I rarely write about sports anymore, because when I do readership drops close to zero. However, this morning on Drudge I came across an article by Bob Costas of NBC Sports worth mentioning, regarding the the murder-suicide of the NFL's Jovan Belcher.
As most regular readers know, I watch virtually all sports events with the TV sound off. I started doing that way back when Howard Cosell's commentary drove me crazy. That guy critiqued every sport, athlete, play on the field, punch and feint in the ring, delivering those insightful words of wisdom having never participated in any athletic endeavor in his life himself. In fact, I doubt he could tie his own shoes, whereas he seemed plastered a great deal of the time while broadcasting.
Howard’s long gone now, but in his wake there are others like Costas who are of the same ilk. And I will never, ever understand how these “experts” can analyze activities they’ve never participated in, nor experienced any of the situations athletes face in each contest. However, they expound their unfounded opinions as if they were seasoned participants themselves. In Costas’ case, I’ve mentioned before that I’d become a believer in him as soon as he scores a touchdown against any defensive team in the NFL. But, until then, I’d prefer he just shut up.
As for today, however, Costas wrote that he agreed with writer Jason Whitlock who wrote that "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. In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions, and their possible connection to football will be analyzed. Who knows?
But here, is what I believe. If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today."
Now, I believe the preceding is a typical “expert” analyst’s perspective. Because neither of these guys were there during the shooting, I doubt either of them know what caused it, and I further suspect that they both know nothing whatsoever about the psyche or stability of any party in the tragedy. Nonetheless, they both still present their worldly opining's as if it were profound wisdom.
However, there have been disagreements between people and violent eruptions since the beginning of mankind. Irrational killings also took place. And before guns were invented folks used stones, rocks, tree limbs and even bare hands to dispatch others when called for. Then came spears, swords and lances as weaponry evolved. But the basic point is, if people want to kill others they will, and the only difference today is the convenience of guns.
And that's why I suspect that if this football player had no gun, he’d have employed another method instead. Because my guess is he was determined to accomplish his intention and therefore, regardless of weaponry, he’d still have gotten it done. So if these experts really want to analyze the tragedy, looking at the ending isn't the issue. They need to find the real cause for his actions, because the method he used to commit them is irrelevant.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment