Logical fallacies of the anti's

As the name indicates, this is the place for gun-related political discussions. It is not open to other political topics.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply
User avatar

Topic author
olafpfj
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 661
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:03 pm
Location: Grapevine

Logical fallacies of the anti's

#1

Post by olafpfj »

I've decided this year that I will try to up my game when discussing guns with anti's.

A little background first. I am a middle aged (turn 40 shortly :cryin ) college educated guy with a wife and kids who grew up in California. I also work in the theater and music end of the entertainment industry which means I am constantly surrounded by the most liberal of the liberals. Inevitably it comes out that I am a gun owner and gun rights advocate which leads to all sorts of discussion. The amount of herp and derp that comes out of their mouths about guns and gun owners is so overwhelming that it can be quite a daunting challenge to even attempt pointing out their complete disconnect. I've decided instead to hit them by throwing their own sense of superior education and intellect back in their face by pointing out the logical fallacies of their arguments.

What follows is a list of common fallacies that ooze from every pour of the anti argument and I tried to list a relevant example. Please feel free to add more examples and I hope we can maybe make an easy reference list to call up when we experience the day to day herp and derp that we see and hear. I know there are several sites that have some great articles that pick the anti talking points to shreds but I haven't really found an easy list that just plain points out the complete failure of their thought process in irrefutable academic terms. It's an appeal to their own intellect and I hope to force them to just plain admit that their entire stance is based on unsubstantiated emotion. I don't expect to change minds but maybe it will encourage them to let it go.

I put this together to help me focus my thoughts and figured I might as well post it. Someone might find it useful. For the record here's the wiki page I used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Conjunction fallacy – assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.

Example – Guns are inherently dangerous (ie. It could just go off)

Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.

Example – Discounting “more guns = less crime”

Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.

Example – DGU’s don’t exist

Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.

Example – Inner city crime and the appeal for stricter gun laws to fix it

Ecological fallacy
– inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.

Example – Gun owners are old fat white guys

Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.

Example – “Well regulated militia”

False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.

Example – Just about anything the VPC cites

Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way one sees the world as the way the world really is.

Example – Middle class urban progressives in nice gated communities, aka limousine liberals

Moral high ground fallacy
– in which one assumes a "holier-than-thou" attitude in an attempt to make oneself look good to win an argument.

Example - Many…on both sides of the issue

Moving the goalposts (raising the bar)
– argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

Example – Discounting any studies on DGU’s

Prosecutor's fallacy – a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found.

Example – The NFA registry, background checks, terrorist watch list

Wrong direction – cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.

Example – More guns = more violence

Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.

Example – School shootings, lone gunmen, assault weapon bans

Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.

Example – The violence epidemic in America, wild west, 90% support background checks

Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning. [55]
Wishful thinking – a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.

Example – We need to end violence in America by banning guns

Appeal to motive – where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer.

Example – Armed school guards are bad because the NRA is in the pocket of the manufacturers

Appeal to novelty (argumentum novitatis/antiquitatis) – where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.

Example – The founding fathers and the constitution are antiquated relics


Bulverism (Psychogenetic Fallacy) – inferring why an argument is being used, associating it to some psychological reason, then assuming it is invalid as a result. It is wrong to assume that if the origin of an idea comes from a biased mind, then the idea itself must also be a false.

Example – Gun owners are paranoid racists with size issues which drives their interest in guns
"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law." -Winston Churchill

chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 4141
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: Logical fallacies of the anti's

#2

Post by chasfm11 »

That's a great list. I'm not sure that I could remember it all when I need it for a discussion with an anti.

I've had a lot better luck in those types of "discussions" since I stopped making statements and turned everything into a question. I try my level best to make every question inquisitive and not at all threatening, as though some heated statement will follow a given question. Once they see that I'm only interested in asking questions and not making statements, particularly statements in defense of guns, they seem to open up a little more and it only takes a few minutes until I have their ears pinned back, with their own statements, in the argument. Most of them are so conflicted in their own thoughts that getting them wrapped around themselves hasn't provided to be difficult at all. If you can force them to realize for themselves how silly and ridiculous some of the things that they are saying really are, suddenly they are speechless or really want to change the subject.

