Bob Costas: Having Armed Security Protect Me Doesn’t Make Me a Hypocrite on Guns

Bob Costas was the guy who gave a heartfelt soliloquy a little over a year ago about how our “gun culture” was responsible for the murder-suicide incident involving linebacker Jovan Belcher and his girlfriend. He said that if only Belcher hadn’t been allowed to possess a gun, perhaps he and his girlfriend would still be alive today.

Of course, other gun control fanatics praised Costas for his “courage” in bringing up a very important subject during the halftime show.

Things would have been very different if he had voiced an opinion in support of guns. Then, he’d be forced to apologize for having the “wrong” opinion and for bringing up an irrelevant topic during what was supposed to be a sports show. Then, he’d be forced to resign. But since he held the politically correct opinion, he was protected and shielded from such treatment.

Protected and shielded, much like what armed security provides Costas and his co-workers. Fox News’ Howard Kurtz brought up this obvious inconsistency in an interview with him. Here’s AWR Hawkins with Breitbart:

Kurtz said, “You were accused of injecting politics into halftime, and Fox News’s Greg Gutfeld said you were ‘a hypocritical buffoon’ because you’re in New York, and you’re surrounded by armed guards, and you don’t have to worry about safety.”

Costas responded, “In truth, Greg was accurate if you consider one-hundred-eighty degrees from the truth accurate. I have never had a personal bodyguard a single day in my life. There are security people at NFL games that the NFL employs, and there is always massive security at an Olympics, and there… is NBC security.”

The problem with this explanation is that Gutfeld did not say Costas hired a “personal bodyguard.” Rather, he said Costas “doesn’t have to worry about being armed. People are armed for him.”

As if it matters whether the armed security is personal or not. The point is, Costas’s safety is more ensured because of people who have guns. If it weren’t for our evil “gun culture,” his security detail wouldn’t be allowed to have guns. Would Costas rather have unarmed or armed security? When it’s his own safety at risk, I think he’d much rather have people with guns than without them. But when it’s other people’s safety at risk, he’d rather them be defenseless victims. It’s for their own safety, of course.