Is This Statement a Logical Fallacy?

[BuddyRey]

On a web polling forum I frequent, the question was asked, "Do You Support a 'One Handgun a Month' Law?" My answer was that "It sounds reasonable on a utilitarian level, but that still doesn't make it justifiable."

Someone (presumably supportive of such a law), replied to me, asking "So you are saying when the murder rates get higher it still isn't justified?"

I'm almost sure this reply is a logical fallacy of some kind, but I can't recall which kind. My guess would be Appeal to Fear, but I think another one applies as well.

[ClayTrainor]

First of all, who says rising murder rates has anything to do with the supply of hand guns? What evidence is there to show that people buying multiple handguns at once are the source of the murder problem? Isn't it just as easy to commit murder with 1 handgun instead of 2 or 3?

What good is stopping someone from getting an extra handgun once a month when all they need is 1 handgun to kill 30 people in a "Gun-free zone" just like that asian kid did in Virginia?

[Mini-Me]

Well, every logical fallacy is essentially a form of non sequitur, which means that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. In particular, I think the other poster's fallacy may be considered a slightly modified form of begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question), because their comment at least seems to assume that increased gun restrictions would reduce murder rates (when the reality is, more restrictive gun control is correlated with increased violent crime).

[jmlfod87]

post hoc ergo propter hoc. after this, therefore because of it. he is assuming that if murder rates rise after deregulation that it is the deregulation that caused it. there could, of course, be other factors (e.g. worsening economy, lighter sentencing, population increase).

EDIT: But essentially the argument he is making is that, as you already said, you aren't a utilitarian. Meaning that even if it could be proved that deregulating gun control kills more people, you are still in favor of deregulation. Considering you have a picture of Rothbard in your avatar, your answer would have to be yes. You support the right to bear arms, not because you think it saves lives, but because you believe in the natural right of self-defense.

[Truth-Bringer]

On a web polling forum I frequent, the question was asked, "Do You Support a 'One Handgun a Month' Law?" My answer was that "It sounds reasonable on a utilitarian level, but that still doesn't make it justifiable."

Someone (presumably supportive of such a law), replied to me, asking "So you are saying when the murder rates get higher it still isn't justified?"

I'm almost sure this reply is a logical fallacy of some kind, but I can't recall which kind. My guess would be Appeal to Fear, but I think another one applies as well.

Looks like a classic Non sequitur to me. Also could fall under the false dilemma fallacy. And it definitely meets the standards of the correlation does not equal causation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation) fallacy.

[Mini-Me]

post hoc ergo propter hoc. after this, therefore because of it. he is assuming that if murder rates rise after deregulation that it is the deregulation that caused it. there could, of course, be other factors (e.g. worsening economy, lighter sentencing, population increase).

EDIT: But essentially the argument he is making is that, as you already said, you aren't a utilitarian. Meaning that even if it could be proved that deregulating gun control kills more people, you are still in favor of deregulation. Considering you have a picture of Rothbard in your avatar, your answer would have to be yes. You support the right to bear arms, not because you think it saves lives, but because you believe in the natural right of self-defense.

It's definitely worth making utilitarian arguments too though. After all, the truth comes out in favor of libertarian positions anyway. Plus, a utilitarian can outright reject your moral beliefs without a second thought, but if you can demonstrate statist positions (and the consequences of such centralized power, etc.) to be untenable in the utilitarian sense as well, according to his/her own values, an honest utilitarian will have no choice but to come around.

[Optatron]

On a web polling forum I frequent, the question was asked, "Do You Support a 'One Handgun a Month' Law?" My answer was that "It sounds reasonable on a utilitarian level, but that still doesn't make it justifiable."

Someone (presumably supportive of such a law), replied to me, asking "So you are saying when the murder rates get higher it still isn't justified?"

I'm almost sure this reply is a logical fallacy of some kind, but I can't recall which kind. My guess would be Appeal to Fear, but I think another one applies as well.

The person who said "murder rates" has the burden of proof to show how you can decrease murder rates by decreasing gun sales.

But you also should answer "so what WOULD justify one gun per month"

Unless you can address "what will justify Z" you don't need to waste time explaning why a list of propositions aren't enough (because you don't know what IS enough).

[erowe1]

On a web polling forum I frequent, the question was asked, "Do You Support a 'One Handgun a Month' Law?" My answer was that "It sounds reasonable on a utilitarian level, but that still doesn't make it justifiable."

Someone (presumably supportive of such a law), replied to me, asking "So you are saying when the murder rates get higher it still isn't justified?"

I'm almost sure this reply is a logical fallacy of some kind, but I can't recall which kind. My guess would be Appeal to Fear, but I think another one applies as well.

No, it's not. He just asked a yes or no question. If the answer is yes, say yes, if it's no say no. I don't see any fallacy.

[BuddyRey]

Thanks for the advice, guys!

My answer was this:

"That's an excellent philosophical question, but it rests on a presupposition of causality; namely that widespread availability of firearms leads to lawlessness and higher murder rates. It's a valid premise, but one which has never been effectively established or debunked.

Assuming your premise is true, and a deregulation of firearms is accompanied by a marked increase in homicides, this in and of itself would not be sufficient to prove causality."

[Optatron]

Thanks for the advice, guys!

My answer was this:

"That's an excellent philosophical question, but it rests on a presupposition of causality; namely that widespread availability of firearms leads to lawlessness and higher murder rates. It's a valid premise, but one which has never been effectively established or debunked.

Assuming your premise is true, and a deregulation of firearms is accompanied by a marked increase in homicides, this in and of itself would not be sufficient to prove causality."

ok, so answer

1. What would prove causality
2. what would justify decrease or elimination of gun sales

[__27__]

ok, so answer

1. What would prove causality
2. what would justify decrease or elimination of gun sales

1. A gun leaping up and killing someone all on it's own.

2. Nothing. (or if it's a trick question, a fascist would justify decreasing or eliminating gun sales)