Unfortunately, the vast majority of the gun control debate and virtually all of it you hear in the media is all about logical fallacies. And the logical fallacies are not limited to one side of the debate.
Because of the emotional nature of the debate, both gun control advocates and Second Amendment proponents increasingly resorted to violent rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and especially irrational thinking. Here are six of the most common logical fallacies you’ll find in the current debate on guns in America.
Source: 6 Logical Fallacies to Look out for in the Gun Debate - Foundation for Economic Education
You know, I am not saying that it doesn't happen, but the Australia model for gun control merely implies that it can work, not that it will, and I haven't seen anyone arguing otherwise. But even so, to call it a faulty analogy seems speculative to me. How is it faulty? I mean, it might be, but then again, it might not be...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's a faulty analogy when you make the assumption that something that had an effect one place will have the same effect in another place especially when there are many other variables that make those places different (population size and density, cultural makeup, racial makeup, different laws, different history, different values, percent of people who currently own guns, etc.). It doesn't necessarily mean that it wouldn't have the same affect, just that you can't assume that it will and there are many reason why it might not.
Personally, I don't own any of the types of weapons that were banned in Australia but at the same time I don't feel that the government or anyone else has any right whatsoever to tell me I can't own them.
Also, studies are pretty conclusive that suicides dropped significantly, probably as a result of Australia's policies. The result on homicides is less clear. A drop in gun violence doesn't necessarily mean a drop in overall violence as there are other ways to hurt and kill people.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
No, I understand what you mean by faulty analogy, I just haven't seen people saying it worked in Australia, ergo it will work in America. I did say that in my first post. And as I said, it might work, so calling it faulty is a guess, isn't it? You are speculating that it is faulty, aren't you? It might work just as it has worked in Australia.
The government puts restrictions on your behaviour all the time. It's what governments do, so I reject the rhetoric that the government does not have the right to restrict one more behaviour. They absolutely do. That's how democracy works.
Sorry, how many mass shootings have there been in Australia since 1996? Seems pretty clear to me.
Yes it does. And the stats in Australia back that up. There are other ways to hurt and kill people, obviously, but none of them are as efficient and immediate as guns. Remove that efficiency and immediacy, and less people will die. It's as simple and as obvious as that.
You know, I have been here so many times. I realise that you might not like what I am saying - people who like guns tend to be very passionate about them - but hope you will agree I am not being rude or uncivil. Experience has taught me that these conversations can go south very quickly, and I have no wish for this to descend into anything unpleasant.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Whether it ended up working or it didn't end up working the analogy being made is faulty. To say that because x was done in Australia and y occurred and conclude that if you do x some place else then y will also occur there too is a logical fallacy. And yes, there are people saying and/or implying that and a couple of examples can be found in the full article linked above (or just google "Australia gun control U.S." and you'll find more.) Just because a logical fallacy is made doesn't mean that the conclusion will ultimately be wrong. It just means you can't logically draw a conclusion based on the existing known facts. You can guess all you want.
Mass shootings have almost 0 statistical impact on the overall number of homicides because they are so rare (even in the U.S.) compared to other types of homicides. You can affect the amount of gun violence without affecting the overall amount of violence because violent people will still tend to be violent. Also, when talk of banning guns occurs it is alway centered around so-called "assault weapons". Most homicides in the U.S. happen with a hand gun. More people are killed with knives than are killed in a mass shooting. Heck, more people are killed with bare hands/feet than in a mass shooting.
I'm not really a gun lover. I've shot a gun once in my life. But I don't think anybody has the right to take rights away from you, including governments. In fact, that is EXACTLY why the second amendment to the U.S. constitution was created. To prevent anybody, including governments, from taking away your rights. You can reject that if you wish. Democracies can't violate rights or a majority could simply vote for slavery again (for example).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Okay, accept your use of logical fallacy here. With one caveat:
This cuts both ways. You can guess that it wouldn't work, and you can guess that it would. I accept that you can't say it worked in Australia, ergo it will work in America, but at the same time, I am sure you would you accept that it is the same logical crime to say America isn't Australia, ergo it won't work in America. We don't know, and I think to look at the Australian model is a perfectly valid debating point.
You're suggesting that mass shootings are statistical outliers, and there may be something in that. I will drop these from the rhetoric I use.
