This case is the intersection of two things many Americans love: the NFL and guns. But what are costs associated with each? It is estimated that NFL players have a life expectancy of between 55 and 60 years (making playing more hazardous than smoking three packs a day). Of course, the United States has extraordinary levels of gun violence compared to every other advanced Western country. Bob Costas has taken some heat for speaking about gun control during a NFL game.
A couple of questions: (1) is it moral to allow a sport to continue that causes such devastating health consequences for its participants (by the way, I love football-- I think it is the best team sport ever invented), and (2) can we come up with ways to prevent disturbed people from having access to guns? Given the deterioration that happens to the brains of NFL players as the result of repetitive injury to their brains, I don't think it is a good idea for a NFL player to have a gun. I also think that anyone with a diagnosed mental illness, convicted of a crime of violence, or had a restraining order issued against them should not be able to buy a gun.

1) Yes, it is moral, but the activity should be made as safe as possible and the risks should be understood and disclosed.

2) The funny thing is, I don't think Belcher could have been characterized as disturbed any day other than the day he snapped. All reports were that he was a good guy until that day. Was it football that made him do it? I think you're making a leap that, while may be true, is probably not.

Guns are dangerous. If you have a society with guns it is impossible to keep them out of the hands of people who are dangerous to themselves or others, and part of that reason is that people who are completely responsible to own a gun, may one day do something irresponsible. It's true of football players, carpet salesmen, homemakers and everyone else.

http://kjrzeek1.hubpages.com/hub/Police-Officer-Salary-Why-They-Deserve-It

Life Expectancy Of A Police Officer

Aside from the dangers associated with police work, being a police officer actually puts a strain on their lives, and has been shown to lower the life expectancy of these professionals. The average life expectancy of a male in the United States is 73, but the average life expectancy of a male police officer in the United States is 59 years old. Stress, shift work, and the dangers of the job are all factors that can kill police officers from the inside out. It is not a job for everyone, but for those who choose to take up this career, I applaud them.

Considering that NFL players and Police have the same life expectancy, you would also want to eliminate the risky employment there also?

Regarding guns and freedom,, until the player is psychologically unfit or a convicted felon (and some are!), they have the same rights and every other American. It is preposterous to say that an occupation cannot have the same rights as all Americans. Perhaps the issue is the 2nd Amendment. That would be the first place to solve the issue. Repeal/amend the 2nd, and I can understand the restriction/limitation of personal gun ownership. Until then, the US has rights.

Would Belcher's girlfriend had more of a chance if she had a gun?

1) The risks should be better understood and explained, and as much done to reduce harm, but to play American Football is a choice, and it's not immoral to allow people an informed choice.

2) Of course it should be more straightforward to bar people who pose a greater risk from owning guns. Whether NFL players or boxers (who also experience multiple concussions) are of that category enough to generalise, I don't know. But certainly the other groups you mention - convicts, the mentally ill, those on a restraining order - should be barred. The diagnosis of mental illness is also a major issue.

But GJ makes a very good point. This year we saw the case of a police officer who shot his own son dead, thinking he was an intruder (both were on a road trip and had been drinking). That was someone trained to be around weapons, who was acting without malice but in legitimate fear (one assumes). But all kinds of people can 'flip'. Which is a worry when you have such wide ownership of guns, particularly hand guns, automatics etc.

bbauska wrote:Would Belcher's girlfriend had more of a chance if she had a gun?

Perhaps. But she would have had a much better chance if Belcher didn't have a gun.

Well,. Brad, I was starting to worry about DF but it appears that police officers' life expectancy is a good deal higher than age 59. CALPERS, the retirement fund for public employees in California, says that its records show that public safety officers retire at age 55 and live to be 81. Here is an article discussing the various studies, they don't agree, but it is reasonable to conclude that police officers face some reduction in life expectancy but not a 14 year reduction. http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/oct/1 ... y/?print=1

With regard to NFL players, I think there is evidence that by playing football, even if you don't get concussions, you will receive damage to your brain and there is evidence that sustaining injury to your brain will make a person more likely to engage in violent behavior. See, eg, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 143439.htm

If there is a link between head injury and violence, and scientific studies have shown that to be true, what is the likelihood that a group of people who sustain head injuries on a regular basis will be more likely to be violent? Geojanes said this guy just flipped, that until he did he was a great guy. Well, maybe. But he was a long-shot to make the NFL, started out in special teams (where collisions are especially violent), and even made it starting linebacker. How did he beat those long odds? Part of that equation was probably hitting real hard. With his helmet.

