Name this fallacy

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:

I'm not seeing the argument. They're simply noting that nations with strict gun laws often have low rates of gun violence. If this is correct, it's just a (true) factual statement.

Petra Liverani writes:
[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

But while it may be a factual statement it seems the person is using this fact to mean that tight gun control is the reason for low gun violence when the relationship between the tight gun control and gun violence may simply be one of correlation rather than causation. In Australia, they introduced much tighter gun laws on the back of the alleged Port Arthur massacre (I believe the evidence shows it was simply an event staged to bring in the tighter gun laws), however, I doubt the new laws had much impact on gun violence here because we didn't have much before they changed the laws I believe.

I believe from memory of a film made by Michael Moore that Canada has very high gun ownership like the US but not nearly as much gun violence which tends to undermine the notion that tight gun control and low gun violence are necessarily related.

Trevor Folley writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

There is certainly a challenge in distinguishing between causation and correlation. the problem of induction is one that has been grappled with by philosophers for centuries. How do we know something isn't just post hoc ergo propter hoc?

Given that most people make many decisions based on their inferences about causation. How do you do it?

Petra Liverani writes:
[To Trevor Folley]

I know I'm guilty of inferring causation from correlation when I've later discovered there was no causal relationship. One thing we can always do - but so many choose not to - is change our minds about causation (or whichever false belief) when evidence comes along that debunks our belief. I think the far greater problem in reasoning isn't making errors initially - those are so often understandable and easily forgivable - it's the fact that when our beliefs are shown to be incorrect we don't change our minds.

Trevor Folley writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

Totally agree. Think what a difference it would make to the quality of discourse.

TrappedPrior (RotE) writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

But while it may be a factual statement it seems the person is using this fact to mean that tight gun control is the reason for low gun violence when the relationship between the tight gun control and gun violence may simply be one of correlation rather than causation.

Depending on how the argument is made - when it is made - it could be multiple fallacies

post hoc if they're suggesting that because low gun violence followed the gun control laws, the laws caused a reduction in violence

causal reductionism if they're suggesting that gun control laws alone are responsible for low levels of gun violence

base rate fallacy if the given country had low levels of gun violence anyway, and this is being neglected in favour of the idea that gun control laws are effective

None of this is certain, though.

Petra Liverani writes:

Thank you.

Trevor Folley writes:

The initial statement smacks of reductio ad Hitlerum. It is irrelevant that a particular country introduced gun laws and also disengenuous to equate a particular set of gun laws with gun laws in general (fallacy of composition).

The request for evidence that gun laws caused a reduction in gun violence is reasonable, making it all the more surprising that the first statement is a red herring and a straw man.

The challenge we have is the problem of induction. How can we prove that something caused an effect and wasn't either a coincidence or post hoc ergo propter hoc?

The way science has approached this problem is to establish a hypothesis (e.g. If gun laws are introduced then there will be a reduction in gun violence) and then test it (by introducing gun laws). After a number of tests the confidence interval reduces to the point that makes the conclusions compelling.

Where gun laws have been introduced (e.g. UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, and most relevantly, USA [1990s]) gun violence has reduced.

skips777 writes:
[To Trevor Folley]

"Where gun laws have been introduced (e.g. UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, and most relevantly, USA [1990s]) gun violence has reduced." Confusing cause and effect........Your moronic liberal bullshit is a waste of my time. Everyone who has an intelligent grasp of reality knows your assertion is demonstrably false.  (USA [1990s]) notice the qualifier, that's called cherry-picking fallacy. I have no interest in conversing with you. 

 

Trevor Folley writes:
[To skips777]

Wow! A passionate response but shallow on reason.

I accept that cause and effect are difficult to confirm and so pointed to confidence intervals.

The qualifier was to indicate the last time that the USA had a significant control measure. I am happy to leave it as USA without the qualifier. It still holds true that there was a reduction in gun violence during the period (before the measure expired).

Given your confidence that you have an intelligent grasp of reality, please demonstrate that my assertion is false.

I have read a number of your comments and been impressed with how you have identified some pertinent questions to challenge some contributions. I'm afraid this time you have come up rather short.

Despite saying that you have no interest in conversing with me, I'd be interested to read a more detailed refutation of my post. I am open to learning something (genuinely). You will, however, need to add greater rigour to your thinking or at least to how you communicate it.

 

skips777 writes:
[To Trevor Folley]

"Given your confidence that you have an intelligent grasp of reality, please demonstrate that my assertion is false."....nice shifting the burden of proof. This issue has been put to rest years ago. There is absolutely no proven causal nexus between gun laws and gun violence or lack thereof. ANYONE can skew, make biased or distort gun violence statistics. Going back and forth is a waste of "our" time.

Specifically targeted gun violence stats that VOX manipulated and those "stats" debunked. Just one alternative "truth about gun laws and their impact".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IULSD8VwXEs

 

Trevor Folley writes:
[To skips777]

Thanks for the link to the video. I will certainly check it out. It's really important to get a balanced perspective.

The way I understand burden of proof is that the person who makes the assertion has the burden. When you stated that my assertion is demonstrably false you accepted the burden of proof.

The issue clearly hasn't been put to rest.

Proving a causal nexus is too high a bar for drawing inferences related to human behaviour. We can only pull the evidence together and decide on an inference based on the strength of the evidence.

I have referenced the problem of induction in previous contributions. Here is a link to an entry in the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that explains it - plato.stanford.edu/entrie. . .

The key question here is, 'how can we recognise a sufficient body of evidence to adopt a particular position?'

You are right that it is easy to manipulate statistics with bias. Which is why I aim to gather evidence from different perspectives before determining which is more cogent.

I'm looking forward to the video and I will also be exploring other studies to ensure I avoid cherry picking.

These look interesting,

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David.  Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature.  Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal.  2004; 9:417-40.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew.  Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries.  Journal of Trauma.  2000; 49:985-88.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David.  Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997.  American Journal of Public Health.  2002; 92:1988-1993.

I've found our exchange both stimulating and fascinating on a number of levels. Many thanks for engaging.

 

Alexander writes:
[To skips777]

Yeah, if gun control works so great, why are countries like Ecuador and Mexico riddled with violent crime involving guns?

Trevor Folley writes:
[To Alexander]

Good question and certainly deserves exploring further.

It is worth noting that I didn't reference to the availability of guns and violent crime. I referenced the drop in gun-related violence following control measures.