http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EHCF2YMNQg

“They always present this theoretical – ‘well, what if there’s not one or two invaders to my home, what if there’s 10 or 12 and after I’ve killed the first eight or nine, I need to reload?’ Yes, let me know when that happens. And between now and when that happens, sadly, there’s going to be another Aurora, there’s going to be another Newtown.” – Bob Costas on Piers Morgan Tonight

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

73 COMMENTS

    • +1. Washed up tv personalities will do or say just about anything to get some attention.

  2. I would LOVE to have a drink with one of these two fellows. With a hidden camera. Seriously. These guys need to get out and meet real people.

    • Agreed. And far more frequently than the mass shooting incidents. But these statistics are immaterial. A right is a right. Statistics don’t change that.

  4. It’s simple. By grabbers’ own logic. Look how many shots the “professional and trained” police get off in so many shootings of late. If they have to shoot 1 guy 7-8 times, then there’s no way simpletons like us need anything less than 15 rounds in a mag.

      • Don’t forget one or two for each family dog as well. Standard Operating Procedure to execute any dog in a 50 yard radius any time you need to draw your gun.

      • … or 100+ rounds into a pickup truck driven by two Hispanic ladies delivering newspapers.

    • Costas lives in a guard-controlled building in suburban STL and his car is parked in a heated garage. Sorry, but when he moves into N. St Louis, then he can speak. Otherwise, he needs to STFU.

  5. Funny tactic coming from a group loaded with nonsense like “what if Johnny suddenly goes crazy” and “what if the teacher has a bad day” and “what if it just goes off.”

    My theoretical is bigger than yours.

  7. So someone explain to me why they would have a problem with California’s legislation on microstamping serial numbers on the firearms in an effort to help try to combat straw purchasing? Is the argument then that criminals would simply smuggle guns in over the border instead; but don’t we want to close down our borders anyways?

    I get that criminals/gangs will still get firearms and commit crimes. Shouldn’t we make it harder for them to do so? Could gun-rights groups we create smarter legislation that promotes safety and freedom for the law abiding simply focuses on the criminals, eg: national concealed carry?

    • Maybe I don’t want to worry about my micro stamped brass being seeded at a crime scene. It’s not terribly different from dropping a license plate with every round fired.

      • Let me clarify that I’m not talking about microstamping the firing pin, but covertly microstamping the frame/receiver.

        • so what? steal a gun, shoot someone, drop it at the crime scene. How does that help solve a crime? Steal a gun, catch the brass, throw some other brass down.

          All this will do is push home invasions through the roof in disarmed CA. The thugs know which neighborhoods are inhabited by police and target them during work. So even worse, they are likely to steal law enforcement guns.

        • They’re already “covertly” engraved with a serial number in a few different places.

          Do some effin’ research.

    • Are you being funny, a troll or am I just missing your point? Message directed at first comment not follow ups 🙂

    • This is not about microstamping firearms, it is about a microstamped firing pin to imprint each bullet, something that is just proposed to increase cost to gun rights people, as I’ve read. There are no “reasonable” restrictions that I’ve heard, they are all incremental steps toward total disarmament, Randy

    • I don’t know too many people who would have a problem with a technology like this if it were actually effective AND did not place undue burden on manufacturers and law abiding citizens. The fact is, micro stamping does not pass that test. The technology is easily thwarted by a file or a bottle of nail polish, so no manufacturer is spending the money to apply it to their new products. This means that none of these products will be available for legal purchase in states where the technology is required, thus denying the citizens of that state the ability to defend themselves. Right now, it only applies to newly developed products, but if California were to require the technology to be included with newly produced versions of already available products, they would effectively ban the sale of ALL new (non-used) firearms in the state.

      • The technology is easily thwarted by a file or a bottle of nail polish

        Or by using a brass catcher, or by using a firearm that inherently retains its brass (like a revolver), or by seeding the scene with spent casings obtained from a public range.

    • How would microstamping firearms do anything? There’s already a serial number, and that doesn’t do anything unless there’s a gun registry.

      • Why Pete, they could microstamp under the sn & then they could both be filed off at the same time, not before this saved tons of kids though, Randy

    • this can be defeated any number of ways, like a $25.00 brass catcher available from Amazon. It’s just dumb marketecture. Also, if i throw down some brass from a mix of guns, it creates reasonable doubt, and might actually leave to perps walking.

