# What will we do when they come for our slippery slope?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [August 24, 2001, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007 "2001-08-24T22:53:13Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/1 "2001-08-24T22:53:13Z")

</div>

Congruently with a couple of discussions regarding “slippery slope” gun control arguments, there is [another current GD thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=83304), in which an assertion was made that widespread gun ownership would directly reduce crime. **minty green** (who, if I recall correctly is generally “pro gun rights”) replied:

> [@](#):
>
> Yep, december, no doubt that private gun ownership deters some potential criminals. But don’t forget that the easy availability of guns also encourages some potential criminals since guns give them the ability to put a bullet in your forehead if you take offense at being victimized.
> 
> The tricky part, of course, is calculating which effect is greater.

However, tricky as those _calculations_ may be, I think we can make quite reasonable _assumptions_ about those effects, and can base some valid social policy conclusions on those assumptions.

**Assumptions and conclusions regarding an increase in gun ownership (specifically concealed carry):**

Assumption: Criminals don’t want to meet armed resistance.  
Implications: 1. Criminals are less likely to confront citizens they presume to be armed. 2. Criminals, being interested in the benefits of crime, will alter their modus operandi to deal with any increased likelihood that their intended victims will be armed, rather than give up criminal activities entirely.  
Expectations: Practicing criminals (those who commit crimes from a dispassionate self-interest) will be less likely to commit confrontational crimes, such as robbery with assault. There is some research evidence (Lott, et al) indicating that adaptation of “shall issue” laws produces a decrease in armed robberies with a corresponding increase in burglaries and theft. This correlation, however, while supported by intuitive reasoning, has not been proved to be statistically significant.  
Conclusion: [Solely as a result of increased gun ownership] the overall rate of crimes perpetrated by “career” or professional criminals cannot be expected to decrease in any substantive manner, but can be expected to shift between categories.

Assumption: Fewer controls over the sale and distribution of firearms increases their availability not just to law-abiding citizens, but also to career criminals.  
Assumption: Assuming a constant or slightly increasing rate of home burglaries (as implied by the first conclusion), an increase in firearms ownership will produce a corresponding increase in stolen firearms.  
Expectations: 1. Both legal and illegal ownership of guns will increase among criminals. 2. With increased ownership among criminals, a higher percentage of criminals will be armed during the commission of a crime.  
Conclusion: Some increase in violent action as a result of being “caught in the act” may result in increased possession of guns.

Weak Assumption: Gun carrying citizens are more likely to successfully defend themselves against aggression than are citizens who don’t carry guns.  
Strong Assumption: Citizens who arm themselves specifically for the purpose of self-defense are more likely to use or display a firearm in a confrontational situation than citizens who do not arm themselves, or do not carry their weapons for self-defense.  
Expectations: 1. Defensive gun usages will increase. 2. Of those DGU’s, a large percentage will be reasonable and appropriate defensive use, but some usages will be unreasonable or out of proportion to the perceived threat. 3. Some of the _un_reasonable DGU’s will result in prosecutable actions by the “defending” gun user.  
Conclusions: Reasonable and approriate usages of firearms for self-defense cannot be termed “criminal”, and can be expected to thwart some percentage of attempted crimes. Unreasonable usages of guns, even without criminal intent, can be expected to yield some increase in prosecutable assaults.

Overall Conclusion: Assertions that widespread ownership of guns would either **de** crease or **in** crease crime cannot be supported by reasonable assumptions, and neither assertion has strong supporting documentary evidence. One reasonable expectation is that a decrease in armed robberies would result from a higher rate of gun ownership. Another reasonable expectation is that criminals would be more likely to shoot if “caught in the act” of burglary or theft. Yet another reasonable expectation is that an increase in armed assaults from previously law abiding citizens would result.

The question then becomes: do these opposing results yield a more secure society, or a more dangerous society? I think the latter conclusion is the more likely to be true, but that other economic and social forces are much more important factors in determining crime rates. Extensive gun ownership is neither a panacea nor a prescription for anarchy. Anyone who advocates extreme levels of gun control **or** absolute freedom of gun ownership would most likely be extremely disappointed in the real effects.

