Edited for inappropriate content
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
There are several problems. One is that this claim is never supported in any way. Are those really the only reasons? Maybe, but it's not obvious that they are. Two is far bigger; this has a big apples to oranges comparison that is relied upon for the rest of the article. It starts by giving hypothetical reasons for a mass shooting or shooting crime similar in nature to the recent event in Connecticut. The reasons it gives are designed around that sort of crime. Then it uses the analysis of that type of crime to generalize to all deaths by firearms, the majority of which have causes transparently different than a mass shooting such as the one in Sandy Hook. This is a major flaw in reasoning to say the least; I might go so far as to say that this argument coming from someone as smart as Zakaria constitutes blatant dishonesty. I could stop here on Zakaria honestly since this issue alone completely invalidates his entire argument, but I'll carry on since there are several additional blatant issues.People point to three sets of causes when talking about events such as the Newtown, Conn., shootings. First, the psychology of the killer; second, the environment of violence in our popular culture; and, third, easy access to guns. Any one of these might explain a single shooting. What we should be trying to understand is not one single event but why we have so many of them. The number of deaths by firearms in the United States was 32,000 last year. Around 11,000 were gun homicides.
Remember what I said. They should make guns, all guns, hard to get for ANYBODY, not just young people.Then again people, remember, the gun was his moms. Not his. So making it hard for people like him to purchase guns wouldn't matter, because they could just get one a different way.
That is very, completely, the sad truth.What if he had a friend that owned a gun and was able to get it legally?
See what I'm getting at? Let's not forget about unregistered guns either.
When I was looking into the Illuminati a few months ago, I had read from someone that was in it (don't remember who though, I think it was Svali) that they were planning to ban guns, but not just out of the blue. They were going to make you want to give up your gun. Don't you think this is a perfect example of that?
Because of this tragedy, people are wanting to get rid of their guns.
I still think this whole thing was planned o3o
The problem is that you can come to this conclusion about everything. We usually don't know what does work and what doesn't until the failures are staring us in the face, but that's not a reason to not try. We'll always have incomplete information and unintended consequences, and I honestly don't think having an agenda is such a terrible thing as long as that agenda is clear. The NRA certainly has one, and as insane as I think their press conference was, they at least presented a set of opinions and an actionable plan that we can debate and come to a decision on.I will finish with this point, and it's a doozy itself. No one in politics can ever admit to being wrong. It would make perfect sense to try gun control, see if it works, and then keep it if it does and drop it if it doesn't. That's very scientific. The problem is that whatever happens, no side will ever admit to being wrong. If gun control works great, the pro-gun lobby will fight to the grave denying it. If gun control is a massive failure, we'll just hear that it didn't go far enough from the anti-gun crowd. This bias extends toward ignoring data points favoring the other position (there's plenty of data supporting both arguments really which is largely why a coherent whole picture is hard), and it really is such a mess that I worry that the best I can hope for is that we really do nothing since doing nothing is at least guaranteed to avoid making it worse and will not have any side effects. That's a pretty lousy thing to hope for: no response to repeated mass murder of the innocent, but so far I'm still waiting to see a reason to hope for better.
You can't post insane things about the Illuminati and planned massacres of children without expecting to generate negative feedback,