# What will we do when they come for our slippery slope? **URL:** \ **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:** 3\ **Page:** 4
**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:** [September 10, 2001, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/61 "2001-09-10T16:39:40Z")
First, **Weird Al** and everyone else, I’m not arguing here for the sake of argument; I’m pressing two major points. The first is my belief that slippery slope arguments against gun control are not valid in our national context. (More on this later; some education in logic terms seems to be in order.) The second is my opinion that, contrary to assertions made by various “free-weaponeers” (my term), wide spread private carry and ownership of firearms does not benefit society in terms of security or liberty. I’m going to try my best in this post to clear up a couple side distractions which have sprung up (courtesy of **Al** ), and then I’m going to ignore future mention of them. These side distractions are: [list=1][li]The effects of profligate gun use/carry on society vs. The effects of gun control laws on society: Which argument are we having?[\*]Is the “caught in the act” scenario hazardous? Yes? No? Has someone forgotten how to scroll back through a thread?[/list=1][/li] [/quote] Back to our program. > [@](#): > > **WAE** : > I am presuming an easy willingness to “follow social restrictions which they’ve previously disdained” when failing to do so can get [criminals] seriously injured or killed. Does this not make sense to you? It makes sense only if limited to an argument that any increased possibility that potential victims may be armed deters physical assaults (although I now reject that argument); it is _ **nonsensical** _ when applied to your assertion that an armed citizenry will scare criminals into a law-abiding lifestyle. > [@](#): > > **WAE** : > > > [@](#): > > > > _ **xeno** : > > But, congratulations, WAE, as a result of your arguments I believe that a statistically insignificant portion of criminals will be deterred from crime in any way because of such permits._ > > And exactly what, pray tell, led you to this conclusion? Your perspicacious remark that criminals choose a particular m.o. because it’s easy for them, combined with my realizations that someone who chooses violent crime by preference is more likely to be _attracted_ to danger than to be frightened off by it, and that those who are deterred by resistance in one place will seek targets elsewhere. > [@](#): > > **WAE** : > > > [@](#): > > > > _ **xeno** : > > In any case, I think your argument that “muggings more dangerous” = “crime less easy” is unsupported._ > > Because? Because you failed to support it by showing how making something more _dangerous_ makes it in any way more _difficult_. > [@](#): > > **WAE** : > Well golly, a lot of things _could_ happen. Uma Thurman _could_ come to my house and give me a full body massage. Not likely to happen though… > > > [@](#): > > > > _ **xeno** : > > and one can advocate a reduction in the numbers of firearms without advocating any new laws or restrictions._ > > Yes, one could. How is this relevent to our debate? Okay, **Al** ; get ready and try not to duck, 'cause I’m about to swing a clue-by-four here: **I’m advocating in this thread a reduction in the numbers of firearms in the US, but I’m not advocating any specific laws or restrictions.** Your attempts to connect my points against widespread toting of handguns with a general argument in favor of more gun control laws are verging on creation of a strawman. Feel free to wrestle with that position in some other thread, but don’t presume I have anything to do with it. > [@](#): > > **WAE** : > We are really getting into some hair splitting now. How about, “A discussion of factors affecting gun posession, including but not limited to gun laws”? The two arguments I wish to make are listed in the first paragraph of this post. I’ll be glad to participate in a limited discussion of “the factors affecting gun possession, including but not limited to gun laws”, if we can relate that discussion to the present effectiveness of private gun ownership in the deterrence of crime, and only so far as that discussion supports an argument in favor or opposed to unrestricted gun use, or an argument supporting or denying the “slippery slope”. > [@](#): > > **WAE** : > When have I ever said that this is not a hazardous situation for anyone involved in it? > When have I made any such assertion? [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1553564#post1553564), you said, in response to my remark that catching a burglar in the act is dangerous whether or not they’re carrying a weapon: “I think it would depend on the circumstances. Including whether the “catcher” is armed…” [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1575710#post1575710), you make the argument that a more sensible approach for a burglar to take when caught by a homeowner is to “run away” (missing my **broad hint** that egress from the room in many situations would have to be _through the homeowner_). Now, if these are _not_ arguments dismissing the hazards of catching a burglar in the act, I don’t know what the hell point you’re trying to make, or how the hell it bears on anything we’re discussing. If you’re just trying to score argumentative points, then _whoopee!