    • I should have mentioned that I was referring to the microstamping of the receiver, ie. a covert serial number. IMO, straw purchasing is effective because it is extremely hard to trace firearms from sale to sale, moreover the serial numbers on the firearms are almost immediately filed off once it reaches the hands of a criminal.

      The whole point of a universal background check / registration was to clamp down on straw purchasing. Well, what if registration was not to the government but to a 3rd party like the NRA? Would that be more acceptable?

      • In other words, you’re upset because there is no database/record containing the personal information and firearm serial numbers of all gun owners?

        Pretty sure a certain Western European nation pulled a stunt like that in the 1930’s. Does anyone need to remind you how that turned out?

    • I’m inclined to point out that with more than one hundred million guns already out there, micro-stamping via the firing pin is pointless. On the other hand, California has long prided itself on leading the way to new social realities, and therefore produces such wonders as the OJ trial, the Kardashian sisters, and a bunch of tech companies that bravely take tax avoidance where no man has gone before. I therefore hope CA enacts enough absurd anti-the-non-felons gun laws sufficient to induce a temporary collapse of public safety. Let them once again be a guide and light to us all.

    • Well if you want to micro-stamp everything then let me have any firearm i want. lift all restrictions since this technology is supposed to work. Kind of like the spent casing that they use where i live they haven’t caught 1 criminal yet with it. Might be a good time to set up a Dremel tool shop in CA

    • Since both the firing pins and any other serial numbers can be filed away rapidly without impacting the function of the gun, the stamping has no benefit with respect to crime.

      It does create a situation in which manufacturers must retool for a single State. Many won’t bother, and those who do will jack up their prices to cover costs. Thus, the law can’t really help catch criminals, but it will make modern handguns more difficult to obtain for law-abiding citizens. It will also make parts (firing pin) much harder and more expensive to replace.

      So, same as almost all other gun control policies: It only works to the extent that someone is willing to obey the law. Thus, it effectively targets the law abiding and not criminals.

    • Conrad. I used to be like you.

      Then I saw how easy it is to manufacture guns and gun parts.

      But to your question: it’s not about microstamping (which costs, and presents problems when the part needs replacement). Additionally, it’s not just requiring microstamping. Sacramento is requiring manufacturers to submit paperwork and, most importantly, (hey hey) a FEE every time they want to bring a new gun to the California market.

      Never mind that it’s a hassle. The costs have to be passed on to the consumer. Numerous legal problems with that proposition.

      Making it more difficult for criminals to get guns? How will you do that?
      The only way to achieve that is to make gun ownership itself horribly difficult.

      Oh wait, that’s the goal, though….

    • Conrad, while there is merit to the basic idea of making guns more easily traced in the event of a crime, the idea has been tried in several locations and found to be a dismal failure in actual practice. Canada established a registry system for long arms and has maintained a handgun registry for decades, but Canadian law enforcement found that the registries seldom provided useful information in the aftermath of a crime. Criminals who know that their gun is likely to be traced back to them simply don’t leave the weapon behind at the crime scene.

      One might argue that “if it saves one life, it’s worth it”, but such arguments face economic realities. The millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours spent maintaining such records are money and effort that can’t be spent elsewhere. Those millions would definitiely save lives if they were diverted to emergency medical services, road safety improvements, international disaster relief efforts, or other worthy projects. We have to decide whether the cost is worth the results.

      Furthermore, numerous governments have used their records of gun ownership to facilitate eventual confiscation. While anti-gun advocates often claim that “no one’s going to take your guns”, government actions in Australia and Canada provide clear proof that gun confiscation is not merely a delusion of the black-helicopter crowd.

      • And just because the government says TODAY that it will not take your guns is not a prohibition that they won’t change their minds in the future. All laws can be amended with a simple vote.

  8. Some years ago Milwaukee Wis had a gang of blacks raising cain at the state fair. They were targeting whites & beating them up, for fun. The group was reported to be in the hundreds. Now we have CC & strangely we don’t have that problem now. Try hundreds bobby boy, an AR with 3 60’s should send a message, Randy

  9. In their acknowledgement of the inevitability of those acts reoccurring, along with their irrational perspective of the means by which they may be prevented, the obviousness of their flawed conclusions become manifest.