Nope. You need to provide evidence if you are going to make such a claim.
I don't accept this. The second amendment is very specific. It is not about rights in general. And of course, it was written over 200 years ago when the US was a dangerous, untamed wilderness.
Do you take drugs? Do you want to? Do you think people should be free to? Where does your view on rights apply in this instance? "Rights" are fluid, not fixed, and governments redefine them all the time.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm not guessing anything. I'm pointing out a specific type of logical fallacy that is being used to argue for something. Actually, the article pointed it out. Policy shouldn't be made by guessing.
If you think it is guns that make people violent I think you need to provide the evidence. I thought the fact that overall violent crime did not seem significantly affected by new gun regulations was pretty suggestive.
Yes, the second amendment is very specific. It gives you the right to bear arms. I'm speaking to the purpose of it. The founders weren't concerned with hunting. They were concerned with self protection and specifically the second amendment was a reaction to the British attempt to disarm the colonists. When you are protecting your own life, you are protecting all your rights. The purpose of the second amendment is to be able to do that.
Yes, I think people should be free to do what they want with their own bodies. I don't take drugs nor do I want to but if someone else does, it's none of my damn business.
I completely disagree of your view of what rights are. They are absolutely not fluid. In the declaration of independence it speaks of being endowed with certain unalienable rights. It says by our creator but you don't have to believe in a creator. The point was to recognize that you have these rights because you were born, not because a government gave them to you. It's true that government takes away rights all the time. Doesn't mean they have the right to. I can steal something or kill or hurt someone but it doesn't mean I have a right to. Governments can use force to take rights away but they can't redefine them any more than they can redefine water.
And I'm not suggesting mass shootings are a statistical outlier. Factually, the statistics show that. In 2016 there were 32 people killed in so-called mass shootings in the U.S. In Chicago alone (one of the most violent cities in the country) there were 762 murders. Chicago has among the toughest gun control laws in the country. The total number of people murdered in the U.S. in 2016 was 17,250. If my math is right, mass killings made up < 0.2% of murders. There were 323 million people in the country in 2016. You had a .005 % chance of being murdered. You had a 0.000009 % chance of dying in a mass shooting.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I didn't suggest you were. The point I am making is that to cite the Australia experiment is a valid point in this debate. If one uses the assumption that it will work in America because it worked in Australia, then clearly this is going too far, but to say that it is worth consideration is a completely appropriate point. I think in citing those that make this assumption, the pro-gun lobby often dismiss the notion of what happened in Australia. This is as fallacious.
This is a blind alley. I cannot produce this evidence, but I don't think I have to. This is about the capacity that guns give an individual to be efficiently violent. Let's take the example of suicide. 20000 people commit suicide via guns annually in America. 90% of such attempts will succeed. In contrast 90% of suicide attempts that don't use guns fail. This speaks volumes. Someone wanting to be violent with a gun will by definition do so more efficiently than any other method. Yes, knives kill people, but they are nowhere near as efficient. Surely you can accept this?
I agree. Does this threat exist today? The second amendment was created to deal with an existing condition that no longer exists.
Agreed. Yet people do not have the right to take most drugs in most parts of the US. And this is generally accepted.
Can gay people get married where you are? They couldn't, where I live, up to three years ago. In the UK, a man had the right to rape his wife thirty years ago. Of course rights are fluid. Zeitgeist makes them fluid. Rights change all the time. Rights are redefined all the time. It's the nature of human progress.
I accepted that.
This is all good, btw. Precisely why I indulge in these debates. To question and to be questioned. Thanks for the civility and the challenge.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The point is that the dynamics of gun violence in Australia is largely different than the majority of gun violence in America for a variety of reasons I've already mentioned. Sure, you can bring it up as a point of evidence but mostly when you see the example of Australia cited here there is this underlying assumption (or direct statement) that similar laws would have the same effects here. It isn't a good assumption.
Yes, guns do give people the capacity to do a lot of damage quickly. So do cars. So do bombs. So does poison. So does fire. Knives? Depends I guess. Sarin gas and knife attacks seem to be a thing in Japan - https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/world/japan-knife-attack-deaths/index.html
As far as the threat the 2nd Amendment was made for existing today... The point was to prevent the threat from existing. If the threat exists, it is already too late to worry about the right to bear arms. If you didn't have it you aren't going to get it. Will the threat exist again? Who knows.. But it would be foolish to think it couldn't ever happen again.