_; I concede that 100% of armed burglars will not shoot 100% of the homeowners who catch them in the act, and if unarmed will not physically assault 100% of those homeowners. Can we now move on from this inane disagreement? > [@](#): > > **WAE** : > Well then, can you cite an example of a gun control law ever being subject to post-passage scrutiny as to whether or not it was effective in cutting down on the specific abuse it was meant to? By the state I mean, not some private organization. By the “state”, do you mean official legislative review, or do you mean spirited legislative debate? The latter occurs frequently after passage of controversial laws, and is frequently _informed_ through the efforts of private organizations; the former is not currently (AFAIK) a requirement for any law passed in any state of the union, wish as we may that it were. > [@](#): > > **WAE** : > > > [@](#): > > > > _ **xeno** : > > (I think your income tax example fails to illustrate a slippery slope as well…_ > > Ummm…hello? Are you only going to consider the movement of tax brackets since the 70s? We had an income tax for some 55 years before that too… Uh, hi there! Do you understand what a “slippery slope argument” is? > [@](#): > > **WAE** : > > > [@](#): > > > > _ **xeno** : > > …an example of one side of a national debate losing influence rather than a slippery-slopery fall…_ > > Both of those descriptions can easily refer to the same thing. \ > > > [@](#): > > > > _ **xeno** (to **erislover** ): > > Can you point us to whoever is [critiquing a slippery-slope argument while using one] here?_ > > I can: > > > [@](#): > > > > _ **jshore** ’s post: > > Well, when some of the pro-gun lobby are saying things like “You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingertips” and then making these slippery slope arguments, you can imagine it doesn’t have to go much further before some wacko takes “preventative action” to protect his gun rights from being taken away._ > > Please read carefully the parts I have underlined. Well, I guess you and **erl** _don’t_ know what a slippery slope argument is. Let me help you out here. A [slippery slope argument](http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ss.htm) is one which states that a series of unacceptable consequences will follow as _a result_ of a particular proposition. **Weird Al** , please notice that a slippery slope argument does not say that a series of variously unacceptable and acceptable consequences, based on changing circumstances and political influence, will flow from a proposition. **Weird Al** and **erislover** , please note that **jshore** ’s remarks concerned the perceived _likelihood_ (which doesn’t effect the _plausibility_ of his argument, does it, **Al**? 😉 ) of a “wacko” attacking a public figure in proactive defense of gun rights. **jshore** made these remarks in response to the ridiculous assertion the Hillary Clinton is “a hypocrite” for accepting Secret Service protection. At no point in his remarks did **jshore** state or imply that the use of slippery slope arguments or rabid pro-gun rhetoric will inexorably lead to assassinations of gun control advocates; he merely pointed out that the high level of vitriol spewed at such advocates, coupled with examples such as abortion clinic bombings, makes the use of bodyguards by people like HRC seem pretty reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2001, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/62 "2001-09-12T23:00:14Z")
New York City, until yesterday, did a great job reducing crime, better than anyone else in the country. And we did not have to pass conceal and carry laws to do it, too. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2001, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007/63 "2001-09-13T01:03:29Z")
Sorry, I see pro-gun person’s fear of draconian regulation as very plausible. We only have a huge majority of the civilized world following such a trend, and we hear further calls for more regulation every day. I hear it on every political add here in MA. Plausible? You got it. Likely? I see a trend in stiffer regulation. Your point? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-will-we-do-when-they-come-for-our-slippery-slope/78007.md?page=3)