All of this means, IMHO, that while society should err on the side of freedom for the sake of our ideals, pragmatically we should discourage the casual carrying of firearms, should place _reasonable controls_ on the sale and distribution of firearms, and should place _reasonable restrictions_ on the use of firearms.

Which leads (finally) to my debate topic: Many people see a continuum between Maximum Freedom and Maximum Security, portraying them as mutually exclusive conditions:

{ **Freedom** \<==============Ø==============\>\*\* Security\*\*}

I don’t believe that this properly illustrates the dynamic between the two ideal conditions. I think it’s far more proper to say that freedom and security are two sides of the social coin and that, while the pursuit of either necessarily limits attainment of the other, there is a large degree of compatability between them in a modern democratic society. Moreover, I believe that the mutual effects of one on the other do not correspond equally or linearly. A small limitation of a specific freedom can often yield much better security, but incremental sacrifices in security rarely yield equally large increases in freedom, and often result in a net decrease in specific liberties.

In the case of gun control in the US, I think we have such a situation. The restrictions and controls placed on distribution and ownership of firearms, which gun control opponents characterize as the _erosion_ of freedoms, still allow many options for firepowered self defense, while providing substantial return in the form of public safety. Conversely, having fewer controls in place would seem to allow not much more freedom of each individual to provide for their self defense, while at the same time increasing the number of firearms out on the streets, which (per the above assumptions) would seem to negatively affect public safety, particularly in urban settings. People don’t want to make their cities more dangerous, they want them to be less dangerous. In pursuit of our own safety, we (average Americans) oppose laws which curtail our practical ability to defend ourselves, but we support laws which curtail the ability of other people to harm us. In defense of our deservedly vaunted Bill of Rights, we resist government imposition on our freedoms, but we cry out for government protection of our liberties.

_Therefore_ (whew), I submit that there is no “slippery slope” down which America will slide with further gun control, as the very compromises between freedom and security inherent to our social system tend to level any temporary slope toward or away from such controls.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Robb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Robb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robb)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/2 "2001-08-24T22:57:01Z")

</div>

When they come for my slippery slope, I’ll take the moral high ground. 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/3 "2001-08-26T07:39:57Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \*  
> \*\*
> 
> **Assumptions and conclusions regarding an increase in gun ownership (specifically concealed carry):**
> 
> Assumption: Criminals don’t want to meet armed resistance.  
> Implications: 1. Criminals are less likely to confront citizens they presume to be armed. 2. Criminals, being interested in the benefits of crime, will alter their modus operandi to deal with any increased likelihood that their intended victims will be armed, rather than give up criminal activities entirely.\*\*

Too general a statement. _Some_ criminals will give up on criminal activities. Some will search harder for legal alternatives to make money. Some individuals will be detered from taking up a life of crime in the first place.

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by xenophon41 \*  
> \*\*  
> Expectations: Practicing criminals (those who commit crimes from a dispassionate self-interest) will be less likely to commit confrontational crimes, such as robbery with assault. There is some research evidence (Lott, et al) indicating that adaptation of “shall issue” laws produces a decrease in armed robberies with a corresponding increase in burglaries and theft. This correlation, however, while supported by intuitive reasoning, has not been proved to be statistically significant._\*

It hasn’t? Presumably you have seen the Lott study. What did it say?

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by xenophon41 \*  
> \*\*  
> Conclusion: [Solely as a result of increased gun ownership] the overall rate of crimes perpetrated by “career” or professional criminals cannot be expected to decrease in any substantive manner, but can be expected to shift between categories._\*

Again, too general. Presumably criminals who commit “confrontational” crimes now do so because it is easier than the other kind (I take it we are assuming criminals act in a rational manner). If expanded gun ownership makes this kind of crime more difficult, then we can assume that the overall level of “easiness” of crime in general will go down, and thus the crime rate will be reduced, as _some_ of these criminals come to the conclusion that their life of crime has become too difficult and, more importantly IMO, fewer individuals _begin_ a life of crime.