As Brad said you can't just label a group as not being able to have guns. But you can test them for brain injury, you can test them for mental problems. This is a high-risk group, I think.

Ultimately, if you don't want people to have guns who have a history of violence or mental illness you need a national database that collects the name of people who fall into those categories and you don't allow sales of those guns who fall into said categories. That might make people uncomfortable, but there is no use agreeing that people with mental problems or a history of violence cannot get guns unless there is a some way of making sure they cannot buy them. Put their names on a federal database so that gun dealers can immediately check.

And I agree that so long as NFL players are aware of the risks of concussions and the reduced life expectancy they have the right to play. I think the NFL has some liability for attempting to minimize the risks in the past, but going forward NFL players coming into the league are now aware. But NFL players do not come from a factory--what about youth football and high school football? Are we explaining to players at that level of football the risks of playing? Are there parents being informed of the risks? Once you get to college football and the NFL, players can make their own decisions once they have been informed about the current science regarding the danger to their brains of playing, but prior to that consent issues are a bit more sticky.

freeman2 wrote:Ultimately, if you don't want people to have guns who have a history of violence or mental illness you need a national database that collects the name of people who fall into those categories and you don't allow sales of those guns who fall into said categories. That might make people uncomfortable, but there is no use agreeing that people with mental problems or a history of violence cannot get guns unless there is a some way of making sure they cannot buy them. Put their names on a federal database so that gun dealers can immediately check.

Yes, sure, but that won't make us safe from guns. Belcher would have passed that test any day except his last. Thousands of people are shot every year in the US by people who can get guns because they're sane and not disturbed at the time they buy the gun.

Further, just over 20% of people who were convicted of gun violence got their gun in a store, pawnshop or gun show. So considering the vast majority of criminals who used a gun didn't get the gun in a store, and even if they did, they might have very well been able to buy it because they were sane, restrictions like this might make us feel safer, but I don't think they will actually make us safer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

GJ - nothing is going to make you 100% safe from guns. However, making it even a bit harder for people who we know we don't want to have them will help in some way. To not take one measure because it will not solve the whole problem is to make the good the enemy of the perfect.

It would really need a wider range of efforts, which don't have to include repeal of the 2nd Amendment, to deal with the problem of gun violence. One would be to crack down on illegal weapons. Another would be to have better registration and co-ordination between authorities.

If you want to see how well you are doing, look at gun violence in other countries as a comparison.

Would Belcher's girlfriend had more of a chance if she had a gun?

I doubt it. Perhaps if he'd given a warning first, but then again if he knew she had a gun, he could have just taken it beforehand. If it was a spur of the moment thing, unless she carried her weapon on her around the house and was super-vigilant, chances are no, it would not have given her much of a chance.

Very seldom does someone else having a gun actually stop violence. Sometimes, it makes things worse.

Danivon, How could things have gone worse in this instance if the girlfriend had a gun? I am interested on your take in this instance of how worse it could have gotten.

geojanes wrote:

bbauska wrote:Would Belcher's girlfriend had more of a chance if she had a gun?

Perhaps. But she would have had a much better chance if Belcher didn't have a gun.

Sorry but you are arguing facts not in evidence sir.

Belcher was a foot taller and weighed over a 100lbs more then Kassandra Perkin. If he was in the frame of mind to kill her, he could have easily killed her with a kitchen knife or beaten her with his bare hands.

bbauska wrote:Danivon, How could things have gone worse in this instance if the girlfriend had a gun? I am interested on your take in this instance of how worse it could have gotten.

She could have fired, missed, and hit someone else. Not sure how close they were to anyone else, but bullets can travel through walls/windows/open doors.

