Posted: 2/13/2013 4:12:40 PM EDT
I need some help identifying logical fallacies in gun control arguments for a class. I just need a few examples. I having difficulty discerning between them. 
Thanks for the help! 
|
|
God, there are so many...
From wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies Appeal to probability – takes something for granted because it would probably be the case, (or might possibly be the case) So therefore, since an AR15 was used to shoot children at Sand Hook, had the AR15 not been present, the children wouldn't have been shot. Edit: check this out. It's old but still applies http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/McClurgA1.html |
|
Quoted:
God, there are so many... From wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies Appeal to probability – takes something for granted because it would probably be the case, (or might possibly be the case) So therefore, since an AR15 was used to shoot children at Sand Hook, had the AR15 not been present, the children wouldn't have been shot. Edit: check this out. It's old but still applies http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/McClurgA1.html "So you think people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons?" is a straw man. |
|
Quoted:
Thanks Gents! I'm findnig fallacies on our side too. 
To say that crime statistically decreases given an increase of gun ownership is a post hoc. Well sure, it's not just one-sided; It's intellectual shortcutting. It's not always evil in intent, and often you don't even realize you're doing it yourself. When I was in taking philosophy, it was front and center. It's not like this stuff stays fresh in your mind. I'll also use a cop-out, but it seems more and more prevalent, so it's even easier to fall into propagating faulty logic. Edited cause my son was jumping on my while I was trying to type. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well sure, it's not just one-sided. It's intellectual shortcutting. It's not always evil. Often you don't realize you're going it. I'm sure we all are guilty of it. You're so wise.  Wise-assed maybe! Shit I was hoping to edit that terrible post before someone read it. Pretty embarrassing....thanks so much for quoting it to prolong my shame.
Edit: the worst part is when you know it a fallacy and still say, "well sure that sounds right...oh, balls"! |
|
Quoted: Quoted: God, there are so many... From wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies Appeal to probability – takes something for granted because it would probably be the case, (or might possibly be the case) So therefore, since an AR15 was used to shoot children at Sand Hook, had the AR15 not been present, the children wouldn't have been shot. Edit: check this out. It's old but still applies http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/McClurgA1.html "So you think people should be allowed to own nuclear weapons?" is a straw man. Also, the "no one needs an (insert EBR of choice here) for hunting" is also a straw man. |
|
Aside from being blatantly idiotic, what fallacy does that fall under? |
|
Most of the anti-gun arguments are simply taking 'extreme' or 'corner' positions
then dressing them up as 'all would do that' and then arguing against that 'dress up' as uncontainable and 'uncivilized' So the above is a basic example of a 'straw man argument'. Arguing against something that you opponent did not say. A typical one here is: If you support individual's rights to bear arms -- then all individuals will have tanks -- isn't ridiculous. This is a typical straw man argument fallacy. To combat it - one would need to separate out the generalization made above. ---- Another one -- confusing association with causation. So the anti-gun freaks will say that Japan does not have guns and their crime rate is low because of it. Japan has low crime rate and very low incarceration rate in general. So it is those reasons that affect low crime rate, also affect low violence ----- Last one -- probably least often used is. Argument by authority fallacy This is when they say that an Astronaut X and a decorated military veteran believes that Semi-auto AR-15 with detachable mag -- only belongs in a theater of war. This one is simply easy to counter by finding another authority with opposing argument. Or in somewhat deeper discussion -- explaining that 2nd amendment guarantees the right of an individual to own weapons of war (that an individual can bear) -- specifically to act as a deterrent as well. |
|
Well, not to be a party-pooper but most political arguments are inductive arguments and logical fallacies technically don't apply. However, if we want to expand the topic to simply bad logic or bad arguments, then one of the largest is the general principle of correlation does not equal causation. For instance, England has fewer guns and less crime that the U.S. But Switzerland has a lot more guns and also has a lot less crime than the U.S. Japan, strict gun control and no crime. Mexico, strict gun control and massive crime. |
|
Quoted: Aside from being blatantly idiotic, what fallacy does that fall under? Easy there new guy...this is GD, you are lucky that someone just put up an obscurely-relevant cartoon.. |
|
Well, people who run to push bans after things like Sandy Hook are fully immersed in the Logical Fallacy of Misleading Vividness.
And another logical fallacy gun control supporters engage in, which I have not found a name for, is the lack of separating horrible actions committed by criminals and psychopaths with law abiding citizens who happen to own the same type of firearm. A kind of "guilt by association" based upon tying horrible actions to the guns, and not the people that commit them. |
|
Quoted:
Well, people who run to push bans after things like Sandy Hook are fully immersed in the Logical Fallacy of Misleading Vividness. And another logical fallacy gun control supporters engage in, which I have not found a name for, is the lack of separating horrible actions committed by criminals and psychopaths with law abiding citizens who happen to own the same type of firearm. A kind of "guilt by association" based upon tying horrible actions to the guns, and not the people that commit them. But this only seems to apply to white people. Other races the guilt is attached to the person, from what I have seen, much less common to attach guilt to the weapon. Which just shows we still have a lot of racism IMO. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
"There is no such thing as an assault rifle it is a made up term by the media." Then what does the AR in AR-15 stand for? Either Armalite Rifle, or ARmalite... Which is it? There's some guy with his username in all capital letters that should be along shortly to let us know. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
"There is no such thing as an assault rifle it is a made up term by the media." Then what does the AR in AR-15 stand for? Either Armalite Rifle, or ARmalite... Which is it? I've always heard Armalite Rifle, and Wiki agrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15 The AR-15 is based on the 7.62 mm AR-10, designed by Eugene Stoner, Robert Fremont, and L. James Sullivan of the Fairchild ArmaLite corporation.[9] The AR-15 was developed as a lighter, 5.56 mm version of the AR-10. The "AR" in AR-15 comes from the ArmaLite name and stands for "ArmaLite Rifle". ArmaLite's AR-1, AR-5, and some subsequent models were bolt action rifles, the AR-7 a semi-automatic survival rifle and there are shotguns and pistols whose model numbers include the "AR" prefix.[9] |
|
I agree with the above. The zombie free zone is MORE effective than a gun free zone!
Seriously, just ask those modern people hipsters two questions: 1) How many times have guns all by themselves started shooting and killing people? 2) Why does their side have this driving desire to paint all gun owners as criminals? |
|
Quoted:
Thanks Gents! I'm findnig fallacies on our side too.
To say that crime statistically decreases given an increase of gun ownership is a post hoc. There's been a lot of effort to offer that verifiable statistical fact as something other than correlation=causation. The most important way to use that it demonstrates the failure of he argument that guns cause crime. More guns are privately held, violent crime decreased. Gun ownership may not cause a decrease in crime, but it certainly does not cause an increase in it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Aside from being blatantly idiotic, what fallacy does that fall under? Easy there new guy...this is GD, you are lucky that someone just put up an obscurely-relevant cartoon..
Valid point! Bahaha! 
|
|
Quoted: Aside from being blatantly idiotic, what fallacy does that fall under? Truth by Assertion. I assert X is true. Therefore, X must be true. Which is of course, false. Declared "Gun Free" zones don't do anything to keep evil-doers from using guns in them. |