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by xenophon41 \*  
> \*\*  
> Assumption: Fewer controls over the sale and distribution of firearms increases their availability not just to law-abiding citizens, but also to career criminals._\*

I don’t see this at all. With the level of control we have now, _getting_ a handgun, say, is relatively uncomplicated. If you live in a part of the country with strict controls on purchases, you have to do some travelling. You can’t _legally_ take your handgun from Virginia to NYC, but remember, we are talking about criminals.

The only way this could be true, as I see it, is if the criminal has a felony conviction, in which case:

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by xenophon41 \*  
> \*\*  
> Assumption: Assuming a constant or slightly increasing rate of home burglaries (as implied by the first conclusion), an increase in firearms ownership will produce a corresponding increase in stolen firearms._\*

_Assuming_ a constant or slightly increasing rate of home burglaries then there will be slightly more guns on the black market, making them slightly easier for criminals with felony convictions to get. But, as per what I wrote above, I think that this is a flawed assumption, and even if true I don’t think the decrease in the average price of a black market gun would be significant.

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by xenophon41 \*  
> \*\*  
> Expectations: 1. Both legal and illegal ownership of guns will increase among criminals. 2. With increased ownership among criminals, a higher percentage of criminals will be armed during the commission of a crime._\*

Do criminals deliberately seeking to commit non-confrontational crimes carry guns “on the job”? Have there been any studies on this?

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by xenophon41 \*  
> \*\*  
> Conclusion: Some increase in violent action as a result of being “caught in the act” may result in increased possession of guns._\*

Again, does the fear of being “caught in the act” motivate criminals who currently are engaged in non confrontational crimes to carry guns? It would seem to me that there would be some studies on this.

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by xenophon41 \*  
> \*\*  
> Weak Assumption: Gun carrying citizens are more likely to successfully defend themselves against aggression than are citizens who don’t carry guns._\*

Why do you characterize this as “weak”?

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by xenophon41 \*  
> \*\*  
> Strong Assumption: Citizens who arm themselves specifically for the purpose of self-defense are more likely to use or display a firearm in a confrontational situation than citizens who do not arm themselves, or do not carry their weapons for self-defense.  
> Expectations: 1. Defensive gun usages will increase. 2. Of those DGU’s, a large percentage will be reasonable and appropriate defensive use, but some usages will be unreasonable or out of proportion to the perceived threat. 3. Some of the unreasonable DGU’s will result in prosecutable actions by the “defending” gun user.  
> Conclusions: Reasonable and approriate usages of firearms for self-defense cannot be termed “criminal”, and can be expected to thwart some percentage of attempted crimes. Unreasonable usages of guns, even without criminal intent, can be expected to yield some increase in prosecutable assaults._\*

Assuming this is all true, does it strike you as a reasonable balance that more people will be able to defend themselves, even though a small percentage of them will defend themselves in a way that is “unreasonable”?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \*  
> \*\*  
> Overall Conclusion: Assertions that widespread ownership of guns would either **de** crease or **in** crease crime cannot be supported by reasonable assumptions, and neither assertion has strong supporting documentary evidence. \*\*

I believe the Lott study serves as documentary evidence of the former. But assuming your statement is correct, then my question would be, what is the justification for gun restrictions now in place, if they are not having a beneficial effect on the crime rate? When a restrictive law is passed, there is supposed to be a _reason_ for it, after all.

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by xenophon41 \*  
> \*\*  
> One reasonable expectation is that a decrease in armed robberies would result from a higher rate of gun ownership. Another reasonable expectation is that criminals would be more likely to shoot if “caught in the act” of burglary or theft._\*

Again, are there any studies on this? People _have_ been committing burglary and theft since before guns existed.

