Bob Costas question of the day

About six weeks ago, Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher shot his girlfriend nine times and later turned the gun on himself. Bob Costas said if Jovan Belcher hadn’t had a gun—that is, if there were only more gun control laws—both Belcher and his girlfriend would be alive today.

It’s really impossible to say one way or another. For example, the Costas assertion may be true in part: Belcher might instead have beaten his girlfriend to death with Belcher remaining alive (beating yourself to death is a much more difficult task). Or Belcher still could have offed himself in any other number of conventional ways: drug overdose, car crash, hanging, monoxide poisoning, etc..

Now it comes out that Belcher’s blood-alcohol level was twice the level of legal intoxication at the time of his autopsy (and it was likely far higher when he committed his crimes). I’m shocked, shocked.

Could Costas suggest that if Belcher hadn’t been drinking, both he and his girlfriend would be alive today? Or that we need more drug control and more alcohol control?

Yes, Costas could suggest such a thing. But don’t hold your breathalyzer; remember who writes most of the checks.

Guns or alcohol?

Bob Costas, sports “journalist” (yes, those are sneer quotes) offers that if Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.

Will Costas now offer that if Dallas Cowboy Josh Brent didn’t have alcohol, his teammate Jerry Brown would be alive today?

Or maybe if Josh Brent didn’t have a car?

Or maybe if we weren’t born, we wouldn’t have to die?

There are tragedies in life but the things human beings use (guns, drugs, vehicles, etc.) are not to blame. People are to blame. That’s what happens in a fallen world.