    If one knows something is going to reoccur, is the response to seek a possition of subjugation to the impending act or to that of a course of preventative counterance by the means by which it may be perpetrated?

    It is as iff sayins this;
    We know that another mass killing will happen (duh) so let us be disarmed & put ourselves in a pre-subjugated possition so as to help the situation to be conceivably worse for those found in the middle of it.

  10. Perhaps messrs Costas and Boorgan are unaware of the fact that multiple assailant home intrusions are actually almost the norm nowadays??

  11. According to the FBI, almost half of violent attacks are perpetrated by multiple attackers.

  12. “It’s madness!” Piers exclaims.

    This is the key phrase for most gun-grabbers, they truly feel we are absolutely insane for believing and acting as we do.

    This is why facts, logic, real world experience or history mean nothing to these people, they FEEL, ( key word here), they would be crazy to believe what IS reality.

    This means, of course, they are projecting what is in fact their OWN delusion, denial and for many, out right insanity, upon us.

    This why there can be no compromise with these people, they will accept nothing less than absolute subjugation, anything less would be “Madness “.

  13. For those who have seen my posts know that I am solid on the Second Amendment. As such I advise the community to be honest about the real world tactical self-defense situations that we face. It is well documented in TTAG’s DGU stories that the bad guys don’t live by the “no man left behind” ethic. It is true that multiple attacker home invasions are up but once the intended victim shows an inclination to fight back with a gun, they are out of there. The BGs are quite willing to leave a “team” member bleeding out on your $100 per sqft carpeting rather than engage in a prolonged gun battle to get him out of there. The reason the armed citizen or police need standard capacity magazines is that legendary marksman like Leroy Jethro Gibbs only exists in the movies or TV. When the SHTF we all suck and will expend a lot of ammo to get the job done.

    • It doesn’t matter if they will probably cut and run… They will probably never break in in the first place… It’s preparing in case it does happen while hoping it doesn’t. Same reason I wear a seatbelt when driving 1-2 blocks, probably won’t get into an accident, but just in case.

    • +1 Well said. I have tried explaining this to friends who do not understand why I need a 30 round mag. Like you said, when the SHTF, we all will not be expert marksman (unless, maybe, it’s your JOB to kill people). The only experience a lot of them has with firearms is by watching liberal actors fire them on the big screen or TV.

    • Bob Costas et al operate under the assumption that you will need only one bullet for each assailant. Therefore, since invasions by hordes of more than ten are extremely unlikely, you only “need” ten rounds for effective defense. They refuse to consider the fact that their assumptions are patently false. If we instead assume the (police average) hit ration of 20%, and further assume that, again on average, it takes 2+ rounds to stop an assailant, that means one 10 round mag is good for one assailant.

  14. Who are those people in the background? Studio audience? I tried to find out how to buy tickets to the show. No dice.

    Are those real people or just CNN employees acting as wall paper.

    Hmm….

  16. And yet, just down the road from me yesterday, 7 thugs smashed their way into a disabled, bed-ridden marine’s home and robbed him. Nope, that NEVER happens…..

  17. Geez. I am kind of pissed I actually wasted 34 seconds watching the video.
    Guys, unless someone is punching piers or bob in the nose, can we NOT post any of their vids?
    We already know they are object haters. Illogical, unreasonable, dolts.

    • +1. I agree with Tom in Oregon. Please stop giving these guys space and time. We know their biased views and they are worthless.

  18. Just what makes Bob Costas an expert on this subject anyways? He is a washed up sportscaster, that’s all. He has no background on the matter at hand, simply a bandwagon jumper to keep his face on TV. Leave it to Pierced Organ to give Costas a stage to speak his lies. The lovefest rolls on….

  19. Piers finally found someone that he could win a gun control debate with. I wonder if Bob Costas live in a good neighborhood or if it is a gated community? What gives him the right to say I am wrong, in dept knowledge of Pro sports?

  20. “sadly, there’s going to be another Aurora, there’s going to be another Newtown.”
    Actually there will be another spree killing until target rich environments, known as gun free zones, are eliminated.