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by xenophon41 \*  
> \*\*  
> Yet another reasonable expectation is that an increase in armed assaults from previously law abiding citizens would result._\*

This is something that I believe was directly refuted by the Lott Study, at least as regarding CCW permits.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \*  
> \*\*  
> The question then becomes: do these opposing results yield a more secure society, or a more dangerous society? I think the latter conclusion is the more likely to be true, but that other economic and social forces are much more important factors in determining crime rates. Extensive gun ownership is neither a panacea nor a prescription for anarchy. Anyone who advocates extreme levels of gun control **or** absolute freedom of gun ownership would most likely be extremely disappointed in the real effects.
> 
> All of this means, IMHO, that while society should err on the side of freedom for the sake of our ideals, pragmatically we should discourage the casual carrying of firearms, should place _reasonable controls_ on the sale and distribution of firearms, and should place _reasonable restrictions_ on the use of firearms.\*\*

An awful lot of hay can be made of the definition of “reasonable”. What’s yours?

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \*  
> \*\*  
> Which leads (finally) to my debate topic: Many people see a continuum between Maximum Freedom and Maximum Security, portraying them as mutually exclusive conditions:
> 
> { **Freedom** \<==============Ø==============\>\*\* Security\*\*}
> 
> I don’t believe that this properly illustrates the dynamic between the two ideal conditions. I think it’s far more proper to say that freedom and security are two sides of the social coin and that, while the pursuit of either necessarily limits attainment of the other, there is a large degree of compatability between them in a modern democratic society. Moreover, I believe that the mutual effects of one on the other do not correspond equally or linearly. A small limitation of a specific freedom can often yield much better security, but incremental sacrifices in security rarely yield equally large increases in freedom, and often result in a net decrease in specific liberties.
> 
> In the case of gun control in the US, I think we have such a situation. The restrictions and controls placed on distribution and ownership of firearms, which gun control opponents characterize as the _erosion_ of freedoms, still allow many options for firepowered self defense, while providing substantial return in the form of public safety. \*\*

This would seem to contradict what you said earlier: “Assertions that widespread ownership of guns would either **de** crease or **in** crease crime cannot be supported by reasonable assumptions…”

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \*  
> \*\*  
> Conversely, having fewer controls in place would seem to allow not much more freedom of each individual to provide for their self defense,
> 
> Where? Gun laws vary from state to state, and within states.
> 
> \<snip\>  
> I submit that there is no “slippery slope” down which America will slide with further gun control, as the very compromises between freedom and security inherent to our social system tend to level any temporary slope toward or away from such controls. \*\*

But why do you think that the current level of compromise is inherent? And why do you think it would have that effect? People are perfectly capable of making faulty assumptions, or (especially) being misled, about the relationship between gun ownership and safety.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/4 "2001-08-26T17:53:32Z")

</div>

😛

In an effort to avoid having responses that grow with powers of two, I’m going to tackle just this here:

> [@](#):
>
> {Freedom \<==============Ø==============\> Security}
> 
> I don’t believe that this properly illustrates the dynamic between the two ideal conditions. I think it’s far more proper to say that freedom and security are two sides of the social coin and that, while the pursuit of either necessarily limits attainment of the other, there is a large degree of compatability between them in a modern democratic society.

This is a common perception, sometimes phrased as “I am more free to pursue what I can when I don’t have to worry about other stuff.” I think that uses a slightly modified meaning of “freedom” but, well, what are you gonna do.

That slide-rule _does_ properly illustrate the dynamic, as you notied yourself with “while the pursuit of either necessarily limits attainment of the other…” Freedom is mutually exclusive with security. Freedom is dynamic, security is static. Freedom is chaotic, security is predictable.

> [@](#):
>
> A small limitation of a specific freedom can often yield much better security, but incremental sacrifices in security rarely yield equally large increases in freedom, and often result in a net decrease in specific liberties.

“Better”?? how about, a limitation of freedom usually results in a correspondingly higher level of freedom. “Beter” all depends on which of the two you prefer, eh?

> [@](#):
>
> The restrictions and controls placed on distribution and ownership of firearms, which gun control opponents characterize as the erosion of freedoms, still allow many options for firepowered self defense, while providing substantial return in the form of public safety.

What sort of options? I can’t carry a gun with me to prevent muggings. I can’t keep it in my car to prevent carjackings. All I can do is keep it in my house to protect from burglary.

