.

          • Why would you want to take my AR-15 away? What have I ever done to demonstrate I’m not capable of safely owning a semi-automatic rifle?

          • Wild_Willie

            Actually, you can yell fire in a crowed theater as long as there is a fire. You can’t shout it and cause fear just to do it. Same with firearms. You can own them, but cannot use them just to cause fear. Learn your history and turn on MSNBC. ww

          • herddog505

            Consider the very important difference between shouting “fire!” in a crowded theatre and owning an “assault rifle”, i.e. lack of malicious intent. Barring some real belief that there IS a fire, shouting “fire!” is a malicious act intended to AT LEAST interrupt the enjoyment of the movie that the people have paid for, in effect denying them their right to enjoy their (temporary) “property”. At worst, it can lead to a panic, stampede, injury or death. But the key points are that there is a malicious intent and a positive action.

            Now, merely owning an “assault rifle” (whatever that means) is a passive action with no obvious prima facie malicious intent. Millions of Americans own AR-15’s, semi-auto versions of the Kalashnikov, M-1 carbines, and similar weapons, and the VAST majority (I’m guessing north of 99.99%) commit no crimes with them at all, nor do they intend to do so. Ditto people who buy alcohol, either at a bar or for home consumption: there is no obvious intent for them to abuse it and cause harm to others. Now, we certainly punish people for being careless if it harms other people (e.g. vehicular manslaughter), but we don’t a priori deny them a right because of what they MIGHT do.*

            For that matter, should we forbid owning:

            — Cars, which are a leading cause of death in our country;

            — Kitchen knives;

            — Baseball bats;

            — Boats, swimming pools, bathtubs, or anything else that puts people at risk of drowning;

            — Computers with internet access (child porn, identity theft, etc.)?

            I agree with others: the “assault weapons” meme is merely a stalking horse intended to get to an eventual total gun ban. Libs have been doing this for at least as long as I’ve been alive; it’s not like we don’t know what you’re up to.


            (*) Say… could we ban certain people – teachers, union members, people under the age of 30, the mentally feeble, etc. – from voting because they are likely to vote democrat, which is about as destructive an act as one could well wish?

          • Vagabond661

            Holy crap Carl. There was already a law in place that prohibited firearms in that movie theater. How’d that work out?

            You can’t outlaw stupidity but it also looks like you can’t legislate intelligence either.

      • ackwired

        Yes, freedom is messy, and some do not handle freedom well. There will inevitably be those that abuse their freedom to own firearms and use drugs (not to mention the rest of the bill of rights). But history teaches us that freedom works and prohibition does not. We blame the irresponsible, not the freedom.

        • jim_m

          Well said

        • retired.military

          Ackwired the trouble with most liberals is that they dont believe in personal responsibility and only in the freedoms they think others should have.

          • ackwired

            It seems to me there is plenty of irresponsibility throughout the political spectrum. Liberals favor social programs which transfer responsibilities from the individual to the government. Conservatives want to cut taxes when we are only paying for a little over half of our government. It seems to me that neither side is willing to pay for what they are getting.

          • jim_m

            The reason the left likes government programs is because it relieves them of any responsibility for doing something to help their fellow man themselves. Look at donation records. The left gives precious little to charity on average.

            Perhaps if the left took more interest in helping their fellow man, instead of trying to dictate how we all live our lives, we could have a smaller government that cost what we can afford to pay.

          • ackwired

            Let’s take a look. If we eliminated all welfare, education, and healthcare expenses from the US government budget, we would still not be paying our way. Here are the numbers:








            Tax Receipts……..2163.5B


            Obviously, it would be an extreme measure to eliminate all healthcare, public health, welfare, and education spending, and it would not be politically feasible. But I think the exercise is worth while given the Republican mantra that it is a spending problem, not a tax problem.

          • jim_m

            You just proved that we have a spending problem. Nobody is saying that we should eliminate all government entitlement programs. But you just demonstrated that we can’t pay for everything we are spending.

            It requires cutting spending everywhere and not just your political opponent’s sacred cows. Unfortunately the left believes that cuts in defense and taxes on the rich will pay for everything. They’re either liars or deluded. Take your pick.

