We’re in an age where utopian goals stated by change advocates is justification enough, absent any evidence of support, for many citizens, and that is an age in which intellectual reason is increasingly absent.
Incumbent upon anyone proposing change is the burden to provide evidence to support the claim that his desired change will produce the, assumed, advantageous result desired from the change. In short, this is called the burden of proof and in any honest debate it mostly must be shouldered by the affirmative, the party suggesting change.
However, in our society in the last few decades there has been great erosion of this basic idea and one reason is that having to prove that change works to achieve the ends sought and, along with that, does not produce disadvantages as bad as the original problem, is a serious impediment to revolutionary social and political action.
These activists… are never pressed to provide answers to key questions fundamental to their position.
According to a story headlined “Fightin’ words: ER docs vs. NRA over gun violence” in the Houston Chronicle, thousands of “doctors, nurses, paramedics, social workers and other health professionals” signed a letter attacking the National Rifle Association because the NRA opposes classifying gun violence as a “public health crisis” as well as opposes more restrictions on gun purchases by law abiding people.
These activists who, if their policies were implemented fully, would effectively remove a law abiding person’s ability to bear arms for the protection of themselves and others, are never pressed to provide answers to key questions fundamental to their position.
The obvious question is: What evidence have you that laws against the possession and use of firearms prevent the criminally minded from obtaining and using guns or committing the same violence in other ways? There are dozens of obvious questions those suggesting firearms restrictions should be pressed to ask but rarely are.
Hey ER docs! Where is your evidence?
Incumbent upon anyone proposing change is the burden to provide evidence to support the claim that his desired change will produce the, assumed, advantageous result desired from the change. In short, this is called the burden of proof and in any honest debate it mostly must be shouldered by the affirmative, the party suggesting change.
However, in our society in the last few decades there has been great erosion of this basic idea and one reason is that having to prove that change works to achieve the ends sought and, along with that, does not produce disadvantages as bad as the original problem, is a serious impediment to revolutionary social and political action.
These activists… are never pressed to provide answers to key questions fundamental to their position.
According to a story headlined “Fightin’ words: ER docs vs. NRA over gun violence” in the Houston Chronicle, thousands of “doctors, nurses, paramedics, social workers and other health professionals” signed a letter attacking the National Rifle Association because the NRA opposes classifying gun violence as a “public health crisis” as well as opposes more restrictions on gun purchases by law abiding people.
These activists who, if their policies were implemented fully, would effectively remove a law abiding person’s ability to bear arms for the protection of themselves and others, are never pressed to provide answers to key questions fundamental to their position.
The obvious question is: What evidence have you that laws against the possession and use of firearms prevent the criminally minded from obtaining and using guns or committing the same violence in other ways? There are dozens of obvious questions those suggesting firearms restrictions should be pressed to ask but rarely are.