Mass shooting in the middle school Vladislav Ribnikar in Belgrade

[arewethereyet]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I feel safer already, just knowing he’s out there.

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

"He might have a bias." is not a valid argument to reject a scientific study. You need to prove that he has a bias by doing a better study.

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.

[FlatAssembler]

Based on this Teen Uses Slingshot To Rescue Sister

A teenager helped save his younger sister from an alleged kidnapper by shooting the suspect with his slingshot, Michigan authorities said.

I can confidently conclude that slingshots save an estimated 462 355 lives per year.

Boru

LOL, wait, what data are you basing your conclusion on? How mant people did you interview and how?

[The Grand Nudger]

I went to take out the trash, and there was a fucking gorilla in my driveway. Good thing I had my slingshot!

I was minding my own business at the zoo when I noticed there was a goddamned gorilla in the bushes. Nobody else saw it. I'm there with my kids. I knew I had to act. Good thing I had my slingshot!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ban wristrockets!

Nonsense…we must encourage all people to carry them wherever they go. Clearly, the more slingshots in the hand of violence-prone people who know bugger all about slingshot safety will result in fewer people being injured by slingshots.

Contrariwise, if slingshots are banned, more people will be murdered by slingshots.

Boru

But -- but -- they're being used to save sisters.

Ye gods, I must go clean up after typing that.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Gun control is a coercive government policy, and claiming that coercion helps is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.

I need to know that Kleck is not full of shit. Whatcha got? Show me how you know his numbers are good. That's your only assignment for your next reply to me.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I went to take out the trash, and there was a fucking gorilla in my driveway.  Good thing I had my slingshot!  

I was minding my own business at the zoo when I noticed there was a goddamned gorilla in the bushes.  Nobody else saw it.  I'm there with my kids.  I knew I had to act.  Good thing I had my slingshot!

I saw a werewolf drinking a piña colada at Trader Vic's. Man, his hair was perfect.

So I shot him.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

[The Grand Nudger]

I went to take out the trash, and there was a fucking gorilla in my driveway.  Good thing I had my slingshot!  

I was minding my own business at the zoo when I noticed there was a goddamned gorilla in the bushes.  Nobody else saw it.  I'm there with my kids.  I knew I had to act.  Good thing I had my slingshot!

I saw a werewolf drinking a piña colada at Trader Vic's. Man, his hair was perfect.

So I shot him.

All valid points of data in the very best studies on defensive use.