> Centrism has always meant too stupid or milquetoast to stake out a proper position.
Even when people hold views different to mine, I am careful not to ascribe this to some fundamental flaw in their character. There are lots of ways to be wrong about something that are incidental and understandable, and these apply to me as well as others.
I don't think this practice (c.f. "fundamental attribution error") is a route to truth or productive discourse.
Most issues are multidimensional but lets simplify. The most extreme pro gun rights position would see militias with machine guns, felons with guns, teachers and a small army of security guards packing heat to fight school shooters.
The most extreme anti gun rights position would see few private citizens without a specific need armed.
A centrist position has typically been to do almost nothing to allow some states to do minor reforms so long as gun rights aren't impacted.
The fact that the developed world virtually all exists towards very highly centrally regulated to nonexistant gun ownership and isn't constantly burying children suggests that this is the right strategy and that deviation is defect worse many strategies for handling many issues require commitment and half measures do nothing.
Take a wife beater who hasn't caught a felony yet but whose history of violent behavior ought to disqualify him. Banning his gun ownership due to misdemeanor and denying him or seizing his registered guns might statistically save his wife but a waiting period for a new handgun won't.
Even when people hold views different to mine, I am careful not to ascribe this to some fundamental flaw in their character. There are lots of ways to be wrong about something that are incidental and understandable, and these apply to me as well as others.
I don't think this practice (c.f. "fundamental attribution error") is a route to truth or productive discourse.