Criminals, who have already resolved to break certain laws, aren’t bound by such conventions. You are correct in saying that specific crimes will shift: to wherever you remove the guns. I think criminals are much like any other labor force: they both will follow what is both easiest and which presents the greatest return, with some weighting of which is more important per individual.

I think it helps, in such arguments, to consider a criminal being just like a regular job, only you remove some restrictions of legality.

> [@](#):
>
> I submit that there is no “slippery slope” down which America will slide with further gun control…

As long as gun control is seen as a means of controlling the criminal element, I think the slope is inevitable.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/5 "2001-08-26T18:37:49Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by erislover \*  
> **I can’t carry a gun with me to prevent muggings. I can’t keep it in my car to prevent carjackings. All I can do is keep it in my house to protect from burglary.**

How does concealed-carry (or even unconcealed carry) act as a deterent to criminals? In most cases, I would think they would go for the element of surprise, thereby limiting the options for the victim.

As an example, I have been mugged at gunpoint by a pair of individuals. However, I had no idea that this about to occur until I had been knocked to the ground - I saw them running in my general direction, but there was no indication prior to my being knocked down that they were running _at me_.  
Now, suppose I carried a gun (I don’t). Unless I was in the habit of pulling my piece on anyone who approached within 100’, it wouldn’t have done me much good. And, since they already had their guns out, they had a definite advantage - if they saw me reaching for it, they’d probably have shot me. So, carrying a handgun in that instance would have only made things worse - and they’d probably get another gun out of the deal.

Now, if they thought I had a gun, would they have attacked me? Who can say. The possibility was already there that I did, and it didn’t seem to deter them.

Consider also the Chicago gangs of the '20s - the Tommy gun was prevalent among mobsters. Indeed, it could pretty much be a given that if you were a mobster, you had a gun of some sort. Yet that didn’t appear to deter any inclinations towards violence between gangs.

So, under what circumstances, and to what extent, can carrying a gun around be considered a deterent to criminal activity? What studies have been done to this effect (Wierd Al mentioned the Lott study, but I’m unfamiliar with that)?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/6 "2001-08-26T18:54:42Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \*  
> \*\*How does concealed-carry (or even unconcealed carry) act as a deterent to criminals? In most cases, I would think they would go for the element of surprise, thereby limiting the options for the victim.

\*\*The criminals would need to worry that someone else around might have a gun. Or that you might be able to draw your gun. We read about plenty of store-keepers shooting armed robbers.

Or, the mugger might not be that analytical. He might be deterred if he simply know that a large number of other muggers had been shot.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*What studies have been done to this effect (Wierd Al mentioned the Lott study, but I’m unfamiliar with that)? \*\*

Read John Lott’s book, “More Guns, Less Crime.” He did an extremely thorough series of studies, which turned out to show that laws permitting concealed carries lead to a substantial reduction in crime. His models actually estimated the magnitide of the reduction, but I don’t remeber the details.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/7 "2001-08-26T19:50:48Z")

</div>

Debunking of John Lott’s by multiple other researchers is summarized [here](http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/lott.asp). I especially enjoyed the part about his analysis being based on voter exit polls in Florida.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/8 "2001-08-26T20:29:03Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \*  
> \*\*Debunking of John Lott’s by multiple other researchers is summarized [here](http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/lott.asp). \*\*

I have read Lott’s book as well as several of the studies disagreeing with him. In my opinion, Lott’s case is much stronger than his opponents’. If you read the various studies, you’ll discover that Lott looked at far more data than any of his critics. He compared crime rates over time, between all states and between smaller subdivisions. His critics used only selected bases, e.g. selecting a single state where increased gun ownership didn’t reduce crime, even though there was a substantial reduction overall.

