Did I commit any fallacies here?

In a debate about guns on a debate forum I wrote the follows:



"The facts and stats remain the same and they are backed up not only by the likes of the US National Safety Council and numerous peer-reviewed studies but also The World Health Organisation. The facts are as follows:

Gun violence including homicide, suicide, and injury are still a prevalent problem in many nations across the globe including the USA.
It has been shown that ease of accessibility regarding firearms is linked with more homicide rates.
Most people who possess a firearm within their homes are more likely to become victims of either suicide or homicide.
Firearms have the capacity to cause far more damage than sharp objects (this is pretty much a no brainer) and they do. And the USA is no exception.
Death by an assault from a firearm is still among the top leading causes of death within in the US. Sharp objects are also in that list, but they are farther down from firearms.
Gun bans and/or restrictions are effective at preventing firearm-related violence.

Ref:

World Health Organisation www.who.int/violence_inju. . .

US National Safety Council – Lifetime odds of death for selected causes, United States, 2017. injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-i. . .

US National Safety Council – Gun related deaths in 2017. injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-. . .

The above are substantial claims, and there is not one reputable authority that refutes them. These claims are also premises that support the conclusion that more could be done to reduce firearm violence; the given conclusion follows on logically from the premises. One might argue here that I am committing the argument from authority fallacy (argumentum ab auctoritate). However, in this instance, there is an exception to the rule where authority, in this case, is relevant.

An example of a fallacious argument from authority would be if I were to say “My neighbor is a really smart guy and he says gun violence is a significant problem in the US. Therefore, gun violence is a Significant problem.” This is indeed fallacious and thus invalid.

The reason why the argument from authority regarding gun violence is valid and perfectly acceptable here is that the authority being referenced consists of a plethora of highly credible people that have spent decades researching the issues surrounding gun violence that deserve at least some consideration.

By the way, while I am at this point I would like to point out that just because an argument may consist of what may generally be viewed as containing a fallacy doesn’t always mean to say that the argument is invalid, and the reason for this is the fact that there are often many exceptions to the “fallacy” rule if that makes sense? Ironically, downgrading and/or concluding with an immediacy that an argument is invalid because you’ve seen what you think is a fallacy is fallacious i.e. ‘argumentum ad logicam (AKA The Fallacy Fallacy).’

Anyway, I may have appeared to somewhat have digressed a little and so I will return more to the topic at current. What I would like to do now is take issue with some of the things regarding the original post which I wrote, as after some reflection I think some things could do with a retraction.

The fact is that there is crime surrounding both handguns and high powered guns and there does need to be something done to reduce the number of casualties that occur from gun-related crime each year. Now, while statistically more people in the US are killed every year by hand-guns this still does not justify the need to own much more high powered weapons capable of killing numerous amounts of people in seconds. High powered weapons are not needed to for self-defense where a simple hand-gun will suffice. Further, nor will either hand-guns or high powered guns be enough to do anything in the extremely improbable event of Government Tyranny. So, based on this high powered guns are not needed and can be rightly so, extinguished. So, this is one of the first steps to reducing casualties and/or deaths that occur as a result of high powered weapons; to make them inaccessible.

Next, we still have the issue of hand-gun related casualties and deaths. I have a few suggestions in regards to this and they are as follows:

Calibrate stricter laws so that the guns do not fall into the hands of bad or irresponsible people. You would do this by ensuring that gun owners and potential gun owners have regular background checks as well as psychological checks . These checks would take place every five years minimum.
Ensure that everyone that wants to own a gun has training in how to actually use it, and take a gun safety course.
Put in place a stricter selection process for all Police Officers. As we have seen in past times there are Police Officers that are trigger-happy and tend to rely more on their guns than their actual brains . These courses of action would entail psychological tests, including intelligence testing.
Fine-tune laws/policies that would more robustly tackle the issues of drugs and gangs as a lot of gun crime also revolves around these factors.

The bits I am taking issue with are highlighted in bold.

With regard to psychological checks, I do now hold that psychological checking would imply that a lot of firearm-related violence revolves around mental illness when in fact it doesn't, and statistically, what's more, is that there is hardly any evidence at all that links mental illness with firearm violence. Furthermore, this also stigmatism among the mentally ill and sets them up to be victims of hate crime.
With respect to police officers, I have to admit this bit is a bit ridiculous and seems to imply that a lot of gun-related violence revolves around police officers contributing to it when again this is statistically very rare.
The last issue I have is with the actual title of this thread which I sometimes wonder if comes across as somewhat preachy.

Yeah, I don't always agree with everything I say either, and no I am not hearing voices haha. However, as Socrates Said, "The unexamined life isn't worth living" I also say the unexamined thought isn't worth thinking."

I was accused of a fallacy here. However, I do think that the 'fallacy in an argument' on the forum might be getting overused. Do you see any fallacies here or perhaps just some factual errors?

Thanks.

Just a few cautionary responses:

See Dr. Bo's Appeal to Authority
argumentum ad verecundiam
(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)

Exception: Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).

The appeal to authority is more about claims that require evidence than about facts. For example, if your tour guide told you that Vatican City was founded February 11, 1929, and you accept that information as true, you are not committing a fallacy (because it is not in the context of argumentation) nor are you being unreasonable.

Aside from being a bit discursive you do a fairly competent job of arguing for stricter gun control with appropriate citations, statistics and references. While you do digress at times it seems like you really move the goalpost (irrelevant thesis) when you bring police brutality into the argument though. I could be mistaken but it seems to be more of a fallacy of distraction to include a tangentially related (and perhaps valid) point that is not the point under discussion. Off hand it seems to be a non-sequitur.

Other problem areas are:
"The above are substantial claims.
(Do you mean substantiated?)
and there is not one reputable authority that refutes them.

This seems to be a bit of a stretch, either a hasty generalization or a potential argument from ignorance. It probably should be clarified and supported.

Finally, It appears you drift even further away from logical constraints to flat out opinion, unsupported claims and even special pleading with:

With regard to psychological checks, I do now hold that psychological checking would imply that a lot of firearm-related violence revolves around mental illness when in fact it doesn't, and statistically, what's more, is that there is hardly any evidence at all that links mental illness with firearm violence. Furthermore, this also stigmatism among the mentally ill and sets them up to be victims of hate crime.