🇳🇱
Seems pretty clear to me, want to place limits on it, get support for a new amendment.
@freemo constitutional scholars have debated the intent of these words for years. Regardless we have a major problem in the US that other countries with stricter gun laws do not have. That is incontrovertible. We must amend the second amendment.
> Constitutional scholars have debated the intent of these words for years.
Not any constitutional scholars who deserve to be called that... The founding fathers explicitly explained what they meant, and the courts of the time have made more than enough rulings to make clear exactly what the initial interpretation was.
> Regardless we have a major problem in the US that other countries with stricter gun laws do not have. That is incontrovertible.
Nah there are tons of ways you could phrase that, you are assuming a cause-effect relationship when the data suggests there either is none, or it is the inverse of what you apply.
For example you could also have said:
"Regardless we have a major problem in the US that other countries with better access to mental health do not have. That is incontrovertible."
Replace "access to mental health" with "access to welfare", "less medical debt" or a thousand other correlations you could cherry pick that all have the potential to be the true root cause.. Most of the data strongly implies that it most certainly is not the guns.
> We must amend the second amendment.
I agree, but I would reword it to take out the "well regulated militia" example (as it seems to confuse anti-gun people) and very clearly state no class or type of gun shall be banned... though I'm sure thats the opposite direction you wanted to go.
But hey as long as your trying to do it through the proper legal route of changing an amendment I will give you credit there.
@freemo
> Not any constitutional scholars
> who deserve to be called that…
This is clearly your opinion.
As for your premise that other measures would mitigate gun violence, you're absolutely right and we should have better social supports, but it is also true (the data supports this) that stricter gun laws result in less gun violence.
> This is clearly your opinion.
Clearly, I'd wager a correct opinion as well. But yes it is an opinion, much as it is your opinion as to who you think qualifies as a constitutional scholar.
> As for your premise that other measures would mitigate gun violence, you’re absolutely right and we should have better social supports,
Good glad we agree on that.
> but it is also true (the data supports this) that stricter gun laws result in less gun violence.
Absolutely false, but there is a lot of intellectually dishonest analysis from both sides, so I can understand how you might make this incorrect assumption, in fact the opposite is true (the data that is well done and objective, using valid arguments, strongly suggests reducing guns increases violence.)
- https://giffords.org/lawcenter/resources/scorecard/
- https://www.everytown.org/debunking-gun-myths-at-the-dinner-table/
- https://efsgv.org/learn/learn-more-about-gun-violence/mental-illness-and-gun-violence/
- https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/policy-evaluation/
- https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/
Tangentially related:
- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-in-rural-areas-die-at-higher-rates-than-those-in-urban-areas/
I can tell that this won't convince you. Most likely you'll look at this and say that these are all biased/flawed/whatever, just like when I look for counter-evidence I don't trust anything from the NRA or other obviously biased organizations.
I also think that you might be interested in this book https://amzn.to/406tWNb which talks about how we form our beliefs.
When you provided tbose links it appears you completely ignkred tbe criteria i explained would make a good study and what wouldnt... why are you cherry picking studies we already covered woukd be dishonest intellectually in this debate rather than using analysis that uses causality tests and therefore woukd be valid?
You can absolutely change my mind, i change my mind 10 times before breakfast. But i was carreful to explain the criteria before you did exactly what you did and post studies that are trch ically true but simply do not apply to the argument at hand, much like the antivaxxer nonsense of "if we made vaccines illegal there would bw less vaccine related death... like sure jts true, and sure you can find studies to verify it, but jt also has nothing to do with if vaccines should be legal either.
Now i explained earlier before you even posted why studies of these nature woukd be jntellectually dishonest, did you not understand that, do you want to get into that again or we just burrying our head in the sand now.
Talk to me when you have studies that use proper analysis for thr problrm, causality tests.
@justaboutnormal I think we would have to discuss the criteria and conditions first... I dont know your level of expertise. Presuming you are familiar with fair statistical analysis can we agree that we can use simple correlation against other countries due to confounding and the way to analyze this sort of data is using granger causality or similar causality tests?