Monday, March 1, 2010

Luke Scott Equals Gilbert Arenas? Logic Fail.

So Washington Post reporter Dan Steinberg tweets this today:

@dcsportsbog: Orioles DH Luke Scott says he's brought guns into MLB clubhouses. Waiting for national outrage to begin.

And then he links to this post in the DC Sports Blog. There he makes these points:

Gilbert Arenas didn't become a pariah solely for bringing handguns into an NBA locker room. I get that. He violated D.C. gun laws, leading to severe legal problems. And he violated the NBA's collective bargaining agreement, which expressly forbids players from bringing guns onto NBA property.

Let's start here. Scott neither violated any laws (at least, none that we know of) and didn't violate any league or team rules. These rules have only been created and enforced in the last few months. Those two distinctions make these situations worlds apart to begin with.

Now, did Scott use the weapons as part of a practical joke during an argument with a teammate? Was he part of a story so messy and entangled that someone wound up chucking a weapon across the room? Does he have a history of inappropriate jokes, including sneaker defecation? No, no and no.

More differences that are ENORMOUS. They don't even deserve a comment. Onward.

But he brought a weapon into that sacred and secure athletic safe haven we heard so much about throughout Gil's Gunz coverage, and so these are some folks I'd be curious to hear from in the coming days.

Then he quotes/links to a bunch of writers who commented on the Arenas situation...but the quotes are removed from the very context that Steinberg just laid out for us.

The differences in these situations is staggering. Arenas (who evidently did not bring guns to the stadium on a regular basis) allegedly brought the guns to the locker room, showed them to a teammate who he was having a gambling dispute with, perhaps as a joke, perhaps as a veiled threat, an act that resulted in weapons being loaded with ammo and brandished.

All we know about Scott is that he carried guns with him, left them in the locker room and after the game, left with them. Nobody was any the wiser because he conducts himself like a responsible gun owner and not some clown. Thus, Luke Scott has never has a "Gilbert Arenas Moment". Not even close.

If you are sitting around waiting for the same moral outrage about Luke Scott that you saw about Gilbert Arenas then you'll be waiting a long time. Because anyone can see that the situations aren't even in the same ballpark...pun intended.


Kevin Lomax said...

I'm not 100% sure of this but I'm almost positive Luke has a license to carry and Gilbert doesn't.

That would be top of my list of differences if it's correct.

But I'm lazy and I'm not going to check if it's true.

Jon Shepherd said...

Just to elaborate . . . pretty sure most people knew. Back in 2008, Baltimore Sun mentioned that he always has his gun with him. I think Roch even joked about Randy Myers and his defused grenade.

What Steinberg seems to fail to recognize is that the quotes are made in response to an event. That is context. Luke Scott would not get a similar response because he was being responsible.

Maybe the Washington Post blogosphere has lower standards than the print copy . . . otherwise, I have no clue how an editor would let such a thing through. Pretty poorly thought out article.

Dave Mc said...

I feel like I'm missing something. Is Steinberg seriously waiting for outrage? Is this a protracted attempt to point out the absurdity of American gun laws? Is it just a slow news day?

DempseysArmy said...

I don't read Steinberg enough...maybe he's an Arenas apologist? I don't know.

If Arenas had been busted carrying a licensed firearm, unloaded ans secure, but merely violated league rules by carrying it, I doubt there would have been such outrage.

the wayward o said...

you what they have in common?

they both need to STFU.