Ted Nugent Criticizes Bob Costas' Gun-Control Commentary

Legendary rocker Ted Nugent has criticized Bob Costas over the sportscaster's "Sunday Night Football" halftime commentary supporting gun control.

logo
Ultimate Guitar
0

Addressing this past weekend's murder-suicide involving Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher and his girlfriend, Costas quoted from an article by Fox Sports columnist Jason Whitlock during his 90-second speech, saying, "Our current gun culture 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... If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today."

Responding to Costas' commentary, Nugent tweeted (December 3):

"We thought Bob Costas was smarter than that. Only fools blame tools instead of human failings. Shame Bob... Blaming guns for crime is like blaming helmuts for headbutts. WTF Costas! Uve lost it... Hey Bob Costas we all kno that obesity is a direct result of the proliferation of spoons & forks Get a clue... #BobCostas has clearly lost his mind. Inanimate objects are the problem not murderers. Brilliant."

According to Blabbermouth, Nugent also made an appearance on today's broadcast of Mark Davis' show on 660 AM in Dallas, where he continued his criticism of Costas. "The curse of the fantasy-driven cult of denial out there that is manifested in the voting for Barack Obama and the gun-running Attorney General ad nauseum - I didn't think that Bob Costas had that hole in his brain," Nugent said. "How dare you blame an inanimate object on something like murder? Why not blame the murderer?"

174 comments sorted by best / new / date

    Megadeth2011
    Anxiously awaiting the 5 million "lol Nugent are stupid conservative" comments.
    Mr Winters
    The thing is, he really is stupid.
    samhell
    Lets see. Successful musician. Successful businessman. Successful conservationist. Tell us, how does this equate to being stupid? You aren't one of those tolerant and peaceful liberals who thinks that anyone with a differing opinion than you is stupid, are you?
    Ablast
    Dey tuk dur jaaaaahhhhhbbbbs
    Krieger91
    guitar7masta
    Come on people! This comment can't get the medal every time.
    mnewland1
    God there is so many whiny b**ches on this site. And how about this Costas, if BELCHER didn't want to kill his girlfriend, they'd both be alive. DUUHHH HEY, maybe we should ban kitchen cutlery too so people don't start stabbing other people DERP A DERP!!
    introvert10
    Yes, because knives and forks were solely designed for killing people...oh wait I meant guns.
    mnewland1
    Electric chairs, designed to kill people. Gallows, designed to kill people. Nuclear weapons, designed to kill people. Guns, designed for hunting/self-defense, definite CAN kill people. Knives, designed for cutting matter, definitely CAN kill people. Cyanides, designed for KILLING bugs, used as reagents, CAN kill people too. If you don't see the difference between these two separate groups, then I don't know what to tell you.
    Joaocc
    "Guns, designed for hunting/self-defense blah blah blah" you mean kill things right? Cause that's what hunting and self-defense is, kill or at least injure.
    Smegal
    Yes but ignoring a lot of points to counter your arguement... urgh... I can't even be arsed at this point to explain them...
    SWilson
    I own guns and wish Nugent would shut-up. He gives the rest of us a bad name.
    Pan-Tallica
    Ehhhh. Eddie Izzard once said, "Guns don't kill people, people do - but I think the guns helps." Quite true... And we may not realize the gravity of what he says, probably because of its simplicity and humor. But when you ACTUALLY think about it, what he says goes beyond the notion of "the gun as a man-operated tool" and into "the gun as a cultural device". You have to be a goddamn fool (Nugent) to think that the statement "guns cause crime" relieves PEOPLE of any sort of moral agency. "Inanimate objects are the problem not murderers. Brilliant." See, this is the foolishness. Obviously murderers are the root of the problem, but guns make it easier (physically and psychologically) to kill. You have to wonder: how many murders could be prevented by limiting access to guns? Even if the answer is 0.5%, that translates to a very large number with a significant social impact. When people say "well, gun control wouldn't stop all gun violence" - no shit, it's not supposed to. Even if it stops a small amount, you're saving a considerable number of human lives. To expect that gun regulation would control the majority of gun violence is... absurd. Also, the suggestion that people will just find another way to kill if they can't access a gun is based in no factual evidence whatsoever. Using your hands, or even a knife, to kill a person is completely psychologically different from using a gun. The gun distances you, symbolically, from the act - and that may sound flaky, but it's true. Premeditated murders might be planned differently, but these so-called "crimes of passion" might not escalate to using hands to kill. Anyways, I think this is all a moot point because the real discussion we should be having is about mental health awareness. Of course, gun debates will always win that battle though.
