Loving Gun Debate
Hi! Happy Tuesday!
Just a reminder that "I want ____" or "I don't want _____" is sufficient justification to vote. In addition, couple this notion with the fact that the only requirement for amending the U.S. Constitution is a set of majority votes of no justification then it is possible to have a loving gun debate.
Just a reminder that Irreni World Scale is about solutions, not punditry and today's solution is about having a loving gun debate.
I don't like guns. For me this is enough justification to amend the US constitution to repeal and replace the 2nd Amendment. For me I want an amendment to ban private ownership of guns and then to dump all the privately owned guns into either the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean. This is my gun position. If you feel differently that's great, see you at the voting booth.
And this works as a loving gun debate.
There is nothing in the US Constitution that says a priest, preacher or otherwise holy person has to pronounce religious justification of a God given right. Nope. Votes about law require no justification in our government. Legal changes require a majority vote of no justification and those voting in the majority can do so for any reason or whim, up to and including amending the constitution. This means arguments regarding God-given rights are made moot by the process required for changing rights being unjustified.
So a political debate can be loving by just stating you vote as you want, not for any particular reason.
It is not irresponsible to vote about guns simply based on want. Why? Because social science just does not exist for definitive policy about guns. Arguments regarding self-defense, citizens defending against tyranny, etc. have no concrete social science backing them.
Science is not reason by-the-way. Reason is a poor substitute for science. Many facts of life defy intuition and its sister, reasoning. For example, the notion that for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction fails with the electro-magnetic force: the reaction is equal and orthogonal, not opposite. Then again, there is the intuition defying fact that electrons have no size. We know this because 100% of the change in direction when colliding two electrons is attributable to the electro-magnetic force; no kinetic rebound energy is detected due to collision of mass size. Saying something has no size is not reasonable based on our intuition but it is a scientific fact.
So being firmly fixed in voting about guns based simply on what you want is not being anti-intellectual.
So why debate at all if the science is lacking? Because we still have to make public policy and successful public policy of this nature requires people's cooperation.
Gun arguments are all scientifically specious but sound good on the face of it, i.e. are reasonable. For example, on the pro-gun side there exists the argument of owning a gun for self-defense. Sounds reasonable. However, the science of the NYPD says otherwise. The NYPD has decades of data showing home-owners who possess guns are far more likely to be injured or killed during a home invasion than those who don't. Why:
Then there is the pro-gun, guns defend against tyranny argument. If in fact an unarmed citizenry were the only thing keeping tyranny at bay then modern day United Kingdom, Canada, Japan and Australia should all have fallen to tyranny long ago.
The pro-gun control arguments are just as scientifically specious as well. The background check argument presumes that a single point in time is a meaningful mental health check. People can have mental health breaks at any time during life. Further people with mental health issues can make a recovery and our current permanent life-time ban due to failing a single mental-health check is unfair.
Acknowledging the above makes it obvious that agreeing to disagree is easy. There is just not enough science to assert public policy with any degree of certainty and so wanting or not wanting something is an equally responsible way to vote.
I always start out debating gun rights, abortion rights or other such political topics of weak social science stating I vote what I want:
Politics as Science!
Demand Irreni World Scale!
Anti-theism is feminism!
Think disruption!
Empathy for all!
Moral relativity: think it, breath it!
Prove it or lose it!
Conversations equal consensus!
Welcome to the 21st century!
Scale your empathy, scale the world!
Find your tribe!
Be sexy people!
The future is coming!
Innovate at a rapid pace!
Slow speed ahead!
Well come! and well met!
Just a reminder that "I want ____" or "I don't want _____" is sufficient justification to vote. In addition, couple this notion with the fact that the only requirement for amending the U.S. Constitution is a set of majority votes of no justification then it is possible to have a loving gun debate.
Just a reminder that Irreni World Scale is about solutions, not punditry and today's solution is about having a loving gun debate.
I don't like guns. For me this is enough justification to amend the US constitution to repeal and replace the 2nd Amendment. For me I want an amendment to ban private ownership of guns and then to dump all the privately owned guns into either the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean. This is my gun position. If you feel differently that's great, see you at the voting booth.
And this works as a loving gun debate.
There is nothing in the US Constitution that says a priest, preacher or otherwise holy person has to pronounce religious justification of a God given right. Nope. Votes about law require no justification in our government. Legal changes require a majority vote of no justification and those voting in the majority can do so for any reason or whim, up to and including amending the constitution. This means arguments regarding God-given rights are made moot by the process required for changing rights being unjustified.
So a political debate can be loving by just stating you vote as you want, not for any particular reason.
It is not irresponsible to vote about guns simply based on want. Why? Because social science just does not exist for definitive policy about guns. Arguments regarding self-defense, citizens defending against tyranny, etc. have no concrete social science backing them.
Science is not reason by-the-way. Reason is a poor substitute for science. Many facts of life defy intuition and its sister, reasoning. For example, the notion that for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction fails with the electro-magnetic force: the reaction is equal and orthogonal, not opposite. Then again, there is the intuition defying fact that electrons have no size. We know this because 100% of the change in direction when colliding two electrons is attributable to the electro-magnetic force; no kinetic rebound energy is detected due to collision of mass size. Saying something has no size is not reasonable based on our intuition but it is a scientific fact.
So being firmly fixed in voting about guns based simply on what you want is not being anti-intellectual.
So why debate at all if the science is lacking? Because we still have to make public policy and successful public policy of this nature requires people's cooperation.
Gun arguments are all scientifically specious but sound good on the face of it, i.e. are reasonable. For example, on the pro-gun side there exists the argument of owning a gun for self-defense. Sounds reasonable. However, the science of the NYPD says otherwise. The NYPD has decades of data showing home-owners who possess guns are far more likely to be injured or killed during a home invasion than those who don't. Why:
- The criminal is ready and prepared to shoot-to-kill, the victim is startled and mentally unprepared.
- The victim is woken from sleep and not mentally alert.
- Loved ones are at home. Criminals are not hesitant about randomly shooting but the victims are thinking about who is sleeping in the next room.
- Non-gun owners do not threaten.
- Non-gun owners run away.
Then there is the pro-gun, guns defend against tyranny argument. If in fact an unarmed citizenry were the only thing keeping tyranny at bay then modern day United Kingdom, Canada, Japan and Australia should all have fallen to tyranny long ago.
The pro-gun control arguments are just as scientifically specious as well. The background check argument presumes that a single point in time is a meaningful mental health check. People can have mental health breaks at any time during life. Further people with mental health issues can make a recovery and our current permanent life-time ban due to failing a single mental-health check is unfair.
Acknowledging the above makes it obvious that agreeing to disagree is easy. There is just not enough science to assert public policy with any degree of certainty and so wanting or not wanting something is an equally responsible way to vote.
I always start out debating gun rights, abortion rights or other such political topics of weak social science stating I vote what I want:
- I don't want guns.
- I want there to exist access to abortions.
- I want universal health care.
Politics as Science!
Demand Irreni World Scale!
Anti-theism is feminism!
Think disruption!
Empathy for all!
Moral relativity: think it, breath it!
Prove it or lose it!
Conversations equal consensus!
Welcome to the 21st century!
Scale your empathy, scale the world!
Find your tribe!
Be sexy people!
The future is coming!
Innovate at a rapid pace!
Slow speed ahead!
Well come! and well met!
Comments
Post a Comment