Yesterday Bob Costas, on the air, went on a long rant about gun laws. He said: "If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-costas-gun-control-jovan-belcher-chiefs-murder-suicide-kasandra-perkins-2012-12#ixzz2DzxG7Bn3
Was Bob right? Was this a case where laws could simply have prevented what had happened? Or is Bob's analysis too pat? Too simple?
It strikes me that Bob's argument is the classic strawman argument.
If the killer hadn't had a gun, well then of course he couldn't have shot someone! He wouldn't have had a gun! You see how logical that is.
But the problem is, of course, that even if the laws were different--and prevented a lot of good law abiding folks from having guns--would Belcher still have been able to get a gun? And the answer to that is probably yes, given the prevalence of guns throughout our society.
So, likely Bob was just wrong. Just plain wrong.
What do you say Newsvine?