    dewitt
    Automobiles kill a lot more people than guns do, and I'd assume at least 90% of those deaths are completely unintentional. I also believe the fatality rate would decrease much, much more than 0.5% if access to cars and other motorized vehicles. It would be a much greater improvement to our safety as a whole if access to automobiles was strictly limited. Your argument could be applied to many other things to show the ridiculous nature of it. Let's try the internet: not all internet users pirate music/movies/software, but all internet piracy is committed online by internet users. Therefore, if we strictly limit, regulate, and monitor all internet access, we might not be able to stop piracy, but we could likely reduce it by 0.5%. That might not save all the copyright holders, but it would at least slightly raise their financial security, which would outweigh any negative aspects of it.
    bulusvanua
    People need cars a lot more than they need guns, its far more logical to restrict gun access than it is car access. A car's primary purpose is transportation, a gun's is to kill or injure. Also, we do limit access to cars by various measures. His argument made perfect sense in that it was in relation to a gun, not to a car which is not logically comparable to a gun. Your comparison was quite a stretch.
    samhell
    Even with those limitations on vehicles they are still the #1 killer in the U.S. And don't EVER bring up need. You need oxygen. You need food. You need sleep. That is ALL you need. So introduce need into an argument is extremely subjective.
    Pan-Tallica
    The difference between guns and cars is pretty clear... The primary purpose of cars is to transport people efficiently. They have a hugely positive economic impact, to say the least. The primary purpose of a gun is to cause harm. You might argue that for many people the purpose is to provide perceptions of safety, but that feeling of safety only arises from an implicit understanding that one can use a gun to hurt someone else. The point? Don't compare guns to cars - I hope you can see how silly that is. Cars cause deaths in a way that is very far removed from their purpose. When we're talking about "controlling" anything, we are necessarily weighing positives against negatives. Cars have load of positives to outweigh related accidental deaths. Do guns? In any case... you're comparing apples to oranges.
    samhell
    Dead is dead and that is the core of the issue at hand. Guns, cars, knives, water, puffer fish... its all irrelevant.
    PoorePlaysBass
    Not hating, just asking...That gun control can limit a minority of gun crimes that happen now, but would clearly open up a much higher percentage of opportunities to gun crimes because of defenseless victims? And that's worth it?
    bulusvanua
    Compare the crime rates of America to similar nations that have more gun control and it would appear that is not true. Most people who get guns do so for the logical reason that they intend to use them. Thus criminals who intend to use guns for criminal acts will get guns. Your average man on the street who would only see a gun as useful in the off chance that he is confronted by danger is unlikely to get a gun, because he sees the chance he will use it as being slim (A taxi driver would have more reason to have a gun as he world be more likely to feel threatened on a daily basis). So there really aren't that many less defenceless victims, but a whole lot more gun crime.
    DrakeTheOne
    Not true. Arizona has extremely light gun laws. They practically give guns to people. However, there are relativly few gun crimes. (4.54 per 100,000 people) Chicago has extremely tight gun laws. There is an extremely high number of gun crimes. ( 34 per 100,000 people) This proves that if gun laws are stricter, it is still possible that gun crimes will occur. and having almost no gun control doesn't mean that there will be a high number of gun crimes. For the record, I compared an entire state (Arizona) to a single city (Chicago). The city, had 8 times more gun crimes
    Pan-Tallica
    The fact that you looked at Chicago, and not Illinois, is favourable to your argument. Rates of gun violence are actually quite similar between Arizona and Illinois (almost identical, in fact). Of course there is going to be more gun crime in a city the size of Chicago (gangs, greater pop. density, etc). This seems common sensical to me... (2) http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...
