Help me with this fallacy.

[nrakid88]

So, I have this fallacy for class. I have to teach it to the whole class. I decided to do Cherry Picking so I could highlight pro-gun a little. (My teacher seems to be a little anti gun but god she hides it well so I cant tell)

Anyways cherry picking is when you point to a direct case or statistic that supports your view while suppressing wider information that would destroy your postion. I think I will make an example of someone using a shooting as a call for gun control because the shooter used an "assault weapon". This is cherry picking as an "assault weapon" was used in the crime, however statistics show that after "assault weapon" bans died in 2004, crime actually declined. Boom. Thats cherry picking.

I am going to use actual examples of someone saying that guns are evil because of a shooting (not hard to find online, lots of liberal mind washed idiiots out there)

You guys think I could do better?

[M. D. Van Norman]

The discredited Kellermann study would seem to be a good example of this fallacy.

[Arkalius]

[NeoWeird]

Why not just do the "2A = collective right" supporters?

I mean, the supporters of it claim it's a collective right even though every other ammendment is an individual rights. The wording, as examined by English experts points that it is an individual right. It's addressed numerous times by the writters in other contexts. etc, etc, etc....

...yet they suppress ALL that because of one ****ing comma.

That's about as clear, egregious, and stubborn as you can get with Cherry Picking. Plus it offers the opportunity to address other facets of gun control, like how assault weapon bans are unconstitutional, without straying away from the subject. Plus, most of the antis will do the redirecting for you.

[B Strong]

Here's a prime example of Cherry Picking, the SC case the anti's love to quote, in part...

United States V. Cruikshank

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/cruikshank.txt

6. (The part they quote) The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; (the part they omit) neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.

[7x57]

Howard Nemerov's "400 Years Of Gun Control" book is crammed full of what he calls "parsing the data"; carefully crafting a special figure-of-merit so that, on *that* data set, it will produce the desired answer. Essentially, it appears like a reasonable statistic on the surface but it was chosen to ignore the data that doesn't support the conclusion.

He's got a *lot* of these examples, including ones where their figure-of-merit changed when a new year's worth of data no longer produced the "right" answer.

7x57