4 ms·

Perhaps the presence of a comment like this, which itself seems primarily crafted to annoy and alienate I suspect you may have meant the grandparent comment, h

Perhaps the presence of a comment like this, which itself seems primarily crafted to annoy and alienate I suspect you may have meant the grandparent comment, however I also suspect it better applies to the parent comment. (EDIT: Those who know enough to do a technical analysis of such laws, for example, those in California, often come to the conclusion that harassment of the gun owners might be the intended outcome. In any case, it's widely acknowledged that it is the de facto outcome.) For the record, I was talking in a strictly epidemiological sense, which I will cede is one of the valid and rational ways to talk about gun control regulations.

wwweston 8y ago
> Those who know enough to do a technical analysis of such laws, for example, those in California, often come to the conclusion that harassment of the gun owners might be the intended outcome. Citation needed. Short of someone involved with the legislation actually saying "yes, well, the point of this is to annoy people who own guns, and we don't care what else the policy it introduces does", the premise that you actually have any idea what the motives of the people who introduce it is rather incredible, and violates the principle of charity. If there's a credible analysis to that effect, well, lead with that. Otherwise, it's most even-handed to assume that the motive behind firearm-related laws is no more to annoy and alienate any more than the purpose of automotive-related laws is to annoy and alienate drivers, though one could claim the latter case is the "de facto" outcome as well, since nobody loves traffic citations or vehicle registration requirements. Even if there's even a case we could do things another way, the laws that exist are drawn from the motives of accountability and safety. The motive for firearm laws is likely most commonly the same. > For the record, I was talking in a strictly epidemiological sense That claim would be more credible if you hadn't attributed a motive to legislation that was poorly sourced. But to get back to the matter of strict epidemiology: (1) I suppose it's possible that if the reason hunting has dwindled is primarily legal restrictions on either hunting or firearms, then that would be reflected in how the deer population is checked by humans. But I think it's much more likely that in a society with democratic representation, disinterest in hunting would lead legal obstacles to it, rather than the other way around. If there's a correlation, then that's probably the direction it goes. (2) But that "if" is a generous one. If we expect that restrictions on hunting with firearms are a significant determinant in disease conditions on local deer populations, then we would also expect the locales with strictures on hunting or guns would be the ones we're seeing the most significant spread. Since you picked on California, presumably you'd expect that to be a primary host of the epidemic. But if we're going by, say, the CDC map in the article, the center of the largest outbreak covers Wyoming, reaching into adjacent states, none of which are exactly famous for restrictive firearm laws (or, for that matter, party governance bent on annoying gun owners). Next on that list you've got Wisconsin and Illinois, which I suppose is good news for partisans who want to argue the center of the outbreak is the deer population in urban Chicago clearly run amok because of its restrictive gun laws. In short, the outbreak map runs largely counter to your thesis. Now, maybe it was unfair of me to compare your unflattering narrative regarding the motives of those drafting gun laws OR your not-particularly-well-established epidemiological theories to the cognitive problems of someone suffering from prion diseases. You are presumably in full health, and I can own that perhaps it was needlessly rude to make a comparison with a person likely suffering from an illness that may have involved factors they had no awareness of or control over. But absent a high-quality rebuttal to everything I've argued here, what's your explanation?
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Citation needed. That claim would be more credible if you hadn't attributed a motive to legislation that was poorly sourced. The recent Duncan v. Becerra ruling speaks to the arbitrary nature of the California laws. I don't think your assertion about my motives is well founded, given the contents of this thread. the outbreak map runs largely counter to your thesis. You are doing a rather shallow analysis, which inherently contains a misreading of my assertion. I was speculating about laws as a contributing factor. This doesn't rule out other factors. If anything, the evidence you cited possibly supports gun laws as a contributing factor. OR your not-particularly-well-established epidemiological theories to the cognitive problems of someone suffering from prion diseases. Whoa, big nonsequitur there. I was only talking about the incidence of, not the pathology around the prion disease. I think your tone and the thread pretty much speaks for itself.
  - wwweston 8y ago
    > Duncan v. Becerra ruling speaks to the arbitrary nature of the California laws. As swellingly vague as a concept like "the arbitrary nature of California laws" is, it only almost expands to a breadth where it could cover a retreat from "law intentionally crafted to annoy and alienate gun owners," from which it is still notably distinct. I can't say I knew very much about Duncan v. Becerra before your comment, and I am not a lawyer. But I just went and read what appears to be the ruling from Judge Benitez [1], and it appears to be 86 pages on the merits of a California law with very little to say about its intent (beyond acknowledging state intent as one of safety, anyway). Specific conclusions that annoying and alienating gun owners were among motives when the specific relevant law was crafted seem to be absent, and this while Benitez is clearly comfortable pulling a wide variety of arguments into his opinion that the law would not achieve its intended purposes and doesn't meet proposed tests around 2nd amendment muster. I'd guess that if evidence about the motives you attributed to those crafting this law were available, there'd be no reason for him to leave them out. Additionally, Benitez makes pointed care about not even attributing motives to mass shooters who have in fact selected large capacity magazines, on the basis that short of recorded statements from them, there's no way to know what those motives are. Presumably he would make the same deference to legislators. Perhaps, if his ruling is among the influences for what you're bringing to the thread, you could follow suit. Or perhaps there's other evidence which allows you to confidently speak about lawmaking motives appears in some supporting court documentation you'll be happy to point to? Or perhaps your appeal to authority -- an unspecified authority no less ("Those who know enough to do a technical analysis of such laws") -- has another specific authority behind it? That is, assuming you're still defending the statement "Those who know enough to do a technical analysis of such laws, for example, those in California, often come to the conclusion that harassment of the gun owners might be the intended outcome." There's always the option to walk that back as an overstep. > You are doing a rather shallow analysis, which inherently contains a misreading of my assertion. I was speculating about laws as a contributing factor. This doesn't rule out other factors. If anything, the evidence you cited possibly supports gun laws as a contributing factor. I suppose things would be so much easier if we could just narrate primacy in arguments rather than articulating them, right? Or to be more plain: show, don't tell. If my analysis above is "shallow", explain how. If I misread your assertion, restate your assertion with unequivocal clarity. And if data that shows the overwhelming balance of territory where CWD is spreading appears to be in states with laws friendly to gun ownership (as what's in the article appears to) supports your assertion that firearm restrictions contribute to the spread of CWD, you might have to do more than just say so, because that's... counterintuitive, to put it generously. > I think your tone and the thread pretty much speaks for itself. The funny thing is that even this portion of your comment appears to be false -- if you really believed that, why come back to further argue what "speaks for itself"? Especially armed with a brief legal reference that doesn't seem to support your assertion (whatever its effectiveness in judging the merits rather than the intent of the law) along with an attempt to substitute a narrative of argument for elaborating one. And if we're going to talk about tone, well, you can account for the tonal contributions of unsupported attribution of harassment as motive behind lawmaking. [1] https://crpa.org/news/blogs/crpanews-special-alert-win-duncan-v-becerra/ https://crpa.org/news/blogs/crpanews-special-alert-win-dunca...