    mradubz33
    Excellent point about mental health awareness. Here's a guy who's got more resources than most (he's a rich pro-athlete) and doesn't get the help he needs for obvious mental issues. But, it immediately gets turned into a gun control debate.
    guitarplaya070
    How is the suggestion that people will just find another way to kill w/o guns based in no factual evidence? Are you saying that all murders (pre-meditated our out of passion) are gun crimes? It's convenient to your argument, but not at all true. I did a brief google search, 68% of murders in 06 were with the use of a firearm. So... the other 32% were just.... You make an impact on that 68% by some sort of extra control measures, I guarantee the other side of the pie will grow. I'm just saying that it's foolish to think that if you take away the gun in Belcher's situation, he wouldn't have just picked up a knife/strangled/beat her to death.
    Pan-Tallica
    That's were the lack of factual evidence is. You saying "I guarantee the other side of the pie will grow" is an assumption. It's the way you think things work, and I can't say for sure whether you're right or wrong - but I can say that you're unjustified in assuming.
    samhell
    I usually disagree with you but I think you are right on with this one.
    introvert10
    Why the f*ck is it so hard for this douchebag and all of the other NRA sheep to understand that we no longer live in the wild west, and that evolution is ever occuring?
    Megadeth2011
    Because it's still the wild west in some places. I live in the middle of the country. The closest law enforcement is 15 miles away, unless a county sheriff just happens to be around my area by chance. What do you expect somebody to do if a criminal breaks in? The cops are too far away to help. Your neighbors are too far away to help. And when I was broken into last year, aiming my shotgun at the intruder sure helped me keep him under control until the cops did arrive 15 minutes later.
    Aryon
    Guns dont kill people - eh - eh, Jovan Belcher kills people - with guns!
    arabmetallion
    What? What? you got a problem with this? Maybe Ted Nugent should kick you in the face with his fist Because on top of guns he knows karate and ninja stuff
    Darth Wader
    Nugent is right on this one. And it's stupid to say they would still be alive today. If someone wants someone dead, they will find a way. A gun might make it quicker but it's not the only choice. The real issue as I see it is Jovan had serious issues in his life he needed to deal with and I am sure there are many out there dealing with issues - maybe Costas should have dwelled on the fact that those dealing with thoughts of murder or suicide should seek help and given out a hotline #.
    Shread_6009
    I'd just like to point out that the reason gun crime APPEARS to be reduced in populations with higher rates of gun-ownership per capita isn't because guns reduce crime. It's because those areas tend to be rural, where owning a gun is a necessity to either hunt for food, putting down animals or defend your property from certain things (wolves, coyotes etc.), and these areas have less crime because the closest people are literally miles away, making it pretty hard to even commit a violent crime.
    J...Out
    you are dumb as a box of rocks... you can not back up any of the claims you made, simply because they are not true
    dicky_fish
    Meanwhile in Europe where we have an almost outright ban on guns we only very rarely get this level stupidity from rednecks. When will Americans learn that tyrannical governments are nigh-on impossible in the free world? Again - look to Europe since the end of WW2
    saint_berzerker
    It's those same rednecks that saved your girly asses in WW2. You bend over to police states, and that's your heritage. It isn't ours here.
    dicky_fish
    How many police states are in Europe? Be fair most rednecks don't even know what Europe is.... :-p
    Skuzzmo
    The rednecks that saved our girly asses in WW2...? Hmmmmm ok...I can see your point but you "rednecks" kind of looked the other way for 2 years as the Nazi tyranny rampaged thru Europe. How very altruistic of you. and what Police states exactly???
    guitar7masta
    I believe there are some instances where gun control very well could prevent a shooting, it wouldn't be able to stop most gun violence though. I think Bob should've tried to raise awareness at another time.
