Mass shooting in the middle school Vladislav Ribnikar in Belgrade

[The Architect Of Fate]

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 existence of laws is technically coercive government policy after all it's not like following them is optional.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not convinced that coercion is a good policy for dealing with domestic terrorists when shooting them is on the table.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Nope the burden of proof is on the pro gun nut side and they have failed in every way.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not convinced that coercion is a good policy for dealing with domestic terrorists when shooting them is on the table.

I personally think we should be legally obligated to shoot them with our legally-mandated guns. I mean, if more guns makes for a safer society, the government should issue guns to the citizenry and give them training ... and then turn them loose. i can't see any real downside to this. Anybody else?

[The Grand Nudger]

Right there with you dude. We could even make voting rights and access to public programs dependent on at least one confirmed kill of a domestic terrorist. Guns ands ammo will be freely available, but if you want some of that sweet sweet WIC money you'll have to put em to work!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Right there with you dude.  We could even make voting rights and access to public programs dependent on at least one confirmed kill of a domestic terrorist.  Guns ands ammo will be freely available, but if you want some of that sweet sweet WIC money you'll have to put em to work!

That's fucking brilliant, we'll put those shiftless brown immigrants to work for their handouts killing terroristas for us. We could tie assistance-levels to kill-counts. Of course, we'd have to make a verification system, because we all know overclaiming happens in any combat environment. Maybe after 100 kills, your TANF card could buy cigarettes and alcohol legally?

I think we're onto something here, brotha.

[The Grand Nudger]

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

I just wanted to give you props for eventually arriving at a fascinating question.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'm not convinced that coercion is a good policy for dealing with domestic terrorists when shooting them is on the table.

I personally think we should be legally obligated to shoot them with our legally-mandated guns. I mean, if more guns makes for a safer society, the government should issue guns to the citizenry and give them training ... and then turn them loose. i can't see any real downside to this. Anybody else?

But requiring training is coercive. Clearly, untrained firearms users are more of a boon to the social order than people who know where the safety is.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Training is expensive and has varying levels of effect per individual. That's why I want to give the assualt rifles to minors specifically. Adults have different levels of training and different rates of occurrence - but children are uniformly less likely to shoot anyone than adults no matter their level of training. Also, they tend to be the first on the scene in a terror attack..for reasons.

They'll be learning on the job. We can purchase the rifles with school-to-work program infrasture.

[arewethereyet]

Training is expensive and has varying levels of effect per individual.  That's why I want to give the assualt rifles to minors specifically.  Adults have different levels of training and different rates of occurrence - but children are uniformly less likely to shoot anyone than adults no matter their level of training.  Also, they tend to be the first on the scene in a terror attack..for reasons.

They'll be learning on the job.  We can purchase the rifles with school-to-work program infrasture.

Lots of school were giving out Chromebooks (that were more trouble than they were worth) during the pandemic, they could now give out weapons.