wwweston 8y ago

> Those who know enough to do a technical analysis of such laws, for example, those in California, often come to the conclusion that harassment of the gun owners might be the intended outcome. Citation needed. Short of someone involved with the legislation actually saying "yes, well, the point of this is to annoy people who own guns, and we don't care what else the policy it introduces does", the premise that you actually have any idea what the motives of the people who introduce it is rather incredible, and violates the principle of charity. If there's a credible analysis to that effect, well, lead with that. Otherwise, it's most even-handed to assume that the motive behind firearm-related laws is no more to annoy and alienate any more than the purpose of automotive-related laws is to annoy and alienate drivers, though one could claim the latter case is the "de facto" outcome as well, since nobody loves traffic citations or vehicle registration requirements. Even if there's even a case we could do things another way, the laws that exist are drawn from the motives of accountability and safety. The motive for firearm laws is likely most commonly the same. > For the record, I was talking in a strictly epidemiological sense That claim would be more credible if you hadn't attributed a motive to legislation that was poorly sourced. But to get back to the matter of strict epidemiology: (1) I suppose it's possible that if the reason hunting has dwindled is primarily legal restrictions on either hunting or firearms, then that would be reflected in how the deer population is checked by humans. But I think it's much more likely that in a society with democratic representation, disinterest in hunting would lead legal obstacles to it, rather than the other way around. If there's a correlation, then that's probably the direction it goes. (2) But that "if" is a generous one. If we expect that restrictions on hunting with firearms are a significant determinant in disease conditions on local deer populations, then we would also expect the locales with strictures on hunting or guns would be the ones we're seeing the most significant spread. Since you picked on California, presumably you'd expect that to be a primary host of the epidemic. But if we're going by, say, the CDC map in the article, the center of the largest outbreak covers Wyoming, reaching into adjacent states, none of which are exactly famous for restrictive firearm laws (or, for that matter, party governance bent on annoying gun owners). Next on that list you've got Wisconsin and Illinois, which I suppose is good news for partisans who want to argue the center of the outbreak is the deer population in urban Chicago clearly run amok because of its restrictive gun laws. In short, the outbreak map runs largely counter to your thesis. Now, maybe it was unfair of me to compare your unflattering narrative regarding the motives of those drafting gun laws OR your not-particularly-well-established epidemiological theories to the cognitive problems of someone suffering from prion diseases. You are presumably in full health, and I can own that perhaps it was needlessly rude to make a comparison with a person likely suffering from an illness that may have involved factors they had no awareness of or control over. But absent a high-quality rebuttal to everything I've argued here, what's your explanation?

