• 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!

Connecticut shooting, gun control laws?

Amazing Ampharos

Balanced Brawl Designer
Writing Team
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
4,582
Location
Kansas City, MO
The debate this shooting spawned really bothers me quite a bit. I hear all sorts of people claiming they have solutions, but what no one seems really interested in is the reality of what's going on. Like would gun control really help? I'm not really entirely sure either way, but what I am sure of is that almost no one in the mainstream media arguing about it knows at all. That Fareed Zakaria piece linked earlier (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...7_1_gun-violence-gun-ownership-tough-gun-laws) gives a more detailed argument than most, and it's laughably insufficient. I'll use it as an example of how terrible this debate really is.

First of all, Zakaria makes this claim:

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.
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.

Since the rest of Zakaria's argument talks about firearm deaths (and homicides in particular) and not mass shootings, let me give several other plausible reasons. Many gun homicides are done for financial gain; America's higher than average wealth inequality will increase that incentive. America has a massive gang problem. We can argue about the causes of that (failed war on drugs, blighted inner cities, poor schools, lingering racial disparity, overflow from the political instability of our southern neighbor, a prison system that operates as criminal training grounds, etc.), but it's pretty clearly a significant factor that differentiates America and these other countries and certainly a driving factor in a high homicide rate. Geographically, America is far harder to police than these other countries. Japan is a small, densely populated set of islands. America is a vast, sparsely populated nation with two extremely porous borders with foreign countries. For that matter, you could consider differences in the judicial systems. America's judicial system respects the rights of the accused more than that of any other nation, and America protects its citizens against surveillance to a greater extent than most other countries. I support this because I like freedom, but it's obviously relevant in that it inhibits crime prevention.

Zakaria also does a little good old fashioned data cherry picking with his statistic about homicide rates in England and Wales. I hope the problem is obvious to everyone; "England and Wales" is not a country. The United Kingdom is a country, and it includes Scotland and Northern Ireland. I have this really funny suspicion that including those two would make the overall firearm homicide rate appear significantly higher (Northern Ireland has historic problems with this!). Of course, not including them is ridiculous; various regions of the US have region specific issues that increase the homicide rate, and they aren't excluded from the US numbers.

Similar cherry picking is found in the Australia statistic. We're told about a correlation between an enacted law and a significant drop in gun homicides. We aren't told several other things. We don't know what happened to the overall homicide rate (I doubt our goal is seriously to just make people die in different ways but rather to prevent death). We don't know what other changes in Australia happened alongside that. We also don't know, most importantly, what the average drop was across the developed world and in the US in particular. Violent crime is on the decline in the developed world and in the US. That it would decline dramatically in Australia over a long period of time (like 16 years in this case) is not surprising, and at best the argument is just incomplete but not telling us how much it would have been expected to drop if not for that law so we could see the difference. The fact that these rates are declining on their own also pretty much entirely discredits everyone arguing that there's anything wrong with kids today, but being discredited doesn't seem to stop them so whatever.

When you consider all that, Zakaria hasn't really made any case at all for gun control. That isn't to say that it definitely wouldn't work (his argument isn't so bad as to prove the opposite of his point!), but the argument he presents simply does nothing to establish gun control as a negative effect on homicide at all (and let's drop the "firearm homicide" thing please; homicide is homicide however it's done, and there have been mass killings done with bombs before that should be considered as a part of the phenomenon if that's what you aim to stop).

The sad part is that at least Zakaria tried to use some numbers and examples even if he did so poorly. Most people don't even bother with that. "It's just obvious that if there are fewer guns fewer people would commit shootings!" or "it's just obvious that kids being exposed to all this violence in the media and video games will cause these things" are what you tend to hear, and if you try to say things like "if everyone had a gun, they could defend themselves better", you get these nonsense emotional arguments about how they don't want to live in that kind of culture. No one seems interested in a serious, scientific approach to this problem in which you objectively analyze the data and devise solutions based off that. Whether claims are really true or not seems irrelevant as long as they feel intuitively right even though intuitively there's no reason anyone would want to shoot up a first grade class yet clearly someone did so maybe intuition is not reliable here. I don't pretend to have all the data; I don't think it would be easy to get a clear, objective picture unless we made a national project out of it. I do think that if we care even a little about 20 dead first graders and want their deaths to be a turning point toward a better future that instead of carrying on about how guns are terrible that we'd instead be searching for the real answers, doing the hard work of providing well-researched suggestions from a position of political neutrality with the sole goal of having a practical effect. If gun control is the answer after that, fine, but it may not be, and the cost of being wrong is high. I hope that the president's promised effort follows this sort of thinking; I sure know the media's "suggestions" are hopeless.