The word, “Debunking,” is inappropriate. There’s no question that Lott did a serious study, not bunkum. **Elvis** , I presume your use of the word means that you haven’t read his book and you’re not prepared to debate it on its merits. I note that the source you like begins with an ad hominem attack. Birds of a feather… ☹

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/9 "2001-08-26T20:29:47Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \*  
> **minty green** (who, if I recall correctly is generally “pro gun rights”) replied:

Just for clarification, I do not believe that private gun ownership _is_ or _ought to be_ a “right.” I do not oppose private gun ownership, but I also believe in reasonable expansions of gun control, including gun registration and universal background checks.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Cap\_n\_Crude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Cap\_n\_Crude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cap_n_Crude)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/10 "2001-08-26T20:43:11Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> Consider also the Chicago gangs of the '20s - the Tommy gun was prevalent among mobsters. Indeed, it could pretty much be a given that if you were a mobster, you had a gun of some sort. Yet that didn’t appear to deter any inclinations towards violence between gangs.

I’m sorry to intrude, but isn’t this statement irrelevant to your discussion? The gangs of the '20s and '30s weren’t carrying guns for the purpose of protection against crime; they were carrying them for the purpose of committing crimes and causing mayhem. The example above could be accurately restated as such:

_Consider also the armies of World War II – the M1 and Mauser rifles were common among soldiers. Indeed, it could pretty much be a given that if you were a soldier, you had a gun of some sort. Yet that didn’t appear to deter any inclinations towards violence between armies._

If you’re carrying a gun with the express purpose of using it to intimidate or kill other people, that’s very different than carrying one for self-defense.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/11 "2001-08-26T20:45:52Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by december \*  
> I note that the source you like begins with an ad hominem attack. Birds of a feather… ☹ \*\*

Ahem. That post is, itself, ad hominem.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Qwertyasdfg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/ecc23a/32.png) [@Qwertyasdfg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qwertyasdfg)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/12 "2001-08-26T21:27:50Z")

</div>

If you’re starving, I’d say the risk that your victim **might** be armed is negligible. Thats not to say that all or most criminals are starving, but necessity tends to outweigh risk.

Nice OP by the way **xenophon41**. I’ve rarely seen the gun debate so nicely broken down before.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/13 "2001-08-26T21:56:46Z")

</div>

**Weird\_Al\_Einstein** : To avoid alot of cut and paste of quotes and responses, I’m going to summarize your points (and please correct me if I paraphrase incorrectly; I’ll attempt to be accurate) and address them in the order you brought them.

_ **WAE** : The assumption that criminals will choose crimes which don’t put them in personal jeopardy is too general; we should also assume that some criminals will be deterred from a life of crime if more citizens are carrying guns._

Response: That’s certainly arguable, but I think we’ve more reason to believe that someone who’s already predisposed to break the law for personal gain would probably not reassess his ethics merely because more people are packin’ iron.

_ **WAE** : I question your statement that the Lott study did not prove a significant correlation between changes in rates of particular crimes and the passage of “shall issue” laws._

Response: While I believe his findings are interesting, and the subject deserves more study, I’m not impressed with the science. Lott starts with his conclusions, then collects and publishes the data which seem to support him. In addition, he fails to demonstrate any causative links, claiming that the weak correlations he has partially ebstablished are proof enough of causation.

_ **WAE** : I repeat my first assertion, that some criminals will give up the life, and some potential criminals will be deterred from the life._

Response: I disagree. However, neither one of us has any science to back us up. MHO is that, although your assertion is certainly a possibility, the likelihood is that criminals will continue to break the law.

_ **WAE** : I don’t agree that loosening control over sales and distribution would make it easier for criminals to get handguns; there damned easy to get **right now** , with the controls that are in place. Unless the criminal is a convicted felon._

Response: Right.

_ **WAE** : I disagree that more gun ownership would mean more stolen guns (assuming a constant or slightly increasing rate of home burglaries). In any case, a slight decrease in the cost of black market guns (assuming all stolen guns get sold on the black market, instead of retained by some burglars) would not yield a significant increase in criminal possession of them._

Response: More ownership of _any_ commodity which is a target of burglary will mean more of that commodity is stolen. Really. However, I think you have a valid point regarding supply & demand of black market guns. Fortunately, my argument does not rest on this point.

_ **WAE** : Do criminals deliberately seeking to commit non-confrontational crimes carry guns “on the job”? Have there been any studies on this?_

Response: I don’t know of any. I may very well be wrong in my assumption.

