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.
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.
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.
Because you failed to support it by showing how making something more dangerous makes it in any way more difficult.
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.
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”.
Here, 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, 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?
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.
Uh, hi there! Do you understand what a “slippery slope argument” is?
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 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.