[ds9]

Those are the relevant first principles according to you. As the linked writer indicates, others believe the relevant principle is something like "whatever policy will produce the best outcome, according to statistics such as firearm deaths, is the right one".

I agree that we would be better off eliciting these sorts of underlying assumptions, and acknowledging them openly, and trying to discuss them - instead of stating value-judgment conclusions on the basis of unstated assumptions about principles.

In other words, people talk past each other, failing to address one another's real concerns. Taking gun control again, the "liberal" thinks the statistics (which may or may not be valid, etc.) are dispositive, while the "conservative" sees instead an issue of basic rights, to which the stats are hardly relevant. There is no progress unless each is willing to directly address the premises the other relies on.

[einhverfr]

> Those are the relevant first principles according to you. As the linked writer indicates, others believe the relevant principle is something like "whatever policy will produce the best outcome, according to statistics such as firearm deaths, is the right one".

But that is based on an idea that life is more important than liberty, right? That statement follows from it.