In light of former Kansas City Chiefs player Javon Belcher killing his girlfriend and then shooting and killing himself, NBC's Bob Costas made a few pro-gun control remarks at halftime of Sunday night's game between the Philadelphia Eagles and Dallas Cowboys. Gun control is a rather divisive issue, so as could be anticipated, Costas has received his share of support and criticism for his on-air remarks.
While I haven't seen any gun control advocates posting statuses regarding Costas, I have seen a few anti-gun control individuals posting pictures with commentary on them. One has Costas pictured alongside O.J. Simpson and asks Costas "How about knives?" In another, Sam Elliott is portrayed with the following words written across the screen: "Do you really think criminals will obey gun control laws?"
I understand people believing in their right to own guns, but do these uber-gun rights enthusiasts realize what they're saying when they post such things about gun control? If all gun control is immoral, unconstitutional, and wrong, then what is the point of having any gun laws? If a person was imprisoned 25 years for crimes dealing with guns, should he/she be handed a gun right as they walk out of prison? Whether a person is a criminal or not, is it wrong to look at their background, criminal history, etc. before selling them a gun? If a person has been in X number of car accidents, would it be wrong to suspend or take away their license? While it's true that some people will break the law regardless of the law, does that mean laws are pointless? Does that mean we shouldn't establish rules, establish laws for the majority of the typically law-abiding population? While I'd love to believe that anarchy could work efficiently, especially in lesser-populated areas, I'm thinking those chances are slim to none in most any area, especially in a large and heavily-populated country like the United States.
If we're going to set our laws according to the minority of people who violates them, what would be the point in possessing any laws? While it's true that there are some criminals whom would find a way to possess a gun regardless of the state or federal laws which attempt to prevent that, I'd much rather the federal and state governments make it more difficult for people to obtain a potentially lethal device, with the chance that a criminal could still find a way to posses a firearm, than for the federal and state governments to take the matter lightly and make it easier for those said criminals to purchase and own a potentially lethal device such as a gun. Laws will be bent and broken, but I'd much rather laws be in place to help control unruly behavior to a certain extent than to be void of them all together, and leave more people at risk of unruly behavior without consequence.
While I haven't seen any gun control advocates posting statuses regarding Costas, I have seen a few anti-gun control individuals posting pictures with commentary on them. One has Costas pictured alongside O.J. Simpson and asks Costas "How about knives?" In another, Sam Elliott is portrayed with the following words written across the screen: "Do you really think criminals will obey gun control laws?"
I understand people believing in their right to own guns, but do these uber-gun rights enthusiasts realize what they're saying when they post such things about gun control? If all gun control is immoral, unconstitutional, and wrong, then what is the point of having any gun laws? If a person was imprisoned 25 years for crimes dealing with guns, should he/she be handed a gun right as they walk out of prison? Whether a person is a criminal or not, is it wrong to look at their background, criminal history, etc. before selling them a gun? If a person has been in X number of car accidents, would it be wrong to suspend or take away their license? While it's true that some people will break the law regardless of the law, does that mean laws are pointless? Does that mean we shouldn't establish rules, establish laws for the majority of the typically law-abiding population? While I'd love to believe that anarchy could work efficiently, especially in lesser-populated areas, I'm thinking those chances are slim to none in most any area, especially in a large and heavily-populated country like the United States.
If we're going to set our laws according to the minority of people who violates them, what would be the point in possessing any laws? While it's true that there are some criminals whom would find a way to possess a gun regardless of the state or federal laws which attempt to prevent that, I'd much rather the federal and state governments make it more difficult for people to obtain a potentially lethal device, with the chance that a criminal could still find a way to posses a firearm, than for the federal and state governments to take the matter lightly and make it easier for those said criminals to purchase and own a potentially lethal device such as a gun. Laws will be bent and broken, but I'd much rather laws be in place to help control unruly behavior to a certain extent than to be void of them all together, and leave more people at risk of unruly behavior without consequence.
Comments
Post a Comment