    Smegal
    Nugent is a complete fool. Though it is true you cannot blame the gun, you can certainly blame what the gun adds to the equation. A gun is a powerful object, in the hands of a complete moron it is more lethal than anything. But is is a tool, to be used by said moron. In this point I agree however without the gun the moron is just what he is, a moron who would have to resort to beating someone to death, which is a time consuming manner in which the opposition to said beating has a good chance to either escape or return the volley of blows and disable the moron. This is also of course ignoring the psychological effects that having a gun in one sides hands changes. By feeling empowered by having this tool of power they are less likely to back down from their position, more likely to become aggressive given they have the upper hand and certainly become a lot more dangerous. Though the gun cannot be blamed, the effects it brings is the point of what his argue, not that the gun itself responsible for all evils. I start again by stating, ted nugent is a fking idiot.
    samhell
    So, for consistency, lets add to you argument. How many people can you kill with your average family sedan and a full tank of fuel? An average semi-auto pistol has a capacity of 15 rounds. Assuming a kill shot for every round thats 15 people. A car can drive what, 300 miles or so on a tank of fuel. How many people can you run over? Heck if you hit a bus just right you can kill everyone on it in the blink of an eye. Cars are 4000lb killing machines. Hell, you even have to be licensed and registered to drive one and yet they are still the #1 killer in the U.S. They will let any psycho behind the wheel. They will let any psycho buy as much flammable/explosive gasoline as they want.
    Darth Wader
    Nobody was murdered until guns were invented!!!
    PoorePlaysBass
    I cannot downvote this enough. There's making a valid argument then there's the senseless statements like this. Trolling?
    Darth Wader
    Sarcasm, dude. Get over it
    PoorePlaysBass
    I now see your true comment above this, which I had actually previously read before my reply but didn't notice the same user. Yup, this one's on me.
    N7Crazy
    While I will agree with the commenters that it's the American culture that is the real cause, you all seem to turn the blind eye to the fact that America's current gunlaws dont help in any way the problem, and actually still just makes it worse - change is needed!
    edbert
    Agree 1000% with Ted here. It made me sick watching this blatant plug during a football game of all things.
    DrakeTheOne
    I you make the laws sticter then the people who get their gun illegaly will still be able to get them, and the people who get hem legally won't. Changing the gun laws won't change anything. The problem is the people themselves. gun don't kill people. People kill people. The gun is just the tool. Making the gun less accsesible, will only cause people to find another way to kill each other.
    samhell
    That is true. The simple minded folks think its a gun problem. It has nothing to do with guns. Its a cultural problem. Somewhere along the line it became ok to deal with your problems by killing other people. Is it TV? Lack of leadership? Bad parenting? No morals? I don't know the answer to this but I have seen a cultural shift. There is also something interesting to note. As gun ownership has risen in this country, the crime rates are actually going down (despite what the tabloid news would have you believe). Whether the two are related or not I don't know.
    DrakeTheOne
    Nothing is saying that they are related. HOWEVER, if you walk into a bank or a conveinent store and you don't know who is packing and what they're packing, are you gonna even try? I doubt it.
    samhell
    Agree 100%. I like watching interviews with criminals. You know what is a common response when they ask the robbers what they are most afraid of while committing crimes? Not getting caught. Not the police. Not jail. "Getting shot"
    Campbell22
    Our ****ed up culture kills people. If you're raised in judeao-christianism fashion, and we are, you're taught, as soon as you're born that family is the most important value and that love is lived with one person: monogamy. But it's contradictory with the capitalist system which induce greed and the desire for possession. These two factors mixed together can give some explosive cocktails as we've seen here.
    bulusvanua
    I'm gonna say no. Crime has existed in every kind of culture, people have been greedy and violent before capitalism, etc, etc. the problem is that it is a lot easier to get someone to comply when you say give me your wallet when you have a gun than when you don't, and its more likely that someone will die in an altercation involving a gun than in an altercation involving a knife, as all that needs to happen is for someone to pull a trigger. To say the main issue is capitalism is to make a giant impractical leap.
    Campbell22
    You didn't get the point, I'm not saying capitalism is the problem, but the values it induces is the problem. If love was more open, then there wouldn't these kinds of relationship problems and "passion" crimes
    bulusvanua
    And i guess you didn't get my point about practicality. I'm sure it'd be nice if we all had a group hug but I don't think that is going to happen, so how about we try for real solutions.
    bulusvanua
    Also you might want to refer to my first point where I note capitalism does not have a monopoly on the inducement of greed, So I did address exactly that. This isn't a cultural problem its common to all of humanity.
