Reply #94: Let me review

[Euromutt]

Your second critique (false dichotomy) is not applicable, since there is an actual dichotomy being proposed. Either there is a causal relationship or there isn't.

That wasn't the false dichotomy. The false dichotomy was that the only two options are that either more guns in the hands of more people will result in more dead kids, or more guns in the hands of more people will lead to fewer dead kids.

The question whether or not there is a causal relationship between the prevalence of firearm ownership and the number of children who die violent deaths would indeed be a valid dichotomy. However, that was not the dichotomy you originally posited. Both the plurium interrogationum and the violation of audiatur et altera pars are driven by the unstated premise in your part that such a causal relationship does indeed exist, the original (false) dichotomy being in which way the correlation runs; positive (higher prevalence of firearms => more dead kids) or negative (higher prevalence => fewer dead kids). Another unstated premise is that this is the only possible causal factor in determining the number of violent deaths of children.

This is a clear case of ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion). Just because some people may find other ways to kill kids, that does not support the assertion that an equal or greater number of children will be killed by other methods.

On the contrary; it's relevant for the purpose of illustrating that, in the event that prevalence of firearms were reduced, method substitution might result in the number of violent deaths of minors remaining unchanged, which would form evidence that prevalence of firearms is not the only, or even the primary, determining factor in the number of violent deaths of minors.

Do I even need to point out the use of anecdotal evidence?

First, tell russ1943 that; he started this thread on the premise that proponents of gun control are justified in their opinions because of a single anecdotal incident.

Even so, that's not to say anecdotal evidence doesn't have a legitimate purpose to serve. Anecdotal evidence (e.g. in the form of medical case studies) form the basis of hypotheses which in turn form the basis of further study. Moreover, a single anecdotal example may serve to falsify a hypothesis ("the exception that disproves the rule"). In this instance, the examples I've cited serve to illustrate that despite H.M Government's best efforts to eliminate all handguns, and most other firearms, from British soil, children in the UK continue to die violent deaths; possibly in larger numbers than prior to the implementation of increased restrictions on firearms ownership following the Hungerford and Dunblane incidents, in spite of those restrictions. Therefore, it's reasonable to hypothesize that crime isn't caused by the legal availability of firearms (or lack of it) but by something else.

Straw man. I never mentioned making private ownership of firearms illegal.

So enlighten me: what are you driving at with your "simple question" as to whether "more guns in more hands equal more dead children"? I'd say it's a reasonable assumption that you consider dead children to be an undesirable thing, and that you assume that any decent person shares that view (and that any person pretending to be decent would feign holding that view); and that therefore, if "more guns in more hands" does indeed result in "more dead children," it is therefore desirable to limit the prevalence of firearms, as this will lead to a marked reduction in the number of children dying violent deaths. Am I jumping to any unwarranted conclusions so far?

So even if you don't advocate criminalizing the private ownership of firearms entirely, you do presumably advocate the criminalization of certain aspects of firearms ownership that are, at present, legal in certain states of the Union. If not, what is your point?

Also, a bit of your own audiatur et altera pars since you never state any of your alleged "many factors".

Hogwash. The fact I haven't bothered to specify other factors doesn't mean I have failed to state that those factors form part of my reasoning. The very fact that you can use quote marks around the phrase "many factors" is sufficient evidence of that.

Why don't you just ask me for some examples of these "many factors" I've mentioned?

Here's a real example of a false dichotomy. You're implying that the only way to reduce the number of guns is for people to give up guns they currently own.

First, where's the dichotomy? Second, how else would you envisage reducing the number of firearms currently in private hands in the US so as to effect a reduction in the number of violent deaths among minors within any meaningful timeframe? Guns take an awfully long time to wear out.

Also, you state that law-abiding gun owners would be the first in line to hand in their guns. That's a logical fallacy I like to call "bullshit". Are you really saying that Cletus with his gun rack and his "cold dead hands" bumper sticker is going to happily hand in his weapons when asked to by the government?

Now that is a straw man. I said "most likely," i.e. more likely than anyone else; relative statements do not necessarily reflect absolute assessment. Hypothetically, I can say "Cheyenne is the most exciting city in Wyoming," but that doesn't necessarily mean I would consider Cheyenne (est. pop. < 60,000) to be bustling and dynamic. Similarly, the fact that a certain type of gun owner is the most likely to comply with a law requiring them to hand in some or all of their firearms doesn't mean they're going to be eager or happy to comply. But practically by definition, it's the most law-abiding gun owner who is the most likely (i.e. more likely than other gun owner) to comply with any law that bans some or all firearms. Substitute "least unlikely" for "most likely" if that helps.

And finally, you treat us to a classic example of petitio principii (begging the question) by basing your argument on the fallacious assumption that fewer guns means that only puericidal sociopaths will own guns.

Did my use of the words "if" and "might" escape your notice? It was meant as a hypothetical scenario whereby reducing the prevalence of firearms might fail to result in reducing the number of violent deaths among minors.