Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JD
Criminals get firearms, ergo background checks failed is post hoc ergo propter hoc isn't it? And isn't that the gist of at least part of your opposition?
|
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is an allegation of causation based merely on the sequence of events, and is therefore poor reasoning. The sun rises after I have breakfast, therefore the sun rises because I have breakfast is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
The observation here is different. "Criminals get firearms, therefore background checks do not [and will not ] prevent criminals from getting firearms" is much closer to the observation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JD
Zukiphile, Spats, I want to veer off topic for a minute to thank you both.
|
You are entirely welcome. This is the way a discussion is supposed to proceed, with candor and courtesy. We are not actually solving any problems here; we are just pushing some ideas around the table. Undue vehemence would serve no purpose here, or dampening discussion with an invocation of personal authority on the basis that one has a magic piece of paper from his state's Supreme Court serve no good purpose.