Quote:I don't understand why the burden of proof would be on the pro-gun side. They are not the ones advocating the use of force. It's the anti-gun people who are advocating the use of force (to forcibly take guns away from people), so obviously they have to at least prove it will result in the desired outcomes (less violent crime).Glecks study is crap and your perspective is delusional.
And even if the burden of proof is initially on the pro-gun side, doesn't the Gary Kleck study (concluding that guns save 10x more lives as they take) switch that burden of proof? Like the fact that we see the Moon switches the burden of proof onto the Mad Revisionists (the conspiracy theorists who claim the Moon doesn't exist).
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
![[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=cdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0630%2F5310%2F3332%2Fproducts%2FCanada_Flag.jpg%3Fv%3D1646203843)
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
