Federal courts keep ruling against new gun laws

[jt512]

Which is exactly what he says here

"If I believe loosening gun laws would lead to an increase in crime, and I observe the expected increase in crime, I accept the evidence on its face"

To me that pretty much says what he objected to me saying! (all that crap about "motivated reasoning" does not change anything).

He used, as you put it, the perpendicular pronoun, and that means JTC512 was referring to himself and what HE believes. "I" always refers to the first person, it least it did when I went to school (and as I have stated here before, part of my career was as an English teacher). There is no context in which it doesn't, unless you put the whole phrase/statement in quote marks, and precede it with a qualifier... for example

Were someone to say "If I believe loosening gun laws would lead to an increase in crime, and I observe the expected increase in crime, I accept the evidence on its face", then they would be wrong.

In future JTC512, I suggest you take more care about how you phrase things.

Hey, Psion, still disagree with my assessment?

 

[psionl0]

Hey, Psion, still disagree with my assessment?

Well he sort of vaguely semi-acknowledged that possibly it might not necessarily be you personally who is engaging in motivated reasoning.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP> for rule 12.

 

[Trausti]

Yes.

Did you read the "Effectiveness" section of that Wiki?

 

[arthwollipot]

Did you read the "Effectiveness" section of that Wiki?

Yes. Did you?

 

[Nessie]

No. It’s different demographics. Did these other Western countries have high rates of intentional gun homicide before imposing these restrictions?

I can only speak for the UK, where there had been rising violence and deaths in the 1800s, early 1900s. After WWI, there was a concern about the discharged military men and their easy access to firearms, so the gun laws were tightened.

The USA and UK have had different attitudes to guns over the decades, if not centuries, which go a long way to explaining why the US has higher gun deaths. It is those differing attitudes that meant a universal licensing system was acceptable in the UK, applying to all, good and bad, and the public did not push back. I presume it is the same elsewhere, as other western countries have similar systems to the UK. Then there are examples like Australia, where mass shootings have caused further tightening of those laws, with broad public support.

 

[smartcooky]

Well he sort of vaguely semi-acknowledged that possibly it might not necessarily be you personally who is engaging in motivated reasoning.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP> for rule 12.

I never argue psion, I just explain why I'm right!

 

[zooterkin]

New Year, New Start, or something.

Keep it civil, please, folks. Discuss the topic without bickering or attacking one another. Thank you!

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin

 

[Hercules56]

Federal Appeals court will allow the California law banning guns in most public places to take effect.

Dumb decision since we know SCOTUS will probably overturn the entire thing and maybe even expand gun rights beyond the silly regulations of this law.

Oh well.

 

[arthwollipot]

The USA and UK have had different attitudes to guns over the decades, if not centuries, which go a long way to explaining why the US has higher gun deaths. It is those differing attitudes that meant a universal licensing system was acceptable in the UK, applying to all, good and bad, and the public did not push back. I presume it is the same elsewhere, as other western countries have similar systems to the UK. Then there are examples like Australia, where mass shootings have caused further tightening of those laws, with broad public support.

The USA was founded on a culture of armed rebellion against authority. Guns are deeply ingrained into the American sense of identity.

Now, since a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of the State, it's past time to rethink that ideology.

 

[psionl0]

The USA was founded on a culture of armed rebellion against authority. Guns are deeply ingrained into the American sense of identity.

Now, since a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of the State, it's past time to rethink that ideology.

"Trust us, we're the authorities" ? That must be the worst reason for gun control that anybody could come up with.

 

[arthwollipot]

"Trust us, we're the authorities" ? That must be the worst reason for gun control that anybody could come up with.

Did I say that was the reason? You're making **** up again.

 

[theprestige]

The USA was founded on a culture of armed rebellion against authority. Guns are deeply ingrained into the American sense of identity.

Now, since a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of the State, it's past time to rethink that ideology.

The right to bear arms still exists, though. The security of the state was one argument against infringing on it.

Take away that argument, and the right still exists. My ideology - philosophy, really - is that rights need compelling arguments *for* infringing on them. Removing an argument against infringement does not justify infringing if no new argument against is produced.

 

[Thermal]

I feel like I have the Right to Bare my Ass. I don't think it's any infringement on my Right to say I can't do so in public, or whenever I want.

 

[theprestige]

I feel like I have the Right to Bare my Ass. I don't think it's any infringement on my Right to say I can't do so in public, or whenever I want.

Of course it's an infringement. The question is whether the infringement is justified.

 

[Thermal]

Of course it's an infringement. The question is whether the infringement is justified.

Eeehhh... not sure if infringement should be so absolute. Starting from the preamble, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are not interpreted so strictly. Your pursuit of happiness surely stops at my nose, to confuse metaphors a bit. Your right to a speedy trial is also playing fast and loose with what "speedy" even means. Relatively. Not even getting into the ambiguity of cruel and unusual punishment. And whether "the People" in the 2A means a given individual or the citizenry as a collective is a bit up in the air.

But agreed, justification is more important. Is one of The People's Right to life/pursuit of happiness infringed on by a guy with a gat? Sometimes, surely. So maybe the justification for infringement should rely on who is more likely to have their rights infringed on, based on current data?

Eta: I obviously don't think the 2A means all the people, all the time, and all the arms. I don't think a violent suicidal man can carry a grenade into a kindergarten classroom, despite the apparent guarantee of this by the 2A selectively literalists.

 

[arthwollipot]

Of course it's an infringement. The question is whether the infringement is justified.

Which is one reason why a strictly codified Bill of Rights may not be such a good idea in the first place. Every right enumerated has to be qualified, excepted, interpreted. By this argument it is better to simply deal with specific cases with legislation and regulation.