Not that long ago, we saw a situation where a man who had shot someone near the Empire State Building was confronted by the police afterwards. Several bystanders were shot, most of them by the police. These are trained officers, who would be expected to be better than ordinary citizens, but even they are not perfect enough to only hit the suspect.

This idea that everyone being armed would make things safer is pure fantasy.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

geojanes wrote:

bbauska wrote:Would Belcher's girlfriend had more of a chance if she had a gun?

Perhaps. But she would have had a much better chance if Belcher didn't have a gun.

Sorry but you are arguing facts not in evidence sir.

Belcher was a foot taller and weighed over a 100lbs more then Kassandra Perkin. If he was in the frame of mind to kill her, he could have easily killed her with a kitchen knife or beaten her with his bare hands.

???? This is pure speculation, not facts. Killing someone with your bare hands is a lot harder than pulling a trigger, it's also more brutal and the shock value of it might bring someone back to their senses. Speculation, of course, but you really can't make an argument that her chances weren't better if there was no gun in the house.

archduke

Sorry but you are arguing facts not in evidence sir.
Belcher was a foot taller and weighed over a 100lbs more then Kassandra Perkin. If he was in the frame of mind to kill her, he could have easily killed her with a kitchen knife or beaten her with his bare hands

.

He could have done those things anyway. But he chose to use a gun. Becasue the gun was convenient.
It takes more effort to use any weapon other than a gun. In Belcher's case, he would have had to leave the bedroom where he was arguing to go to the kitchen to get a knife. His mother wa sin that room and might have intervened...
If he'd just hit her, it might have stopped after the first blow....
According to his mother, he was immediately remorseful after he pulled the trigger. After striking her once, he might have stopped ... We don't know. All we know is that after he pulled the trigger her life was over.

The fact is that pulling a trigger takes little effort, can cause lethal damage, and is often misdirected. His baby was in the room with his wife....

Arguing that other choices could have been made ignores the fact that the choice to use fire arms was made... The number of deaths from handguns would not be replaced 1 to 1 by deaths from beatings/knives if hand guns did not exist. There would be fewer deaths...
Guns, and particularly hand guns, are prone to misuse by people with poor impulse control because they require a minimum of effort to use to lethal effect.Any otehr weapon is not so convenient.
The proliferation of hand guns dooms the US to a slaughter for years to come regardless of the regulations and laws that might be put into place to try and stem the tide, because it will take many years for better regulation to eliminate significant numbers of hand gun deaths.
However, the inability to achieve perfection tomorrow should not be an excuse to not try and achieve an improvement over time.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/f ... 54847564/1
everyone is willing to ASSUME NFL players die young, nothing more than a wives tale, the numbers don't lie. 55 years old??? For every NFL player that died by 55, I can name you a dozen who lived longer! Honestly, how many can you think of that "died too young" a few for certain but an average of 55 would mean virtually ALL would be dead too soon.

geojanes wrote:???? This is pure speculation, not facts. Killing someone with your bare hands is a lot harder than pulling a trigger, it's also more brutal and the shock value of it might bring someone back to their senses. Speculation, of course, but you really can't make an argument that her chances weren't better if there was no gun in the house.

Let's talk about speculation:

1. How big was the victim? Was she strong enough to defend herself against a man whose employment demands he manhandle men bigger than himself (offensive linemen)?

2. Did Belcher have a history of violence against women? Did he have a history of letting anger get the best of him?

3. Did Belcher have a history of gang involvement? (if so, the odds of keeping a gun out of his hands were infinitesimal)

4. Did Belcher spend the night before with another woman? Was he under the influence of drugs or alcohol?

5. Was there a discussion between Belcher and his Mom? Could she have stopped him?

6. Was the gun Belcher had legally obtained?

When you can answer all of those questions, then you can begin to speculate as to whether the presence of a gun changed anything.

You jump to the gun issue. This is more about violence against women and a culture that thinks little of having a baby with a woman, living with her, and three months after the baby is born dating another woman while still living with the mother.

Mr. Belcher had a unique lifestyle. He had an unusual view of the world. I suspect that when all is said and done, the gun issue will be a small part of the overall picture.