    Irueludruel
    You're right on the judeao-christian values but capitalism doesn't have to lead to greed. That's just our society.
    Campbell22
    What are our main influences as childs ? Capitalist media, capitalist education, capitalist nuclear families who are already conditioned by the said system, get where I'm going ?
    6-String_Madman
    Partly agreeing with Campbell. But I think the main cause of global moral decline is secularization in our society. Most kids today have no idea of who God is. Therefore, they grow up having no sense of right and wrong and would do as they please.
    rebreh
    Family is the cornerstone of every culture. Judeao-Christian tradition did not create the family, not in any remote sense.
    jaccguitarist
    "Dey turk our guns!" I didn't see Costas at any point actually saying the gun was a murderer, only that if the gun wasn't there in the first place things may have turned out differently. Nugent, you absolute fool of man.
    IronMaiddden
    I hope all you people realize that we need stricter gun control laws. How many deaths will it take? We don't need to ban guns, but we do need to act to keep people safe
    kmcharger21
    Like what? Fully automatic weapons are already illegal. What more do you want? Anybody who is 18 and not a felon can get a firearm. Thats fair. I dont understand what laws you want into effect...
    samhell
    How much more strict? Where is the line, in your opinion? Please realize that criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. So if you say such and such is now illegal because yadda yadda, do you honestly think they are going to listen? Here's a big one that already encompasses all gun laws. Read it slow and comprehend: MURDER IS ILLEGAL. Now, we can slap more laws on top of that but really they are simply malum prohibitum (vs malum in se, obviously)
    dewitt
    I think the fool this time is Bob Costas. To say that Jovan Belcher and his girlfriend would both still be here today if not for our current gun laws is preposterous. Watching this clip when they first aired it was almost cringe inducing. The guy clearly would have still done what he had done; he simply may have gone about it in another manner. For those who don't know, he killed the mother of his infant child, traveled to the Chiefs' headquarters, had a discussion with his head coach and general manager, and then killed himself in front of them. It very well may have been a crime of passion when he killed his girlfriend, but the same crime of passion could have happened with no weapon at all other than his hands to choke her with, etc. The suicide aspect of it was clearly either planned out all along or planned out once he had committed the first act. His firearm may have reduced the amount of effort required, but it's ridiculous to say that it was anything near the cause of the whole incident.
    kratos379
    By reducing the amount of effort required, it not only made it easier to make the decision to kill himself and his girlfriend, but it also reduced the chances of either of them surviving. If it wasn't so quick, then he could have still opted out. The struggle is often when people change their minds and try to live. If he was being poisoned, he could have called a hospital and could be saved, but using a gun took away that chance. Besides if he uses a knife, there's some chance that his girlfriend could have escaped, or that the coaches could have taken it from him. There would have been more time to call 911. The tool makes it too easy. The most important thing is that we change our culture. Guns need to be respected for what they're capable of and we need to force people to be responsible with them. I don't want guns to be taken away. That's too impractical. It's gun control that's really important.
    Irueludruel
    We have the constitutional right to bear arms so we can be protected. This struggle you talk about during self defense would be fatal.
    kratos379
    I should have written that a little more clearly. The struggle I was referring to would be for instance if they're bleeding to death from stabbing themselves, they can still call an ambulance. If they put the trigger to their heads and pull, then there's no chance for them to opt out of the suicide attempt. It's during this struggle, that their minds could change or the reality of facing death may make them change their minds.
    robo37
    They'd have a damn higher likelyhood of surviving. Anyone who can't see that is a fool.
    saint_berzerker
    You'd probably have vehicles banned if you had the chance. Our chance of dying in a car wreck is astronomically higher than getting killed with a gun. Fool.
    Alcofuel
    I don't agree with guns being banned, but your "BUT VEHICLES" statement is a fallacy. Vehicles are not weapons. They can be used as one but it isn't their purpose. A gun is a weapon. There is no way around that. This discussion is about a weapon. A gun makes it easier to kill due to merely having to squeeze a trigger vs stabbing someone or beating them to death. There are those that would use other means, but there are those that just find it easy to pull a trigger in a rage. Plus, the difference between the chance of surviving a gunshot vs surviving hit with a random item used as a weapon. I'll take trying to survive being hit with a chair or something any day. That being said, out of every gunowner in the U.S. the portion of crimes that happen with them is fairly small. The biggest problem is criminals, gang culture, etc. but there are ways to deal with that without banning guns.
    fras1788
    I Completely agree. Those who say that Jovan & His GF would still be alive should ask about how many people have drugs...that are illegal... HAHA
    rebreh
    How do you explain that America has the highest murder rate of any industrial country? The murder rate in all of Europe is a mere fraction of the American murder rate.
    Hyacinth House
    you do realize that in a domestic dispute, that it is 12 times more likely to end in a homicide if there is a firearm involved? the difference really being her chances of survival even if beaten would be much higher
    samhell
    You do realize that is a made up and thoroughly disproved statistic pushed by the the Brady Foundation?
    le_mutt
    '27 dead' in Connecticut primary school shooting Anyone gonna defend the gun laws now??
    javdoc
    In general, I think Ted has slipped a cog, but have to agree with his [and others'] criticism of Costas on this point. This logic is akin to OJ blaming the knife....
    Aays
    Bob Costas is a fool for giving a bigger idiot like Ted Nugent something new to complain about. Can this guy just fade into obscurity already
    IrishConnor1994
    The funny thing about Ted is his music isn't what he's known for as much as being a redneck. Cat Scratch Fever is his claim to fame, but it isn't that great, more people know him for the statements he makes.
    B_Jackman
    I have no idea how all of you can think that Bob Costas was the brains behind this segment??!?!?! Nobody for a second thinks that it was broadcast based on what CBS wanted on the television?!
    Pan-Tallica
    You're right... but maybe use less punctuation marks next time, and people won't downvote and dismiss you so quickly.
    Charley2715
    At least Ted didn't say he should be shot. I feel Like that's a step in the right direction. Kudos Teddy.
    Phiddler
    I like Costas, he has no problem saying what he feels. I remember he had a few choice words for the Olympic Committee this year when they denied a moment of silence for the Israeli athletes killed in '72. And he was quoting someone else. . . Guns make killing someone much easier psychologically. The fact that you do not have be in physical contact with them (as opposed to a stabbing/strangulation) makes it very impersonal. Plus, with a gun killing 5-20 people at a time is very possible while with a knife, not so much (Aurora guys? That was only 5 months ago). As a citizen I respect the 2nd, but guns are wicked stoopid. Why does a professional athlete need a gun? He can afford the best security money can buy and probably bodyguards so I find 'for protection' a little hard to believe
    !..!_Rock_!..!
    I just want to address the last topic. Guns can be used for protection (as well as hunting, competition, or recreation), but the 2nd amendment was not to give people a means of self defense. The 2nd amendments primary purpose was to allow the citizenry to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. A historical example of this is pre-WWII Germany. Hitler's government outlawed private gun ownership which allowed SS members, Gestapo, and such to round up and arrest anyone they wanted. Because the citizens could not defend themselves Germany became a military controlled state.
    rebreh
    The German argument does not work for a few reasons. One, the Nazi's recieved overwhelming support from the population. In one election, Hitler ran unopposed and a massive number of people turned it out. They did not have to but they choose to in record numbers. So there was no major movement in Germany trying to stop Nazism. Second, they rounded up people with state power. Our country, even with the second amendment, can still arrest you with state power.
    Shread_6009
    This argument is outdated. As recently as world war two we only had few choices of attack as a government: Guns, inefficient bombs and gas, which would be impractical. Today, the government has every conceivable level of weapon and option to wipe you and your family off the map, with little effort, no matter how many handguns you have. The world has moved beyond the 2nd amendment, much like it has moved past the need for word-for-word interpretations of the bible. The constitution therefore needs to be updated.