          • ackwired

            That’s the Republican mantra. And it is true. It just isn’t the whole truth. We have a debt and deficit problem, created by spending more than we can afford on the military and entitlements and refusing to pay for the level of government that we consider to be necessary. The blame is shared by both the R’s and the D’s. The D’s are to blame for defending the level of entitlement spending and the R’s are to blame for defending the level of military spending and refusing to pay for government services.

          • Except, of course, that Defense Spending has run in the same narrow band (as a percentage of GDP) since the end of WWII. The explosive growth has been elsewhere.

          • Carl

            “Personal responsibility” won’t save your life when an asswad with an assault rifle lays a bead on you.

          • Vagabond661

            While an idiot with an assault weapon is laying a bead on me, I am hoping a person with a handgun is taking him out.

        • Carl

          Not looking to take away any freedoms, just put limits on them, just as there are limits on the Frist Amerndment right to free speech, etc.

          It’s pretty simple – no wonder TeaBillies can’t understand it. There can and Are limits to our freedoms. It’s not as simple as all or none – there’s a range of firearms we can prohibit and still leave the freedom principally intact.

          • jim_m

            Oh yeah, like Bob Costas’ rant against semiautomatic pistols even though they effectively fire just like a double action revolver. The idiocy is that you think we believe that your “reasonable restrictions” are the end of your demands to eliminate gun ownership.

          • ackwired

            Well, putting a limit on freedom is taking away freedom. I don’t think that you can get around that. The limits on freedoms are long standing and well established. I think it was Justice Frankfurter who said, “Your freedom ends where my nose begins”. Our freedoms have been tested for 2 1/4 centuries, and yes, there are people who abuse them. But limits have been carefully considered throughout our history, and I would request that anyone recommending further limits provide a very strong, very detailed case.

    • retired.military

      How many people have killed their children in car accidents. And there are more guns in the US than cars. Yet I dont hear dems calling for more car control or even tougher laws on things like DUI or driving without a license.

      • Carl

        There are laws that require seat belts, and also require approves safety seats for children.

        It’s not as simple as you can’t outlaw cars therefore you do nothing. You do things like require safety seats. You make sure that the mentally ill don’t own firearms. You place limits on the freedom without taking away the cars.

        • jim_m

          I missed where cars and seat belts were covered in the constitution.

          • MunDane68

            Article One, section eight gives Congress the right to establish and oversee post roads. USSC established all highways, interstates and streets were post roads as they are all, with the exception of private driveways, used to transport mail.

            Costas and Whitlock are still dumb though.

          • MunDane68

            Article One, section eight gives Congress the right to establish and oversee post roads. USSC established all highways, interstates and streets were post roads as they are all, with the exception of private driveways, used to transport mail.

            Costas and Whitlock are still dumb though.

          • jim_m

            Sorry, I meant the Bill of Rights. There is no right to drive a car. The left loves to equate our constitutional rights to speech, assembly, religion, to bear arms etc to being able to drive a car. They think that we should have to be licensed in order to exercise all our rights that way they can decide who gets rights and who doesn’t.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Clearly we need to register NFL players for our protection. Think of the children.

    • jim_m

      It’s all from the repeated head injuries (chronic traumatic encephalopathy). We need to ban football in order to protect the people. For that matter we will also need to ban any sport where the players wear a helmet (hockey, lacrosse and baseball) and any sport where the head is used (soccer).

      The accouterments of the banned sports will be illegal to possess (in order to protect the public). Possession of helmets and cleats will be considered a felony crime.

      Tennis and basketball will be the only state sanctioned sports. You can go watch the games where no alcohol will be served. Food at the games will be without salt, transfat and meat (meat isn’t green enough for the enviro left). No soft drinks will be served, instead you can get water in a paper cup (plastic bottles aren’t green and should be banned) to go with your tofu..

      • 914

        Yes until they reach the golden years at which time they must be banned from health care and banned from end of life dignity. Such is the liberal way.

  • jim_m

    Of course they won’t speak out about banning alcohol because the do-gooder progressives have already tried that one.

    Five years of prohibition have had, at least, this one benign effect: they have completely disposed of all the favorite arguments of the Prohibitionists. None of the great boons and usufructs that were to follow the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment has come to pass. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic, but more. There is not less crime, but more. There is not less insanity, but more. The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished.

    Too bad they cannot conceive of the fact that a prohibition on guns would likely create the same kind of effects as the 18th amendment: more crime, more violence. The progressives won’t let past failure stop them from committing the same mistake over and over again (kind of like their affection for socialism and communism).