_ **WAE** : Why do you characterize this [the assumption that gun-toting citizens will be more successful in defending themselves against attack than non-toters] as a weak assumption?_

Response: See **Darwin’s Finch** ’s anecdote. While I don’t offer this as “proof” of anything, I think it illustrates the difficulties which must be overcome in order to successfully use a gun for self-defense. I don’t take it as a given that the mere possession of a firearm in one’s pocket or handbag will improve the odds of defending against an assault or robbery.

_ **WAE** : Assuming this is all true, does it strike you as a reasonable balance that more people will be able to defend themselves, even though a small percentage of them will defend themselves in a way that is “unreasonable”?_

Response: There’s more to it, isn’t there? My question was not “what is reasonable?” but rather “does this make us safer as a society?” I feel that it does not.

_ **WAE** : So, if your statement [that widespread ownership of guns neither increases nor decreases the crime rate] is correct, then what is the justification for gun restrictions now in place, if they have no beneficial effect on the crime rate?_

Response: Your question is a non-sequitur. Just because widespread gun ownership probably has no positive or negative effect on crime does NOT mean that gun control laws do not.

_ **WAE** : Any supporting evidence for the “caught in the act” scenario? People have been burglarizing houses since before guns were invented._

Response: And during all this time, getting “caught in the act” has often prompted violence. I have no studies to support this. You have a valid point that it may be bogus to assume that more criminals would be carrying guns if more stolen guns were available. However, there’s no question in my mind that catching a burglar in the act is a dangerous scenario whether they’re heeled or not.

_ **WAE** : I believe the Lott study refuted your assumption that more people carrying guns would result in more gun-related offenses by previously law abiding citizens._

Response: I believe Lott assigned inappropriately high significance to any data which supported his thesis, and gave no attention to data which contradicted it. Again, while I’m intrigued by the data cited by Lott, I don’t find it conclusive. I wish other studies would be done.

_ **WAE** : What’s your definition of “reasonable”?_

Response: Good question. My entire argument hinges on it. “Reasonable” controls are those which develop in response to or anticipation of verifiable and expected abuses of firearms. These controls, to be “reasonable”, must also be the result of open public policy discussion.

_ **WAE** : (Repeats confusion over the effects of “gun ownership” and “gun control.”)_

Response: Please remember that we’re discussing the advantages and disadvantages of an armed populace; not the effectiveness of gun laws.

_ **WAE** : But why do you think that the current level of compromise is inherent? And why do you think it would have that effect [of levelling temporary popular bias toward too much/too little control]?_

Response: Because compromise is in the very nature of our political system. Because there _are_ legitimate concerns on both sides of the issue, which adherents to both sides can recognize. Please see **Ex Tank** ’s thread [Did Gore shoot himself in the ballot box?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=81718) I think **ET** is right; that Gore’s antigun position hurt him in a significant way with some sections of the voting public. I believe this is a reflection of the compromising nature of our system; the “mainstream” viewpoints swing very little to the left or the right, but when they do swing they have a very large effect on politics.

_ **WAE** : People are perfectly capable of making faulty assumptions, or (especially) being misled, about the relationship between gun ownership and safety._

Response: Which is why so many people are enamored of Lott. 😉

[/quote]

**erislover** : “Freedom is mutually exclusive with security.”

Please support that assertion by demonstrating how personal security is impossible in an anarchistic society. In your demonstration, please discuss the effects of physical and economic power on personal security, and why it is irrelevant to the question (which it **must** be if freedom and security actually are mutually exclusive, as you say.)

Or, you could choose not to demonstrate that; you’re of course under no obligation to do so. In place of your demonstration, I’d be just as happy to hear your thoughts on freedom vs. liberty.

_ **erl** : As long as gun control is seen as a means of controlling the criminal element, I think the slope is inevitable._

Who has such a naive and limited view of gun control? I think it’s pretty damn important to society to limit the degree to which the generally **law-abiding element** can inflict mayhem on each other! Regardless of that, please support your statement; how exactly does that reasoning send us down a slippery slope?

