You want to talk logical fallacies? How about I stop you at confirmation bias and cherry picking,
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely asserting that I've committed two logic fallacies doesn't make it true.
You need to establish with reasoned argumentation and evidence why your claim is true that you think I committed the logical fallacy of confirmation bias or cherry picking.
If you attempt to give reasons why, I will be able to then demonstrate why your reasons are flawed and thus why I never actually committed a logical fallacy.
Sweden isn't "the rest of the developed world", even if it's gun violence was worse than the US, which it isn't, of course.
Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.
The fact that Sweden is a part of the developed world, but not the entire developed world, is irrelevant to the points I made regardless of whether or not your statement is true. Your statement does not disprove any of the points I already made.
And if you can't deal with the points I raised then the entire premise of your argument falls apart. The incorrect premise of your argument being that restricting access to guns correlates automatically to reduced crime.
As I pointed out, the developed world is replete with examples of why your premise is invalid.
Most obvious of which is the fact that, despite grenades being totally banned in Sweden, their use in crime is skyrocketing in a few short years.
You can't "gun control" your way out of that problem. You can't get any harsher gun control than a total ban on something. Yet why is their use skyrocketing in Sweden?
I'm ignoring nothing. The Swiss have always had strong firearm regulation.
As I already said, and now repeat for your sake: You ignored the fact that the majority of what you would champion as laudible gun control laws only came into existence in Switzerland in 2008, and you aren't aware that prior to 1999 there was very little in the way of gun control in Switzerland.
Yet Switzerland was not a crime ridden cesspool in 1980 when gun control was minimal, nor were there major issues prior to 2008 that suddenly disappeared after the additional 2008 gun control laws.
You therefore have no logical or historical basis for attributing the peace in Switzerland to it's gun control laws. You're committing the most basic of logical fallacy of "Correlation/Causation". Correlation by itself does not prove causation. And other historical context disproves your belief that gun control laws are responsible for the peace in Switzerland.
I never mentioned disarming anyone.
I mentioned "restrictive gun laws" not helping, and I said it in the context of listing several examples in California where they ban access to guns to certain people, certain types, or certain places.
You claimed they help in the "developed world". Which means you were claiming that banning access to guns is helpful. That is disarming people. Even if it's not disarming everyone, or disarming them of everything, or disarming them in every place, it's still disarming them.
The fact is the law abiding citizen was disarmed at that "gun free" festival, when they needed it, while the criminal ignored such bans. 20 year old gun owners were disarmed at that festival, while the criminal ignored such laws. It's also very likely that even without those laws, people would have still been disarmed at that location by virtue of California making it excessively difficult to purchase a pistol and near impossible to get a concealed carry license.
You can't, by definition, have gun control without trying to disarm people in some way. Whether it's certain people, certain places, or certain types of weapons you want to disarm people of, you are still disarming someone, somewhere, of something.
