OK, here’s me being a heartless schmuck to you emotional manipulators using the deaths of children as a prop to push gun control. Your use of fallacy, specifically Misleading Vividness, in argument disgusts me. You are shamelessly whoring out the deaths of these helpless children at the hands of a psycho for you own personal agenda. You, and the blind public suckers to your pathetic debate tricks, fraking disgust me. The anti-gun lobby today is making me ill with their cheap theatrics and exploitation of these poor children and families. Shame on them all and their disgusting media facilitators.
Description of Misleading Vividness:
Misleading Vividness is a fallacy in which a very small number of particularly dramatic events are taken to outweigh a significant amount of statistical evidence. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:
Dramatic or vivid event X occurs (and is not in accord with the majority of the statistical evidence) .
Therefore events of type X are likely to occur.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because the mere fact that an event is particularly vivid or dramatic does not make the event more likely to occur, especially in the face of significant statistical evidence.
People often accept this sort of “reasoning” because particularly vivid or dramatic cases tend to make a very strong impression on the human mind. For example, if a person survives a particularly awful plane crash, he might be inclined to believe that air travel is more dangerous than other forms of travel. After all, explosions and people dying around him will have a more significant impact on his mind than will the rather dull statistics that a person is more likely to be struck by lightning than killed in a plane crash.
It should be kept in mind that taking into account the possibility of something dramatic or vivid occuring is not always fallacious. For example, a person might decide to never go sky diving because the effects of an accident can be very, very dramatic. If he knows that, statistically, the chances of the accident are happening are very low but he considers even a small risk to be unnaceptable, then he would not be making an error in reasoning.