|
Name this fallacyAdvocates of gun control often note how certain nations with strict gun laws have low incidences of "gun violence". However, often times the nations that they reference have never had/don't have a high rate of violent crime in general to begin with. What fallacy are they committing? |
|||||||||||
asked on Tuesday, May 31, 2022 12:30:06 AM by Alexander | ||||||||||||
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
||||||||||||
Comments |
||||||||||||
|
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.
This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book.
|
The subject line implies there's a fallacy present and the post goes on to ask for a name for the fallacy. As with many discussions or disagreements, the meaning of the term(s) is important. In this case, if "fallacy" is used in the general sense, we'd have to look for a mistaken belief. The "belief" in this case isn't clearly stated ... it seems that on one hand, gun violence (another undefined term) is related to strict gun laws while the alternate position seems to relate gun violence to violent crime in general. If the implication is that gun violence is related to one and only one of gun laws or violent crime rates, that implication would lead to a false dilemma . However, if "fallacy" is used in the sense of faulty or misleading reasoning invalid argument ... I don't see any reasoning or argument. The understanding of "logical fallacy" on which this site is based relates to arguments or reasoning with either some non-factual errors that lead to deceptive arguments, incorrect reasoning, and faulty conclusions. Since I don't see an actual argument for a conclusion, I'm having a hard time classifying it as a logical fallacy. Intuitively, it seems reasonable to believe that some nation with strict gun laws might have a little gun violence. At the same time, it's seems equally reasonable to believe that some nation with more lax gun laws might also have little gun violence. (Also intuitively, I suspect somewhere, there's a nation with strict gun laws and lots of gun violence and a nation with few gun laws and little gun violence.) Determining whether those relationships are correlative or causal will take more digging. The most I can see here are unsupported claims connected only because of a connection to violent crime. P-1: Country X has strict gun laws. P-2: Country X has little gun violence. P-3: Country X has a high rate of violent crime overall. Therefore: C: - ??? |
answered on Tuesday, May 31, 2022 11:35:16 AM by Arlo | |
Arlo Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
Germany had gun laws so strict it disallowed a race from owning them. Prove gun laws caused a reduction in gun violence or confusing cause and effect fsllacy |
||||
answered on Tuesday, May 31, 2022 01:33:17 AM by skips777 | |||||
skips777 Suggested These Categories |
|||||
Comments |
|||||
|