Rights are not fluid. My rights being where yours end. If you use violence against me (or vice versa) in a non-defensive matter, then rights are being violated. I am talking about natural rights. You seem to be talking about legal rights. Two different things and natural rights are more important. The United States was founded largely on the concept of natural rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
Yes, gay marriage is legal where I live. But before it was "legal" you could still be gay and get married. You just didn't get a piece of paper from the government recognizing it. Nobody was using force to prevent you from marrying.
This is partially a semantics argument. I would say you have a natural right to take drugs if you so choose but that the government uses force to violate that right. Government does not grant rights. It is supposed to protect the natural rights that are yours by birth.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Look, I posted something recently called "my cold, dead hand" about guns, and it was my attempt to discuss the problem with debating gun laws. Have a look at it if your interest is piqued. I can't understand what it like to live in a country where gun violence is so prevalent. And the other side of that coin is that you perhaps cannot understand what it is like to live in a country where gun violence is virtually unheard of. I think that this is at the heart of the problems of discussing this issue.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
In what country is gun violence so "prevalent"? Any time people are killed by violence it is tragic and avoidable. However, only a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the people in the U.S. commit gun crimes. The vast majority of the gun violence in the U.S. are in two or three big cities that have the strictest gun control laws in the country. Guns, whether accidentally or with intent, are responsible for about 1.3% of the deaths in the country. Mass shootings account for a VERY small percent of that. The vast majority of gun violence occurs in poor inner city areas where gangs are prevalent. Hardly a reason to take guns away from everybody else or to ban everybody else from getting them.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The country I live in has o.8 deaths per 100000 people. The country you live in has 10.5. This is a significant difference. You talk about fractions, but this is smoke and mirrors. Your country has a gun violence problem, and it is a little insulting to me that you want to pretend different.
Hmm. Are you implying causation here? You haven't in so many words, I realise, but if you are not, then why mention it?
If you are so unconcerned about gun violence, why do you want own one? I'm sorry, but "because the 2nd amendment" doesn't sound a very convincing argument to me. See, as much as I dislike guns, I can kind of understand why someone might want to own one if they feel they need it for protection, even if that feeling isn't entirely justified. But to argue that there isn't a gun problem, but you want to own one anyway seems odd to me.
That's a straw man. It just is.
I could get a gun if I wanted to. Guns are not banned in Ireland, they are just difficult to get. I don't advocate removing the right to get a gun, and actually, I think very few people do. This debate is about gun control, not removing guns completely.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Violence level > 0 is a problem. You're right, there is a violence problem but the problem is primarily localized to poor inner city areas. Gun violence outside those areas is statistically insignificant. I mean, what constitutes a "problem" in your mind? Obesity and car accidents each kill far, far more people than people with guns do.
As far as wanting a gun, I don't. I've never purchased one. I just don't believe anybody has the right to tell me I can't have one. Nobody has the right to use force against me to prevent me from obtaining one. The second amendment was written primarily as a defense against a government becoming tyrannical. Historical context and the Declaration of Independence make that pretty clear. You can accept that or not but that is why it is there. If people want to change that then they need to go through the Constitutional amendment process.
And no, it is not a straw man argument. There are many who support banning guns, and many more who support banning certain kinds of guns. Those who want changes in existing law are all over the map as far as what they want. I'm not opposed to certain levels of gun control (e.g., violent criminals and the mentally ill who are potentially violent should not have them). On the other hand, banning certain types of guns violates the 2nd Amendment.
It's ironic in a way. Every time this debate comes up, gun and ammunition sales spike because people fear that they will be banned. I've thought (not very seriously) about buying an AR-15 not because I want one but because on the off chance I ever did want one in the future, they may be banned by then. I believe there are plenty of people who have bought them for just that reason.
I think the whole gun control argument is kind of moot anyway. Rudimentary guns can already be 3D printed and the technology is only getting better. I don't see how that can be regulated unless 3D printers are banned.
Part of what makes the "gun control" debate so difficult is that it is usually very generalized. Gun control can mean many things.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit