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.

Ted Nugent Criticizes Bob Costas' Gun-Control Commentary
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

comments policy
    Dey tuk dur jaaaaahhhhhbbbbs
    Come on people! This comment can't get the medal every time.
    At least Ted didn't say he should be shot. I feel Like that's a step in the right direction. Kudos Teddy.
    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....
    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.
    Agree 1000% with Ted here. It made me sick watching this blatant plug during a football game of all things.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Dead is dead and that is the core of the issue at hand. Guns, cars, knives, water, puffer fish... its all irrelevant.
    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?
    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.
    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
    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...
    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.
    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.
    I usually disagree with you but I think you are right on with this one.
    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 #.
    Anxiously awaiting the 5 million "lol Nugent are stupid conservative" comments.
    Mr Winters
    The thing is, he really is stupid.
    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?
    "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.
    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.
    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.
    We have the constitutional right to bear arms so we can be protected. This struggle you talk about during self defense would be fatal.
    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.
    They'd have a damn higher likelyhood of surviving. Anyone who can't see that is a fool.
    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.
    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.
    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
    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
    You do realize that is a made up and thoroughly disproved statistic pushed by the the Brady Foundation?
    '27 dead' in Connecticut primary school shooting Anyone gonna defend the gun laws now??
    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
    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...
    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)