You can see it in what Whitlock wrote and Costas was more than happy to repeat it for him. Who exactly are these people they’re talking about? Who are these people that handguns tempt into escalating arguments? Who are these people who handguns lead into confrontation? Who are they? Who is this ‘us’ he keeps referring to? Anyone know?Tam minces no words with this segment ...
Of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out this giant nugget of fail from Whitlock regarding whether or not we’d focus on his belief that, had Belcher not owned a gun, none of this happens:
But we won’t. We’ll watch Sunday’s game and comfort ourselves with the false belief we’re incapable of the wickedness that exploded inside Jovan Belcher Saturday morning.
The entire argument put forth by these two really boils down to the fact that because some folks commit crimes and do stupid things with guns, they should outlaw them. They don’t specifically say that, but that’s what they want. They use words like “we’ and “us” because unless they are able to paint every person who possesses a gun with the actions of Jovan Belcher, they know they’re full of it and so does anyone capable of an objective thought.
Also from the comments there I was thinking the same thing earlier today
The only way this murder-suicide would have improved by gun control is if Kasandra Perkins had control of the gun. It disgusts me that folks like Costas and the quoted Whitlock would use a horrendous murder-suicide to try and get the populace to embrace something thats a proven loser (both politically and statistically).The Daley Gator has this on the Whitlock piece from Sunday