You probably know this well but most of them "feel", not think, and having a discussion with someone who doesn't believe that logic and thinking are important can be really frustrating. :banghead:
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dum Spiro, Spero
User avatar

OldCannon
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:19 am
Location: Converse, TX

Re: Logical fallacies of the anti's

#3

Post by OldCannon »

Cognitive Dissonance is the coin of the Liberal Realm.
I don't fear guns; I fear voters and politicians that fear guns.

Abraham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 8400
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:43 am

Re: Logical fallacies of the anti's

#4

Post by Abraham »

I've an acquaintance who proudly told me he'd never carry a gun. Didn't believe in them he said.

I asked him if he or a family member's lives were at risk from a violent criminal attack would he approve of my using a gun to protect them or would he rather they be left to their own devices.

At first, he just wordlessly gaped at me.

Then he slowly and slightly nodded his head in assent agreeing he would like me to use a gun to protect him or them in such a situation.

Then I asked why wouldn't HE be willing to protect himself or them, but would agree to let me protect them.

He squirmed in his chair and said not another word and neither did I.

I was too disgusted.
User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 10371
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: Logical fallacies of the anti's

#5

Post by jmra »

Abraham wrote:I've an acquaintance who proudly told me he'd never carry a gun. Didn't believe in them he said.
I wonder how well it would work out for me if I didn't believe in stop signs?
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member

chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 4141
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: Logical fallacies of the anti's

#6

Post by chasfm11 »

Abraham wrote:I've an acquaintance who proudly told me he'd never carry a gun. Didn't believe in them he said.

I asked him if he or a family member's lives were at risk from a violent criminal attack would he approve of my using a gun to protect them or would he rather they be left to their own devices.

At first, he just wordlessly gaped at me.

Then he slowly and slightly nodded his head in assent agreeing he would like me to use a gun to protect him or them in such a situation.

Then I asked why wouldn't HE be willing to protect himself or them, but would agree to let me protect them.

He squirmed in his chair and said not another word and neither did I.

I was too disgusted.
Good for you. Your approach is the only way that I've ever seemed to make any progress with the antis. It has to be personal. As long it is "for the greater good", they will argue all day about how much better having no guns is for society and how some of us have to sacrifice ourselves to that end.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dum Spiro, Spero
User avatar

Kythas
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1685
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 10:06 am
Location: McKinney, TX

Re: Logical fallacies of the anti's

#7

Post by Kythas »

Abraham wrote:I've an acquaintance who proudly told me he'd never carry a gun. Didn't believe in them he said.

I asked him if he or a family member's lives were at risk from a violent criminal attack would he approve of my using a gun to protect them or would he rather they be left to their own devices.

At first, he just wordlessly gaped at me.

Then he slowly and slightly nodded his head in assent agreeing he would like me to use a gun to protect him or them in such a situation.

Then I asked why wouldn't HE be willing to protect himself or them, but would agree to let me protect them.

He squirmed in his chair and said not another word and neither did I.

I was too disgusted.
Probably the best and most effective argument I've heard.
“I’m all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let’s start with typewriters.” - Frank Lloyd Wright

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms" - Aristotle
User avatar

Topic author
olafpfj
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 661
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:03 pm
Location: Grapevine

Re: Logical fallacies of the anti's

#8

Post by olafpfj »

chasfm11 wrote:
Abraham wrote:I've an acquaintance who proudly told me he'd never carry a gun. Didn't believe in them he said.

I asked him if he or a family member's lives were at risk from a violent criminal attack would he approve of my using a gun to protect them or would he rather they be left to their own devices.

At first, he just wordlessly gaped at me.

Then he slowly and slightly nodded his head in assent agreeing he would like me to use a gun to protect him or them in such a situation.

Then I asked why wouldn't HE be willing to protect himself or them, but would agree to let me protect them.

He squirmed in his chair and said not another word and neither did I.