stcredzero 8y ago
Citation needed. That claim would be more credible if you hadn't attributed a motive to legislation that was poorly sourced. The recent Duncan v. Becerra ruling speaks to the arbitrary nature of the California laws. I don't think your assertion about my motives is well founded, given the contents of this thread. the outbreak map runs largely counter to your thesis. You are doing a rather shallow analysis, which inherently contains a misreading of my assertion. I was speculating about laws as a contributing factor. This doesn't rule out other factors. If anything, the evidence you cited possibly supports gun laws as a contributing factor. OR your not-particularly-well-established epidemiological theories to the cognitive problems of someone suffering from prion diseases. Whoa, big nonsequitur there. I was only talking about the incidence of, not the pathology around the prion disease. I think your tone and the thread pretty much speaks for itself.
- wwweston 8y ago
  > Duncan v. Becerra ruling speaks to the arbitrary nature of the California laws. As swellingly vague as a concept like "the arbitrary nature of California laws" is, it only almost expands to a breadth where it could cover a retreat from "law intentionally crafted to annoy and alienate gun owners," from which it is still notably distinct. I can't say I knew very much about Duncan v. Becerra before your comment, and I am not a lawyer. But I just went and read what appears to be the ruling from Judge Benitez [1], and it appears to be 86 pages on the merits of a California law with very little to say about its intent (beyond acknowledging state intent as one of safety, anyway). Specific conclusions that annoying and alienating gun owners were among motives when the specific relevant law was crafted seem to be absent, and this while Benitez is clearly comfortable pulling a wide variety of arguments into his opinion that the law would not achieve its intended purposes and doesn't meet proposed tests around 2nd amendment muster. I'd guess that if evidence about the motives you attributed to those crafting this law were available, there'd be no reason for him to leave them out. Additionally, Benitez makes pointed care about not even attributing motives to mass shooters who have in fact selected large capacity magazines, on the basis that short of recorded statements from them, there's no way to know what those motives are. Presumably he would make the same deference to legislators. Perhaps, if his ruling is among the influences for what you're bringing to the thread, you could follow suit. Or perhaps there's other evidence which allows you to confidently speak about lawmaking motives appears in some supporting court documentation you'll be happy to point to? Or perhaps your appeal to authority -- an unspecified authority no less ("Those who know enough to do a technical analysis of such laws") -- has another specific authority behind it? That is, assuming you're still defending the statement "Those who know enough to do a technical analysis of such laws, for example, those in California, often come to the conclusion that harassment of the gun owners might be the intended outcome." There's always the option to walk that back as an overstep. > You are doing a rather shallow analysis, which inherently contains a misreading of my assertion. I was speculating about laws as a contributing factor. This doesn't rule out other factors. If anything, the evidence you cited possibly supports gun laws as a contributing factor. I suppose things would be so much easier if we could just narrate primacy in arguments rather than articulating them, right? Or to be more plain: show, don't tell. If my analysis above is "shallow", explain how. If I misread your assertion, restate your assertion with unequivocal clarity. And if data that shows the overwhelming balance of territory where CWD is spreading appears to be in states with laws friendly to gun ownership (as what's in the article appears to) supports your assertion that firearm restrictions contribute to the spread of CWD, you might have to do more than just say so, because that's... counterintuitive, to put it generously. > I think your tone and the thread pretty much speaks for itself. The funny thing is that even this portion of your comment appears to be false -- if you really believed that, why come back to further argue what "speaks for itself"? Especially armed with a brief legal reference that doesn't seem to support your assertion (whatever its effectiveness in judging the merits rather than the intent of the law) along with an attempt to substitute a narrative of argument for elaborating one. And if we're going to talk about tone, well, you can account for the tonal contributions of unsupported attribution of harassment as motive behind lawmaking. [1] https://crpa.org/news/blogs/crpanews-special-alert-win-duncan-v-becerra/ https://crpa.org/news/blogs/crpanews-special-alert-win-dunca...