(May 14, 2023 at 8:14 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:(May 13, 2023 at 6:49 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Right, which is why you don't settle for the first "study"/opinion piece coming down the pike as having anything but tentative conclusions. And that doesn't address the other problems. The bottom line is that accepting the only study of a field as more accurate simply because no others have yet been done is idiotic. It's assuming the study is correct in its conclusions, and as we know, or should know as you apparently do not, the onus of evidence is on the claimant.
The burden of proof initially lies on one making the claim. But once the one making the claim provides some proof, the burden of proof switches onto the one who is claiming that proof is wrong.
Think of the Mad Revisionists, the conspiracy theorists who are claiming that the Moon doesn't exist. They claim that the burden of proof is on us who claim the Moon exists, but that's incortect. There is a proof that the Moon exists: we see it. Since they claim there is something wrong with that proof, that the Moon is a hologram, the burden of proof is on them.
Besides, I think that the burden of proof even a-priori lies on those supporting gun control. Gun control is a coercive government policy, and claiming that coercion helps is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.
Seat belts in cars can be considered a coercive government policy, as can air bags, eliminating asbestos and lead-based paints in construction, non-toxic children's toys, health standards for food handling, and workplace safety regulations. These clearly help. How is that claim extraordinary?
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
