Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Schuetze]

More evidence that firearm ownership does not result in less firearm crime or homicide.

I'm interested in reading the entire study, unfortunately I won't be taking conclusions from a single paragraph without knowing how they did the study and what they used exactly to make it.

Since you need to pay to check that stuff I wonder if anyone of you actually read it.

[TZucchini]

I'm interested in reading the entire study, unfortunately I won't be taking conclusions from a single paragraph without knowing how they did the study and what they used exactly to make it.

Since you need to pay to check that stuff I wonder if anyone of you actually read it.

I'm not qualified to read that study and criticize it academically.

[Ghostpanther]

[QUOTE=Mayhem;34656974]Just how do you come from a comparison about offensive and defensive use of firearms to cars on the highway? Don´t you then have to make it about offensive and defensive use of cars to make a point? Whatever point it is you´re trying to make?

[URL="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/18/1188022/

It is called "association". Anything you are associated with increases the chances of something good or bad happening. I am sure if I did a study on the benefits of being armed, I could associate them with being a good thing. All depends on one's agenda.

[Mayhem]

It is called "association". Anything you are associated with increases the chances of something good or bad happening. I am sure if I did a study on the benefits of being armed, I could associate them with being a good thing. All depends on one's agenda.

But that wasn´t the point. So you just quoted someone and wrote something totally unrelated.

I see, studies are worthless because they are all just propaganda.

[lockedout]

I'm not qualified to read that study and criticize it academically.

You already noted that you don't subscribe and can't read behind the paywall yourself, why do you even link it then? Totally worthless.

[TZucchini]

You already noted that you don't subscribe and can't read behind the paywall yourself, why do you even link it then? Totally worthless.

It's an academic paper in a peer reviewed medical journal. It's highly relevant.

[PhaelixWW]

It's an academic paper in a peer reviewed medical journal. It's highly relevant.

Ah, yes, another appeal to authority fallacy.

[TwoNineMarine]

Ah, yes, another appeal to authority fallacy.

That's behind a paywall.

[PhaelixWW]

That's behind a paywall.

Well, that's what makes it a fallacy. If he were putting forth something that we could actually attempt to rebut, then it would be a valid argumentative tool. But he's putting forth something that we can't even see to be able to rebut, and telling us that it's meaningful merely because the authority's word (abstract) says so. And then he'll tell us that it doesn't matter if we can see the methodology because we're not smart, capable, or trained enough to debate anything they say. Which is really just doubling down on the appeal to authority fallacy.

I love that he thinks that he provided more weight to his argument by stating that he wasn't qualified to rebut the study himself.

[Mayhem]

Ah, yes, another appeal to authority fallacy.

Hey, let´s play a little game of "i know what i´m talking about", you go first by pointing out the appeal to authority.

here, i´ll help you even: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

[PhaelixWW]

Hey, let´s play a little game of "i know what i´m talking about", you go first by pointing out the appeal to authority.

here, i´ll help you even: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Awwwwww-kward. Looks like I beat you to the punch, sport.

[TZucchini]

Ah, yes, another appeal to authority fallacy.

Sigh. Not this again.

A says P about subject matter S.
A should be trusted about subject matter S.
Therefore, P is correct.

That's an appeal to authority. If you could kindly point where I said "the study is correct" or "the study is true", that would be fantastic.

Proceed.

[TwoNineMarine]

Well, that's what makes it a fallacy. If he were putting forth something that we could actually attempt to rebut, then it would be a valid argumentative tool. But he's putting forth something that we can't even see to be able to rebut, and telling us that it's meaningful merely because the authority's word (abstract) says so. And then he'll tell us that it doesn't matter if we can see the methodology because we're not smart, capable, or trained enough to debate anything they say. Which is really just doubling down on the appeal to authority fallacy.

I love that he thinks that he provided more weight to his argument by stating that he wasn't qualified to rebut the study himself.

Yep. I agree.

[Mayhem]

Looks like I beat you to the punch, sport.

I´m waiting.

Awwwwww-kward.

[PhaelixWW]

If you could kindly point where I said "the study is correct" or "the study is true", that would be fantastic.

The fallacy is not necessarily that something is true or not, the fallacy is that the word of a supposed authority without anything to back it up has argumentative merit.

Your attempt to use the abstract by itself as if it had evidentiary value is an appeal to authority fallacy.

[Mayhem]

The fallacy is not necessarily that something is true or not, the fallacy is that the word of a supposed authority without anything to back it up has argumentative merit.

Your attempt to use the abstract by itself as if it had evidentiary value is an appeal to authority fallacy.

Now, aren´t you happy you learned something?

[PhaelixWW]

I´m waiting.

Wow. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Since you don't appear to have enough common sense to do so yourself, I'll direct your attention to the post immediately preceding the one in which you demanded that I point out the fallacy... in which I pointed out the fallacy:

Well, that's what makes it a fallacy. If he were putting forth something that we could actually attempt to rebut, then it would be a valid argumentative tool. But he's putting forth something that we can't even see to be able to rebut, and telling us that it's meaningful merely because the authority's word (abstract) says so. And then he'll tell us that it doesn't matter if we can see the methodology because we're not smart, capable, or trained enough to debate anything they say. Which is really just doubling down on the appeal to authority fallacy.

Awkward doesn't even begin to describe it this time.

[Mayhem]

Awkward doesn't even begin to describe it this time.

You´re right, it doesn´t. I´ve linked you the definition and you still insist on it. That´s quite hilarious.

[PhaelixWW]

Now, aren´t you happy you learned something?

What are you going on about now? I already knew, apparently more than either you or PRE 9-11, what an appeal to authority fallacy is.

I'm not sure how you get from me having to explain it to the both of you to somehow me having learned something new.

[TZucchini]

The fallacy is not necessarily that something is true or not, the fallacy is that the word of a supposed authority without anything to back it up has argumentative merit.

No, that's not true at all. Arguments from authority always make a claim of truth. I haven't done that. I called the paper "highly relevant" because it's in a peer reviewed medical journal. There's nothing fallacious about that. At all.