I was too disgusted.
Good for you. Your approach is the only way that I've ever seemed to make any progress with the antis. It has to be personal. As long it is "for the greater good", they will argue all day about how much better having no guns is for society and how some of us have to sacrifice ourselves to that end.
I've tried that approach as well but invariably they will fall back on one of the fallacious arguments I listed. It may be something that is particular to the types of people I generally interact with that they will only listen to a purely academic rebuttal of their emotional nonsense. My co workers all have graduate degrees and have spent most of their lives in an insular ivory tower environment so they tend to use the "holier than thou" argument more than most. Their over inflated opinions of themselves causes them to beat the "mind projection" fallacy to death, ie. "I'm far more educated than you (they aren't) therefore anything I think must be correct." :banghead:

I'm probably more inclined to use this list to cut and paste into comment threads to flag the fallacies when I see them than in actual conversation.
"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law." -Winston Churchill

O6nop
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 10:23 pm
Location: Austin

Re: Logical fallacies of the anti's

#9

Post by O6nop »

The hyperbole argument:
"Since you believe in the 2nd amendment you must think that everyone should own a tank or a bazooka and hand grenades!"

Regarding the OP, you made a very thorough and detailed list of arguments and their fallacies, but your TLA's left me wondering... what is "DGU" and "VCP"?
I believe there is safety in numbers..
numbers like: 9, .22, .38, .357, .45, .223, 5.56, 7.62, 6.5, .30-06...

KRM45
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 881
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Logical fallacies of the anti's

#10

Post by KRM45 »

olafpfj wrote:I've decided this year that I will try to up my game when discussing guns with anti's.

A little background first. I am a middle aged (turn 40 shortly :cryin )
I only made it this far and was offended by your list... :eek6

"Middle aged". Come on....
User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 13534
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Logical fallacies of the anti's

#11

Post by C-dub »

O6nop wrote:The hyperbole argument:
"Since you believe in the 2nd amendment you must think that everyone should own a tank or a bazooka and hand grenades!"

Regarding the OP, you made a very thorough and detailed list of arguments and their fallacies, but your TLA's left me wondering... what is "DGU" and "VCP"?
Defensive Gun Use

and

Violence Prevention Center

I think.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider
User avatar

Topic author
olafpfj
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 661
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 12:03 pm
Location: Grapevine

Re: Logical fallacies of the anti's

#12

Post by olafpfj »

C-dub wrote:
O6nop wrote:The hyperbole argument:
"Since you believe in the 2nd amendment you must think that everyone should own a tank or a bazooka and hand grenades!"

Regarding the OP, you made a very thorough and detailed list of arguments and their fallacies, but your TLA's left me wondering... what is "DGU" and "VCP"?
Defensive Gun Use

and

Violence Prevention Center

I think.
Yep...Defensive Gun Use and the Violence Policy Center
"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law." -Winston Churchill

chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 4141
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: Logical fallacies of the anti's

#13

Post by chasfm11 »

olafpfj wrote: I've tried that approach as well but invariably they will fall back on one of the fallacious arguments I listed. It may be something that is particular to the types of people I generally interact with that they will only listen to a purely academic rebuttal of their emotional nonsense. My co workers all have graduate degrees and have spent most of their lives in an insular ivory tower environment so they tend to use the "holier than thou" argument more than most. Their over inflated opinions of themselves causes them to beat the "mind projection" fallacy to death, ie. "I'm far more educated than you (they aren't) therefore anything I think must be correct." :banghead:

I'm probably more inclined to use this list to cut and paste into comment threads to flag the fallacies when I see them than in actual conversation.
The problem is that you are trying to win the battle when they choose the weapons. I agree that of all the species of Liberals available, the over-educated educational types are the most difficult to deal with. I have a teaching degree and personal experience. Over the past 10 years of my work career, I worked with Ph.Ds many of whom were in the top of their field world wide. I had a friend who was an expert in magnetic resonance imaging. None of those introduced themselves as "Doctor" yet every two-bit D.Ed. does.

We have allowed ourselves to be bullied into the Climate Change/Global Warming fiasco by a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals who claim that we "just cannot understand" what has now been proven to be flawed science. The theories about gun violence being curbed by gun restriction are equally flawed but the arguments remain just as sacred. Until you can get them down to the nuts and the bolts of what is actually happening in places like Chicago and Newark, I cannot imagine how you will have any success in a debate. When the trump card is having a doctorate, no matter how you play your hand, you will loose without that degree.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dum Spiro, Spero
Post Reply

Return to “Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues”