True. But lack of correlation is proof of lack of causation. That crime went down as more civilians lawfully carried does not prove that lawful carry reduces crime – but it very definitely proves that lawful carry does not increase crime.

In other words, there is no social benefit to restricting lawful carry. Violent crime are committed by criminals, and those who will carry, when allowed to do so by law, who would not carry, when not, are almost definitionally law-abiding citizens who pose no significant threat to society, whether they are allowed to carry or not.

Also, he, not she.

The fundamental truth is that for the State to forbid any action, by any individual, in the absence of evidence of a likelihood of harm by that individual, is simply incompatible with a free society.

No it’s not.

Kyralessa’s complaint isn’t that we’ve not been having a debate, nor that we’ve not been able to compromise and reach a consensus, but that she’s lost the debate, and she disagrees with the consensus.

One of Kyralessa’s main points was that American’s tend to take up all-or-nothing, no-possible-middle-ground positions that make fruitful debate virtually impossible.

Do you see that flatly stating “It’s not a matter of facts, it’s a matter of fundamental principles.” kind of proves Kyralessa’s point?
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.

It’s not a matter of facts, it’s a matter of fundamental principles.

On one side, we have anti-gun researchers and on the other we have pro-gun researchers, and we get into endless arguments about the flaws in one side’s statistics, or the other’s. Kellerman vs. Lott, Ludwig vs. Kates. Over and over again.

And it’s all beside the point.

The fundamental truth is that for the State to forbid any action, by any individual, in the absence of evidence of a likelihood of harm by that individual, is simply incompatible with a free society.

If nurse working third shift in an inner city hospital feels that she’d be safer carrying a gun, on her long dark walk back to her car, or while sitting alone at the bus stop, she has the right to do so. Even if she is wrong about whether she would be safer by so doing.

It’s her life, and her choice.

And for the State to be justified in telling her that she cannot, the State should have evidence that she, as an individual, poses a threat to others.

Statistical arguments about what other people might do, if they were allowed to carry, has no relevance. She should be judged only on what she is likely to do, as determined by her own past behavior and past actions. Punishing one for the actions of another can never be just.

Wait, doesn’t Switzerland have a lot of guns too? Yes. But it’s the *mindset* that’s different. In American guns are for self-defense. In Switzerland guns are for national defense. Here in Switzerland you don’t carry your gun around everywhere on the off chance that you might prevent a mugging or a mass shooting. You keep your gun at home, in the dark corners of your closet, unloaded, in case the country is invaded.

And despite the specter of an unarmed populace, the murder rate in Switzerland is one-seventh that of the U.S. The other day I walked home through Bern, from a very late church service, at 2 a.m. Nobody bothered me, except one guy who merely asked if I could spare a cigarette. It’s a very safe place, because people here don’t have guns and gun violence in their blood like so many Americans do.

Yeah, well this is kind of the point behind what I’ve been doing. I know myself well enough to know that on some days I am going to sit down and have an extra-large burrito washed down by half a bottle of wine, and I guarantee you that is more calories than your sushi platter (which looks delicious, by the way.) And I wouldn’t want to give that up, tbh. I enjoy it.

But I am also pretty fine with not eating very much at all for a day or three here and there. And that creates a calorie deficit that would be really hard for me to overcome quickly unless I set out to gorge myself.

The issue with losing weight or keeping weight off is pretty much compliance. We know that if we actually do create a significant calorie deficit we will lose tissue (hopefully fat.) That’s the simple part. Figuring out what regimen that creates that deficit we can comply with is the hard part, and I suspect it varies a great deal from person to person, and doesn’t really exist at all for some people.