"Guns Have Changed. Our Gun Laws Have Not Kept Pace."

[Lizzie Poppet]

258. You're missing my point, I think.

Or, more specifically, you're expanding it. My remarks were based on the assertion in the post to which I replied, the one that claimed "gun culture IS a mental illness," and to your assertion that the people on that list of nations hold that opinion. If that was not in fact your assertion (and I suspect it was not), then you should have phrased it with more care. I was not addressing anything but that claim.

On the broader related issues, I happen to hold views similar to those Swiss citizens you mention: that while firearms ownership should be the right of any adult citizen who is not a felon or mentally ill, regulations regarding responsible ownership should be more stringently written and enforced. Those regulations should include proper secure storage, universal bacjkground checks for any transfer of ownership, liability for improperly secured weapons, meaningful requirements for demonstration of competency for CCW permit holders (twice a year, just like most police officers), etc.


I know perfectly well what constitutes an argumentum ad populum fallacy (and its kissing cousin, the argumentum ad numeram). Your implied assertion qualifies as such, as it was (as stated) an attempt to claim that the statement to which I replied ("gun culture is a mental illness&quot is valid because the population of those nations believe it to be true. This is Argumentation Theory 101 stuff, to be blunt.

You will have to find another Latin phrase that is meant to convene the idea that something is a fallacy because it is a widely held believe held over a long period of time by multiple civilizations, cultures and peoples widely disturbed across the entire world.

No, I need do nothing of the sort, as I was making no such assertion. That an opinion is widely held doesn't make it fallacious (obviously). My point was that it has no bearing whatsoever on the truth value of that assertion...which is why your implication to the contrary is fallacious. But if you'd prefer another Latin phrase, feel free to select argumentum ad numeram or perhaps consensus gentium.

Oh, and you really shouldn't accuse someone of a grammatical error unless you actually know what you're talking about. The philosophical term argumentum ad populum doesn't employ the plural populi because it's not in fact a reference to distinct segments or categories of people (even when they are present), but to the entire group of people holding the view in question. That group is a singular entity, regardless of possible subsets. To put it in simpller terms, it's not "this is true because a whole bunch of different groups of people believe it," it's "this is true because a whole bunch of people believe it." That "bunch" is correctly referred to by "populum," not "populi." This why one doesn't see the term "argumentum ad populi" anywhere in the literature of the field. That would be philosophy, which is what I do for a living (not to risk an argumentum ad verecundiam...)

Now lets talk about travel. I haven't lived abroad, but I do travel six or seven times a year; mostly to the UK (more on that in a bit), and most of the rest of the time to continental Europe. For the last several years, I've probably spent anywhere from a sixth to a quarter of the year abroad. My (relatively rare) conversations about guns have encompassed a rather broad range of reactions. Some were more-or-less what you imply: some don't at all get the US "obssession" with civilian ownership of firearms. Others express considerable jealousy. These reactions are only slightly biased in favor of the former (and most of the people I socialize with are leftists just like you or I...I'm sure that ratio would be reversed if I hung about with conservatives). Clearly we talk to rather different crowds...

I'm a bit dismayed that you feel so safe from potential violence in the places you visit...given that in many there is at least the level of statistical risk as one encounters in the US. The UK, to name the country with which I have the greatest personal experience, has a higher rate of "crimes against the person" than the US does. The risk of homicide is lower, but the overall risk of assault is greater. It is certainly greater (overall) than I experience here in Portland, Oregon (although obviously the UK's overall rate of violent crime is no more universally applicable than is that of the US, which also experiences dramatic differences depending on location).



Some clarifications:

I am by no means laughing at the nations you listed. An interesting take on your part, but utterly incorrect.

I am by no means a one-issue person, politically. Another interesting assumption, likewise utterly incorrect. As it happens, while I don't support most more-extreme gun regulation proposals, I happen to agree with you that the imposition of such is simply not going to occur (and if by some chance it does, that enforcement would be so problematic that one could ignore such laws at one's leisure). It's not anywhere near as important an issue to me as the devastating effect of the radical shift in capital to a minute percentage of the population, the rise of pro-theocratic elements in American society, and so forth.

I rather suspect this conversation will go nowhere useful...but I'm willing to be surprised.