    • Brucehenry

      Is it progressives or conservatives who more wish to prosecute the “War On Drugs,” Jim?

      • Considering Obama has increased federal raids on medical marijuana operators over the levels under Bush, progressives. In his defense, it likely has more to do with ensuring no one has doubts about the supremacy of federal power than the wisdom of the WOD.

        • jim_m

          You stole my answer. Thanks!

          • Brucehenry

            That’s fine as far as it goes, but there are other liberals besides Obama.

            As a group, who more favors legalizing or decriminalizing drugs, including marijuana, progressives or conservatives?

            Hint: It is progressives.

            Also, too, there are many more medical marijuana operators now than there were in 2001-2008, am I right? It stands to reason there would be more raids if there are more people to be raided.

          • jim_m

            Apparently the lefty desire to control the population through exertion of government power exceeds their desire to get high legally.

      • SteveCrickmore075

        or conservatives on prohibition..It was heavily supported by the South and evangelicals, and Congress overuled Wodrow Wilson’s veto to pass it.

        • jim_m

          It was heavily supported by the South and evangelicals,

          And both of those were predominantly democrat constituencies at the time.

          Also from the Wikipedia entry on the 18th amendment:

          The Eighteenth Amendment was the result of decades of effort by temperance movements and at the time was generally considered a progressive amendment

          So once again we see that the left is unable to remember history in any coherent way. The South has always been GOP territory and Christians have always been on the right politically. It’s sad really that they don’t know more about history.

          Also the entry for the Volstead Act says that Wilson’s veto was largely on technical grounds and not in opposition to prohibition in general.

        • 914

          Well Im neither south or evangelical so stick your stereotype.

        • Prohibition was a child of the Progressive Movement.

  • herddog505

    Baron Von OttomaticPerhaps the best lesson we can learn from these events would be that using the personal failures of individual human beings to advance one’s political beliefs is an incredibly bad idea.

    What are you, some sort of radical??? Why, if enough people embraced this crazy idea, politics – especially liberal politics – would become impossible to practice!

  • mikegiles

    Somebody drank and exceeded the speed limit. Who would have thought! Why something like that had never happened before/sarcasm.

  • Par4Course

    Considering the number of players that carry weapons, maybe the NFL should have an official gun. Or perhaps they could go for a two-fer: “Colt 45, the official malt liquor and the official gun of the NFL.”

  • GarandFan

    Costas, Whitlock, the ball’s in your court.

    Personal responsibility? They haven’t a clue!

  • SteveCrickmore075

    This is the most idiotic post I have ever read on wizbang, and that is quite a stretch. Today wizbang conservatives defend hardcore drunk drivers as a personal issue solely of “personal responsiibility”, which society and the law is useless to try and control, (in contrast to other wizbang posts) while they are so many longhaired drug abusers or Mexicans walking around, then it becomes another item of censure of ‘the liberal culture of corruption’ that the police and government must to everything within their powers, to reduce and eliminate and be given war footing and funding!

    Hardcore drunk drivers are those who drive with a high blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .15 or above or who do so repeatedly, as demonstrated by having more than one impaired driving arrest, and who are highly resistant to changing their behavior despite previous sanctions, treatment or education. Hardcore drunk drivers are responsible for 70% of all drunk driving fatalities and are 380 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash. Drivers with blood alcohol concentration levels in excess of .15 are only one percent of all drivers on weekend nights; however, they are involved in nearly 50% of all fatal crashes during that time.

    • jim_m

      Who is defending drunk driving? We are ridiculing the mendacity of Bob Costas.

      • SteveCrickmore075

        I’m saying DUV is a criminal offense and should be taken seriously. I get the impression from wizbang that drivers have as much right to drive sober or drunk, as they do to have a gun, and that both attempts to control it are futile… Costas talked about the gun culture…It was probably a factor, for Belcher just like the amount alcohol he had consumed that night, while in charge of his automobile. Perhaps, if the police had taken him to the station or given him breathalyzer, or taken away his car keys and not been so impressed with his status as NFL player, he wouldn’t have shot his ‘other girl friend’ nine times with one of his several guns, a few hours later.

        Costas could probably have focused on the way some people, some of ‘our favourite minorities’ treat women or assume their responsibilites as a father, but that would have been more controversial and more daring and maybe more honest.