    • Since there are “gun free” zones, shooters will of course gravitate toward them. But even if there are no gun-free zones, there will still be mass shootings, since some psycho will always get an itch he just has to scratch. Still, I predict we would have much fewer mass shooting without gun free zones, since shooters would have more fear of crowds and the crowds would often have the teeth to stop a shooter before he racks up a big body count.

      So, perhaps those of us in (relatively) free territory are safer for now. As long as we avoid “gun free” zones, statistically speaking, our chances of being involved in mass shooting are so close to zero that the difference wouldn’t matter. Of course, the same can be said of “gun free” zones, since mass shootings are so rare to begin with. Still, since avoiding “gun free” zones also lowers one’s chances of being a victim of more garden variety violent crime, I’m still happy to not be behind the blue curtain.

      I do worry about my kids, though. A few more years in public school.

  21. First off you kill or shoot 5 bad guys they will be taking cover / change mags/ do a N.Y. reload (second gun already loaded) . and pre plan have loaded arms ready in different rooms ready to rock… and always lots extra mags ready to rock (and test all mags/arms ahead of time… A great book on defense : Holding your ground ,,, By Joe Nobody , it’s a good starting point in thinking……….

  24. Since when has the discussion only been about the numbers of bad guys involved? Apparently he – they- and others – are ignoring the many reports and instances of it taking numerous shots to bring down even just one bad guy. Seems many have forgotten the recent case of the mother in GA huddled with her kids in the crawl space while on the phone with her husband who calmly coached her through her defense against a single intruder that pursued her? My recollection is he took 5 hits before turning tail – and he still walked out of her house under his own power!

    Cops are well aware of this issue. Lets not forget that fact is the primary driver behind the whole debate over which caliber is best for self defense, etc. – what can incapacitate a bad guy the quickest in the fewest shots.

    Sheesh, I WAS considering getting past Costas’ ridiculously arrogant and inappropriate interruption of my football viewing over halftime in that game last season. But now…*sigh*

  25. Even if there are only a couple invaders, and assuming you hit with every single shot, a highly dubious proposition, the likelihood of a one shot stop is extremely low. If the guys are determined for whatever reason, you could easily run out of ammo before they give up. Add in misses and a greater number of invaders and the odds you run dry before stopping the threat are much greater.

  27. Bob wants just one example, where someone used an AR 15.

    15 year old kid, protects sister with dad’s AR 15, when man breaks into home. This was reported here as well, as tv news channels.

    Man attempts robbery in the Detroit area and runs out, when someone inside opens fire with an AR 15.

    Those are just 2, both of which are someplace on this blog and I’ve watched the video’s on YouTube.

    You asked for just one, Bob. I gave you two!

    • Rochester Tech student uses AR to stop home invasion. That’s Rochester as in Rochester, New York.

  28. One gun-grabber which is incredibly irritating, and there are many, is the totality of their response whenever you take the idea of universal background checks to its logical conclusions.

    You’ll indicate that UBC’s necessarily presuppose total gun registration and fatal funneling of all transfers through easily intimidated and over regulated FFL’s (since liberals won’t allow private citizen access to NICS). Then you’ll point out that such would lead ineluctably to a slow suffocation of the Second Amendment through myriad and multiplying transfer restrictions; driving up the costs of firearms through reduced supply of both FFL’s and expenses. Finally, you’ll conclude that this all sets the stage for universal confiscation, or at least cowered public further and further removed from the notion of personal responsibility associated with firearms freedom.

    Then it comes: the full-on onslaught of offensive body language. The eye rolling, the head tossing, the shoulders dropping, the affected deep sigh. They follow up with the usual “That’s just crazy talk, no one’s coming for your guns. That’s just discredited ‘slippery slope’ gibberish to take something like universal background checks and extend link it to something unrelated like confiscation.” Yes. Well.

    Forgive me for asking, but isn’t that exactly what Costas and Morgan themselves are employing here? They’re the ones using previous chippings of freedom and privacy as slippery, slimy justification for further restrictions in an unrelated issue. How does it make *me* the Conductor on the Crazy Train of Thought, when they’re the one’s shouting “All aboard!!!”?

  29. What if (like Aurora and Newtown) they have “tactical gear” and “bulletproof vests” and “high capacity firearms” and I need multiple rounds to knock them down? What if I live in reality where cops shoot hundreds of rounds to stop one suspect (or misidentified citizen)?

Comments are closed.