1. Correlation proves causation – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.
Time and time again you see this sh*t in a gun discussion all the time: owning a gun will make a person more violent. If you were to use this as the base of your argument, you can argue hypothetically owning a knife will make a person more violent, knowing martial arts, being born of a particular race, heck, might as well throw in movies, music, videogames, whatever, the point is correlation does not equate to a causative act. Do you guys even know what that means: that means if I were to stick my d*ck up your a*s, you are officially an*lly raped. That action equates to an outcome. Owning a gun does not mean someone will shoot someone else up just because he's all like, "Oh gee golly I gotz me a knooz gun, letza play COD in real life." No dumbsh*t. That person is prob f*cked up in the head and just because he happens to own a gun does not mean everyone else who owns one will do what he does.
2. Appeal to emotions: This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true.
The strongest argument anti-gun advocates have been putting out is another logical fallacy that appeals to emotions. These guys pretend to act all super sensitive to act like they actually gave a f*ck (which they most likely don't) about the amount of victims that occurred from gun violence (most notably the Sandy Hook). Using this false, girly pretense, they would argue that there are too much violence in our society *pause to shed a tear* there has to be something that needs to be done. Since they are completely emotional, they can't think with logic or reason and whatever fits their emotional agenda, it might seem logical to them. And what is logical to them is completely based on a false premise that dictates and reveals them as nothing more than a bunch of emotional drag queens. Some of them might not even want to engage in the argument because they can't possibly talk about anything that involves children dying, but quite conveniently, they wouldn't hesitate to engage in a long conversation about the holocaust where thousands of children died.
Anyways, I have a ton of logical fallacies I could point out, but this thread is getting a bit too long, so I'll stop right there. These are 2 of the ones that stood out for me.
Last edited by IamRAMBO24 : 01-23-2013 at 11:58 PM.
why do you need a gun? if its for hunting you have no problem just get a license and you can have a gun and go for your life? if its to impress your girl and friends by being a "badass" then go find one illegally and be a "badass"....
i don't see what everyone is so worried about
Logic can only "destroy" the anti-gun movement if you're of the opinion that things getting shot is a desirable permanent part of our civilization. Afterall, it does bear the long-term moral high-ground, for the most part. And insomuch as the argument is restricted, practically, to violence (I don't think anyone really cares how many paper targets and tin cans are getting killed every year, unless they aren't getting recycled properly], it seems generally that even tactless NRA spokesmen will sheepishly opine something along the lines of, "...if only we could make sure the criminals would all get rid of their guns too, but alas..."
So I would hope that even the most fervent Alex Jones nuts believe that a world without guns - indeed, without violence - is a worthwhile goal. We are generally still working towards, and, happily, trending towards, world peace.
So logic can only "destroy" the anti-gun argument if you're an unfeeling sociopath, a hopeless blind cynic, or can only imagine about a year or two into the future. Good luck with that.