        • jim_m

          That’s right Steve, the police should give EVERYONE a breathalyzer before they get in a car. We’re guilty until proven innocent in your USA. Maybe you would have been happier if he were arrested for driving while black?

          While DUI is serious no one suggests banning cars or alcohol. Alcohol has been banned before and doing so gave rise to rampant crime and made many law abiding citizens criminals.

          I find it funny that the left that is so bent on decriminalizing drugs based on the model of prohibition that says making them illegal does not reduce the use and only increases criminality, seeks to make guns illegal. Does the left not realize that just as with alcohol and drugs, making guns illegal will not remove them from the world and will make a lot of law abiding citizens criminals?

          I suppose like with everything else your ideology knows no logic. Everything in your lefty fantasy world works simply because you say so.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            too many straw horses here. I’m not suggesting, nor is anyone on the left, making drugs, cigarettes or guns illegal or alcohol. just shaping, behavior use through sin taxes (and prices) as is already done and keeping them out of the hands of young people. Maybe along with some NFL legends more leadership blacks like Obama could talk about the responsibilties, and behavior of blacks since he got 97% of their vote, but as you know these are sensitive areas and Obama is not much of a leader in anything sensitive.

          • jim_m

            just shaping. through taxes

            Oh. SO that explains why the left is so in favor of jacking up gas prices. We will make it too costly for anyone but the wealthy to drive.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            yes, they have a free ride on the environmental damage, which the public purse must pay even without a carbon emission tax, as opposed to wind and solar, and gas is about half the price as in europe, even cheaper than it is in Canada an oil exporting country.

          • jim_m

            So you really don’t give a damn about how many poor you put out of work or how many poor freeze to death because they can’t afford to heat their homes because you think gas is evil. Nice.

            That is the effect of lefty energy policy. Make energy so expensive that only the rich can stay warm. But then again, there are those on the left htat would say that we need to reduce the surplus population so letting millions die would be a bonus to their energy policy.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            No heating homes should receive minimal taxes…maybe even credits. My heat is included in my condo, so I have no idea what i pay´? Jim, lets save the environmental issue for another time. OIl petroleum companies do very well and I understand that some 50% of the gasoline taxes must go to road maintenance, highway construction. I have some sympathy with conservatives about the unintended consequences from poor liberal public polices. Here is one i was just reading, that encourages children to stay illiterate This one you could blame on the governemnt dependency culture, but not getting as many hardened drunk drivers off the road.

          • jim_m

            No heating homes should receive minimal taxes…maybe even credits.

            OK. SO you will tax the rich so the poor can pay for your carbon taxes. In reality you really don’t care then about how much energy is used or how much carbon is out into the air as long as you can use it as a pretext to redistribute wealth.

            What you just said was in effect nothing more than a scheme to redistribute wealth because if you cancel the effect of your taxes on the poor by giving tax credits that is the exact effect you are creating.

            So you see why we say that you aren’t interested in the environment you are only interested in socialist redistribution and the control of wealth. You’re a fraud.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            I don’t know about credits on heating that is redistributive and subject to fraud, and perhaps not a great idea. I just threw it out but fuel taxes or carbon taxes are considered regressive taxes…. from wikpedia.. it is late

            “Taxation based on everyday essentials like food (eg sales tax, salt tax), clothing (value added tax), transport (fuel tax), energy (carbon tax) and housing (council tax, window tax) are frequently regressive. The income elasticity of demand of food for example is usually less than 1 (inelastic) (see Engel’s law) and therefore as a household’s income rises, even significantly, the tax collected remains almost the same. So as a proportion of available expenditure the tax burden falls far more heavily on households with lower incomes”.

            Now, Obama wants to raise the higest income marginal rate back from 35 to 39.6% as the top rate, on income over $200,000 (I believe) before George W. Bush lowered it. Still a long way from the Eisenhower era, which was not exactly considered a socialist high water period in American history, if you want to talk about redistribution of income.

            During the administration of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a 92 percent marginal income tax rate for top earners in the United States remained from the previous administration of Harry S. Truman. At the time, the highest tax bracket was for income over $400,000..

            Plus, when Ronald Reagan was president
            the Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income, over $215,400 was 69.125%.

          • herddog505

            Look, dude: when you’re in a hole, stop digging.

