I keep seeing this video being posted in various places,

[ZombieHorde]

and I want to discuss the logical fallacies in his argument.

Here is the video:

His argument is based off at least two logical fallacies: equivocation and strawman. He changes the meaning of the term "gun control" to "gun confiscation," which is a form of equivocation, and then argues against this new term, which is a form of strawman argumentation. This is a clever tactic that works well against some, but those trained in critical thinking and classical argumentation are less likely to buy it. Regulating magazine size and disarming people are not even close to the same thing. His argument only seems smart because he is arguing against himself. At least he won the debate he had against himself. Good job, guy.

If you see this video posted on Facebook, or wherever, point out the fallacious logic to whomever posted it. I posted something very similar to the above as a youtube comment, but I doubt many will consider my critique.

[jmg257]

1. I didn't make it past the opening BS; he said 'we know violence murder, and insanity

are bult into the human condition', and then wants to use that notion as justification for us all having easier access to guns??


And then he muses that via gun control, we are somehow cutting the horns of the gazel, but not removing the claws from the leopard at the same time?


Next he quoted the proven bogus "valid self-defense' stats known to be myths for years.



After those 1st 3 gems, I puked in mouth, and had to turn it off.

Nice presentation, but even if you put a pile of bullshit in a dress, you still just have a pile of bullshit (and a ruined dress).

[ZombieHorde]

2. The gazel bit struck me as off too.

Good points.

[gejohnston]

3. I think it is naive to think

that the leopard would be declawed, anymore than one can prevent illegal meth labs.

The bogus "valid self defense" I'm guessing was based on the Kleck study. While a couple of counters have been written, neither actually "debunked it". Cook basically verified it, while Hemenway's can be best described as:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
the thing I find interesting is that Kleck's study was funded by DoJ while Hemenway's was funded by the Joyce Foundation, funders of the Brady Center.

[jmg257]

4. Ha ha - you are funny at times!

It is naive to think
a) anyone really wants to completely remove the horns from the gazels, and that
b) leopards won't be affected at all by a substantial reduction in the number of claws they have access to

But then again, ya never know. Doubt we will either...yet.

[gejohnston]

5. the number won't be reduced

since the leopards don't buy them from the local FCL.
I didn't say anything about dehorning antelope.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/internal-rivalry-among-comancheros-led-to-gunfight-at-paesano-restaurant-police/story-e6frea83-1226226914996

[jmg257]

6. No, they get them from other "law abiding" animals, illegally very often.

Imagine if those animals can't get them either?

Amazing how many illegal guns are removed from society annually...9000 in NY alone.
Just think of how many more could be removed, if similiar laws were enacted across the country. And yet still leave the gazels armed quite adequately.

Be positive!