What the gun lobby knows is that it is profitable to sell guns.
“…fallacy.” The “slippery slope fallacy” is what you meant to say.
IOW, the argument that “they” are coming for your guns is based in a lack of critical thinking.
.
Sorry no. With tobacco they started with airlines. Then Restaurants. Then workplaces, Then bars now houses. It was absolutely done incrementally.
And the arguments for and against tobacco were the same as the arguments for and against the use of guns, so if it applies to one, it must apply to the other, right? :rolleyes:
I think the critical thinking here is that Tobacco was demonstrated to be harmful, more to the main point, one can find harm to many animals that eat the lead coming from bullets that hunters do use when hunting; as pointed before the NRA did lie first about lead not causing harm and then about hunters not being able to continue hunting, it was indeed just scaremongering and just a callous denial of the evidence; and now the tobacco companies are reduced to talk about freedom and rights of the smokers. Forgetting that the freedoms and rights of the non smokers to avoid cancer and other illness are still there.
While some extremist gun right people do dismiss the rights of others to their lives, regulating guns to protect lives does not mean that they will be taken away from everyone.
Do you really want to die on that hill? I think it’s a really poor line of argument to pursue, completely apart from its logical failures.
But sure, if you want to argue that the “gun lobby” has the same history of lies, deception, and corruption as the tobacco industry, and that firearms are as deadly as cigarettes, I’m not going to stop you. What you call a “slippery slope” others would–quite reasonably–call “educating the public about a clear, definitive, and pervasive danger to health.”
To put it another way, Magiver’s argument presupposes that anyone who thinks that background checks ought to apply to gun shows also holds such position as a ruse to lead to the total elimination of the Second Amendment.
It is very possible to believe that all gun transfers should require a background check without supporting a ban on guns.
I don’t know-maybe Magiver’s got a point. Maybe all those efforts to license drivers and register their cars are a secret plan to eventually get all cars off the road. First, they show the supposed “dangers” of unregulated driving and “unsafe” cars, then they start pushing a “public transit” scheme down our throats. It’s rather obvious that this is a slippery slope towards the banning of all personal vehicles!
the arguments for or against either have nothing to do with the methodology used.
Well, you’re supposing that any gun control measure is a ruse to a ban (and possible confiscation, depending on how one reads your posts in this thread) and you’ve used cigarettes as an example of this strategy.
You gloss over the fact that cigarettes have neither been banned or confiscated.
you can believe whatever you want. It doesn’t change the methodology used.
It’s also very possible to believe that enacting a law to fix something that is not a problem is something to be suspicious of. No lives have been lost because of the exception it’s supposed to cover. If Obama wanted to save lives he would enforce the immigration laws. No tears for those people though.
No just when,where you can smoke them and the employment discrimination that followed.
You’re almost laughably all over the map, man. Can you focus on a single line of argument?
If you really want to discuss Obama’s immigration record–that would be the Obama who has deported more illegal immigrants than any other president, right?–perhaps a separate thread would be a cleaner option. At the moment, however, it only looks like an attempt to muddy waters and avoid discussing the issues at hand.
The Mother Jones list is highly suspect.
Yes, I get that. Some people will continue to repeat - and even believe - this argument no matter how many times is it conclusively shown to be a clear case of fallacious reasoning.
What I would like is the President to enforce laws on the books that would actually save lives instead of bypassing the legislative process with laws for a problem that doesn’t exist. It’s laughable to think it should be any other way.
Cigarettes have become much, much less cool than they were when I was in high school. I wonder if similar social pressure is tied to the declines in both hunting and gun ownership. Not banned, just less relevant and uncool.
These are the same laws that the NRA lobbies fiercely and effectively to undermine. Glad we agree that those bastards have innocent blood on their hands, no?
Say I’m coming at this issue for the first time.
What are the three best examples of a firearms law that is being under-enforced by the Obama administration (And why these laws were enforced more effectively by Bush 1 and/or 2)
And give three examples of gun laws that are being kited that are “bad” laws to you and why.
The second part I can’t speak to.
As for the first, the highest volume example may concern marijuana. When you buy a gun from a dealer, you have to sign ATF Form 4473 after checking a block stating that you are not a marijuana user. This is done roughly ten million times a year. A good guess is that at least 5% – and maybe 10% – of the signers are marijuana users, and are thus committing a federal felony. With aggressive law enforcement, it seems to me that you could at least triple the federal prison census.
Is this what Magiver means when saying that he or she would “like is the President to enforce laws on the books that would actually save lives.” Probably not. But I’m pretty sure it is safer to be a federal prison inmate than a gun-owner on the outside, so enforcing this aspect of the law would indeed save lives.