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.
 

TheBluAssassin

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
75
I believe they should lower the age for carrying a handgun to five so next time something like this happens, the kids can defend themselves.
 

Tavitoes

Smash Cadet
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
26
Location
Somewhere Over the Rainbow
My idea of preventions for these kinds of things is to stop selling all automatic weapons. You shouldn't be able to walk into Wal-Mart and buy a Death Machine or whatever. As for the other weapons (like handguns) you should have to present a whole buttload of information to buy it. (like your drivers' license, ID, etc.)
 

Jon Farron

✧ The Healer ✧
Premium
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
1,539
Location
Texas
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.


I think we just have to realize that this was indeed a tragedy, but there's nothing we can do about it.
 

Jon Farron

✧ The Healer ✧
Premium
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
1,539
Location
Texas
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.


Conspiracies ahead:

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
 

Tavitoes

Smash Cadet
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
26
Location
Somewhere Over the Rainbow
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.


Conspiracies ahead:

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
That is very, completely, the sad truth. :sadsheep:
 

GwJ

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
5,833
Location
Pennsylvania
NNID
Baghul
Holy Illuminati Conspiracy Batman. I'm going to ignore that Illuminati part and pretend it never happened.
 

Jam Stunna

Writer of Fortune
BRoomer
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
6,450
Location
Hartford, CT
3DS FC
0447-6552-1484
That was a very Amazing (see what I did there?!) takedown of Zakaria's article, but I have to disagree in particular with this paragraph:

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.
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.

Choosing not to act out of fear or uncertainty is probably the worst thing that we can do, because this problem (or any problem) isn't going to fix itself or achieve some sort of stasis on its own. If the surge in gun sales is any indication, individuals are already deciding what they think is the best course of action based on their available information. Policy needs to be made as well, and from my perspective I'd rather see almost anything happen at a policy level rather than see tons more people buying guns.
 

Alphicans

Smash Hero
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
9,291
Location
Edmonton, AB
I am sorry AA, but based on that single quote you gave I feel you went WAY too far with your argument, and even straw manned him really heavily. Just gotta call it how I see it.
 

Jam Stunna

Writer of Fortune
BRoomer
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
6,450
Location
Hartford, CT
3DS FC
0447-6552-1484
You know what, I'm leaving this forum. Nobody would miss me anyway.
You can't post insane things about the Illuminati and planned massacres of children without expecting to generate negative feedback,

That doesn't give the rest of you the right to be jerks though.
 

Jon Farron

✧ The Healer ✧
Premium
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
1,539
Location
Texas
You can't post insane things about the Illuminati and planned massacres of children without expecting to generate negative feedback,

That doesn't give the rest of you the right to be jerks though.
I know, I expected the usual responses, but those were just... e.e
 

Falconv1.0

Smash Master
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
3,511
Location
Talking **** in Cali
In what way were you trolled, serious question. What, because people being rude in the way they express disdain? That's what constitutes trolling?

Yes, we're trolling, not the guy who is ****ing claiming the Illuminati was behind a terrible school shooting, totally.
 

Luco

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
9,232
Location
The isle of venom, Australia
NNID
dracilus
3DS FC
2638-1462-5558
@ Amazing Ampharos: I dunno, your last point has already been discussed but I was interested in wha your argument was focused around. I think that while putting retrictions on guns wouldn't stop crime, it'd help. It's harder to get guns then, bombs are already hard to get. Also I think at least i'd feel safer if the threats out there were knives and clubs rather than guns and rifles... at least I can run away from the former. Obviously the goal is to stop this kind of thing but we have to accept he whole, 'you can only keep evil at bay' thing. Make things harder to get and I think it would just make crime less likely. Also, Holder had a REALLY good point about people justifying their actions when they do this. It's a whole lot harder to justify it when the very act of buying guns is hard or perhaps even frowned upon. :ohwell:

That said, I totally agree with you that we should at least trial this kind of stuff to see its effects.
 

Orange Fox

Smash Cadet
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
74
Location
Gainesville, Florida
It was probably already stated but this event was not because of bad gun control laws. If there were armed Policemen on campus maybe the events could have ended different. Hope this doesn't happen again
 
Top Bottom