          • This is something that never gets mentioned when Obama is advocating higher taxes on high earners. So called sin taxes influence behavior, but higher income taxes don’t? The assumption is that tacking $3 worth of taxes will reduce smoking but foisting punitive taxes on income won’t cause high earners to voluntarily limit their economic output. Why is influencing the wealthiest Americans to be less productive considered positive?

            The only possible way we can avoid fiscal collapse is to grow the crap out of GDP. How does using the tax code to punish high earners help achieve that goal?

          • SteveCrickmore075

            punitive taxes are what we had in previous eras including when Reagan was president. From Eisenhower to Obama: What the Wealthiest Americans Pay in Taxes” What we need is some perspective! T

          • LiberalNightmare

            Given your opening post for this thread, i think the rules of common decency require you to start a new thread before complaining about anybody elses straw horses.

        • LiberalNightmare

          I get the impression from wizbang that drivers have as much right to drive sober or drunk, as they do to have a gun, and that both attempts to control it are futile..


          I get the impression that rather than argue the facts, you create arguments out of thin air.

          • jim_m

            People have the right to break the law… and suffer the consequences from doing so. The left does not hold the same belief. People must be in some way constrained from breaking the law. Just like they must be constrained from eating the wrong foods or drinking too large of a fountain drink. The left will make our world a paradise, whether we like it or not.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            I didn’t have any facts to go on, because Bob Costa’s opinion on drunk driving was created out of thin air to begin….so this was all editorializing. I suggest Bob Costas was a little off based because he couldn’t have based Belcher’s killing on the jock culture or black culture..not always known for its sympathy to women, so he chose to single out gun culture. In this way he may have been over the top, but think of the reaction he would have got if he chosen the other cultures?

          • 914

            “I didn’t have any facts to go on”

            It’s never been an impediment before!!

      • SteveCrickmore075

        Okay, you didn’t defend their actions natually, it was your defense of a hypothetical counter attack that liberals (Bob Costas, for example) a ‘tolerance of drunk driving’ would be a contributing factor, in the death of another nfl player, that this would be reason for satiriziing. This was the attitude for far too many years that there was too much tolerance of drunk driving, even fatal drunk driving by repeat offenders. I remember my dad’s sister was killed walking on the shoulder of the road, when she was 16, in 1943 by a drunk driver and my grandmother, her mother, much to her horror, saw him driving a couple of days later in the town they lived in..

        • jim_m

          Once more: Nobody is defending drunk driving.

          Then again , unlike you nobody is saying that we should treat all drunk people as drunk drivers, or that we should treat all gun owners as murderers until proven innocent.

          The precrime idea didn’t work out well in the movie. It would work out worse in real life.

    • Hey Steve, would you please be so kind as to identify the defense of hardcore drunk drivers in my post?

    • You obviously don’t read your own comments…

  • sablegsd

    Pass the word. Progressive has been changed to regressive. Time for some truth.

  • Lets replay all of this substituting weed culture and endorsements next year!

  • Brian_R_Allen

    Interesting that folks attitudes to both guns and to alcohol consumption says more about the spruiker than about his subject.

    Anti-gun nuts — most of whom are female — seem to be marked by latent rage and to be incapable of imagining themselves owning the means to injure and/or to kill and to not so employing these means – that weapon. And to be as definitively marked by their morbid Denial of their condition and by their Projection of their own deficiencies upon the rest of us.

    Those who reckon “problem drinkers” — and more specifically, those who suffer the disease of Alcoholism (not to be confused with drug “addiction,” which is almost invariably the direct consequence of a criminal choice) — are nuts, similarly Project their own ability to normally process alcohol upon others whose disease is characterized as an allergy to alcohol that manifests itself in the phenomenon of craving and that has recognizable symptoms and a simple diagnosis. And an even simpler prognosis!

    Or are themselves alcoholics but are in pathological Denial of that fact.

    And in which instance absolutely MUST be kept the Heck way from guns!

    And cars and knife drawers and baseball bats and pillows — and smaller, weaker, people’s throats.

  • Pingback: Fixed It For Ya: The Final Word on the Bob Costas Pro-Gun Control Half-Time Rant. For Now. | The Truth About Guns()

  • OliverKlozof

    Costas volunteered his ill-informed opinion on guns in society. Why not demand he tell us how he feels about alchohol ? He would probably not utter a word without the approval of Budweiser.