[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification of your position, **minty**!

[/quote]

**ElvisL1ves** and **december** : Hominem, schmominem.

[/quote]

**Qwertyasdfg** : Thanks.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/14 "2001-08-26T22:26:32Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \*
> 
> > [@](#):
> >
> > \*Originally posted by erislover \*  
> > **I can’t carry a gun with me to prevent muggings. I can’t keep it in my car to prevent carjackings. All I can do is keep it in my house to protect from burglary.**
> 
> How does concealed-carry (or even unconcealed carry) act as a deterent to criminals? In most cases, I would think they would go for the element of surprise, thereby limiting the options for the victim.

Ask a cop.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/15 "2001-08-26T22:35:22Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by **erislover** \*  
> Ask a cop.

Which one?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/16 "2001-08-26T22:39:12Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \*  
> **erislover** : “Freedom is mutually exclusive with security.”
> 
> Please support that assertion by demonstrating how personal security is impossible in an anarchistic society. In your demonstration, please discuss the effects of physical and economic power on personal security, and why it is irrelevant to the question (which it **must** be if freedom and security actually are mutually exclusive, as you say.)
> 
> Or, you could choose not to demonstrate that; you’re of course under no obligation to do so. In place of your demonstration, I’d be just as happy to hear your thoughts on freedom vs. liberty.

Security involves fixing certain behavior (not fix as in “broken”, of course). Freedom involves unrestricted behavior. You cannot both restrict and liberate at the same time, no?

And anarchism has nothing to do with it. There can still be security in anarchy, what changes would be the method of enactment.

I don’t know why any of this would be irrelevant, could you explain what you mean so I can respond?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kalashnikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/2bfe46/32.png) [@Kalashnikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalashnikov)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/17 "2001-08-26T22:39:23Z")

</div>

yeah, its funny that you don’t hear about cops getting mugged much. I mean, if you mugged a cop you would not only get their money but also their badge, cuffs, radio, gun etc.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kalashnikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/2bfe46/32.png) [@Kalashnikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalashnikov)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/18 "2001-08-26T22:42:47Z")

</div>

Darwin’s Finch, what state did that mugging happen in?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/19 "2001-08-26T23:03:07Z")

</div>

**erislover** , remember the context of our discussion. I’ve been talking about _specific social freedoms_ versus general public security. Your assertion seems to be that general public security can only be attained at the cost of _general_ social freedom. This is a rather blanket statement which I don’t think considers all the other variables.

Many of our freedoms (particularly free speech) actually serve to _increase_ our security as a society against the imposition of tyranny. Many slight limitations to those freedoms (such as no unregulated private stashes of Anthrax allowed), if removed, would result in a disproportionate loss of public security. It is erroneous to assert that freedom and security are necessarily exclusive to each other on such a scale.

**kalashnikov** : Don’t you think it’s important to note that cops aren’t generally robbed or attacked by criminals _who know them to be cops_? It has more to do with the criminals id’ing them as cops than as people carrying guns. They know if they screw with a cop, they’re screwing with the whole force. Joe Citizen with his concealed .38 doesn’t have the same advantage.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\
**Post date:** [August 26, 2001, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/20 "2001-08-26T23:16:37Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \*  
> **erislover** , remember the context of our discussion. I’ve been talking about _specific social freedoms_ versus general public security. Your assertion seems to be that general public security can only be attained at the cost of _general_ social freedom.

As have I been talking about that. Security comes from removing freedom. You then suggest:

> [@](#):
>
> Many of our freedoms (particularly free speech) actually serve to _increase_ our security as a society against the imposition of tyranny.

Well, I think the same thing about the combination of guns and free speech.

I am of the opinion, however, that freedom cannot be “given” only taken away, however, so to say that freedom itself acts for security doesn’t really apply to me as far as this argument goes. Are you suggesting that the freedoms we do allow we only allow because of security? 😕

I don’t think I’ve made any case that security itself is bad or that freedom itself is good. One must weigh the consequences of unrestricted freedom, restricted freedom (which is sort of an oxymoron), and removal of freedom.

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007.md?page=2)