    Phiddler
    Do you see many redcoats walking around these days? We have system of checks and balances to safeguard against any 'tyrannical gov't.' The argument you're using is so antiquated and reactionary. I'd like to think that as a people we've moved beyond rural militia as a means of problem solving. And while the WWII example is a frightening one (Godwin's law lol), I'd like to think we're in better shape than post-war Germany Please be honest, I'm interested: Within the next 100 years do you think the people of the US are going to have to use guns to defend themselves against their government?
    COBHC145
    I cannot believe I'm about to say this. It almost makes me feel physically uncomfortable. But I agree with Nugent. The man has made some DUMB statements recently, but I agree with him here. I think we as a country focus too much on whether we should have guns or not, not how to own and use them responsibly (Read: Not for crime).
    bulusvanua
    If a criminal gets a gun for the purpose of using it to commit crime, why would that person care about gun education? Shouldn't efforts also be about stopping such people from getting a hold of guns?
    guitarplaya070
    I think what he's saying is that it is inevitable for guns to be out there. The black market will never go away. If there was an outright ban on guns, by definition, the only people that had them would be criminals. So in the vicious cycle, really one of the only problems that can be remedied is accidental/misuse of guns (through education). This would (hopefully) make it safer for law abiding citizens to own guns and use them for their intended purpose.
    bulusvanua
    Except he said "how to own and use them responsibly (Read: Not for crime)" And I don't think anyone (at least anyone sensible) is advocating an outright ban of guns, gun control means restricting the sale etc so that people with bad records etc can't buy them. This would obviously not solve gun violence but gun violence is a lot more prevalent when access to guns is easy. There is nothing wrong with advocating gun education, but its not going to have any real influence on premeditated gun violence.
    !..!_Rock_!..!
    Criminals are already banned from buying or owning guns. What further kind of control would make sense?
    bulusvanua
    I could list a whole lot of obvious ones, mental issues being the most obvious, but the crux of it is gun control should, in my own personal view, be a combination of education and restriction, to own a gun you should need to have logged a number of hours in gun safety courses, be a member of a gun club for a certain period, and other such measures, so that the people legally permitted to own guns are people who respect guns, know how to use them and have a solid track record.
    Alcofuel
    Well we could have harsher punishment for people who use guns in crimes, own illegal guns, etc.
    robo37
    Except statisically there are far more gun crimes in countries with a gun ban than in those where there is none. I live in the UK and it is incredibly rare to hear reports of gun crime, and get there is a huge criminal culture in the UK.
    bulusvanua
    And how bad would the UK's already bad criminal culture get if gun restrictions were more lax?
    fanA7X6661
    Ted has a point here guys he just relayed it in typical Nugent style, by spelling stuff wrong and being very blunt. Guns aren't bad, some of the people that wield them are.
    Crimson.King
    If the guy didn't have a gun & wanted to kill his girlfriend, he certainly could have done it some other way. Killing himself in front of his coach would have been much harder. What could he do, perform hari-kari with a broadsword? Bang his head against a brick wall until he was dead? No, the gun didn't commit either crime, but it sure as hell made it much easier.
    Zoltan1251
    i still wonder why americans think walking around with a gun in your pocket is OK..... arguments "guns dont kill people, people kill people" is wrong..... its still better to get punched in the face than shot in the face..... i saw news, where guy was shotig around when he was drunk all the time, police couldnt take his gun cause AMERICA and FREEDOM..... yeah, he killed a guy
    Irueludruel
    If you go around and shoot your gun like that then yes you would very much be arrested. I smell a lie.
    Zoltan1251
    when you are on your property they pretty much just deal with night disturbance..... and yeah it is true, and its no just this particular case,just look how many "accindents" could have been avoided just by not giving *****s a gun
    headbang123
    Switzerland has really loose gunlaws.....yet one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Can you argue with those odds? no.
    minor7
    Yea Ted. The same way that corporate CEOs blame their workers for EVERYTHING instead of themselves when they're the ones running the companies and shipping all the jobs out. Fuck you, you republican douchebag.
    Rick_Diculous
    Costas said this during a Cowboys-Eagles game. Like six people were watching it. Why is it such a big deal?