Sabas11 wrote:ClipsFanSince98 wrote:Sabas11 wrote:
Sorry but your appeal to logic falls on deaf ears when you start using the slippery slope argument (did someone say emotional reaction?) and keep bickering about what constitutes a dangerous weapon.
A slippery slope is not always fallacious. I am well aware of the fallacy. That does NOT mean a slippery slope, especially with well documented evidence doesn't exist. I can list off dozens of examples of a slippery slope with the government in regards to giving them an inch and they take a mile. I gave one very valid example in the Patriot Act from George W to show what I was referencing. A slippery slope is NOT the premises of my argument necessarily, just an example of the consequences of giving the government more power based on what we've seen historically.
Here is an excerpt from an article that defines it pretty nicely.
"A slippery slope argument is merely a claim that “A will lead to B” either as an inevitability, as an increased probability, or as a logical outcome. Slippery slope arguments are often misunderstood, and many people mistakenly think their use is always logically fallacious. As a general rule, if someone summarily dismisses a slippery slope claim, he or she is probably not the type of person who understands how arguments work. (For instance, there are numerous legal precedents where people have argued that accepting legal decision A will lead to B and have been proven correct.)"
In other words, a slippery slope can either be fallacious or not. I gave a good example of what I was comparing to as a point of reference and therefor don't believe the way I used it was fallacious. The US government has a LONG track record of abuse of power and rights.
I never claimed the slippery slope argument was always fallacious, just that you contradicted yourself when you used that argument and appealed to logic at the same time.
For some reason you tried to associate the topic at hand with the Patriot Act, which had nothing to do with with gun control to my knowledge, and screamed "slippery slope!" without starting to provide evidence to argue your position. Typical appeal to emotion to keep the status quo.
I think you're throwing out a bunch of fallacies out of context here. What emotion was I appealing to? What argument from passion was I making? So if you want a gun specific slippery slope, we can look at current day politicians. Look at the narrative over even the last 5 years. We've gone from background checks, to full blown gun confiscation talk from presidential candidates and congressmen/women. It's getting louder and more bold. Feinstein and other's have actually tried to pass legislation to encroach on VERY generic firearm groups such as "semi automatic" including all non revolver pistols (which basically is 90% of all guns out there right now). If they weren't trying to actively pass gun banning/severe restriction policy as we speak, you'd have more of an argument against slippery slope. Given the history (including very recent), you don't have much of a leg to stand on I'm afraid.
"Texas’ former Rep. Beto O’Rourke said he is now “open” to a “mandatory” government gun-buying program—a polite way to describe confiscation of entire classes of firearms. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker highlighted his plan to require every American to obtain a federal “license” to purchase a firearm. Responsible gun owners would have to submit fingerprints, pass an interview, and take safety courses to obtain even a .22-caliber long rifle. And they’d have to repeat the process every five years.
California Sen. Kamala Harris has vowed to ignore Congress and impose gun regulations via executive action. She’d ban certain firearm imports and sue gun manufacturers for “negligence,” among other things. As for former Vice President Joe Biden, CNN asked him if gun owners should worry that a Biden administration “is going to come for my guns.” He answered: “Bingo. You’re right if you have an assault weapon. The fact of the matter is, they should be illegal, period.”
The media is cheering all this on, as well as highlighting polls that claim majorities of Americans support this or that gun-control proposal. But polls are quick snapshots of tiny pools of Americans, often answering vaguely worded policy questions. This is a shoddy, and politically dangerous, way of measuring attitudes on a subject voters take seriously."
PS... look at this random tidbit. This excerpt is from Wikipedia in regards to the first gun buyback program that ever happened in the USA, in Baltimore. In the event of gun confiscation/buyback... we see that in most cases it's the law abiding, responsible gun owners who turn in... not gang members, murderers, burglars etc.
For two months in 1974, the Baltimore Police Department ran what is believed to have been the first gun buyback program in the U.S. Police commissioner Donald Pomerleau, not known as an advocate for strict gun control, reportedly came up with the idea while at a funeral for an officer who was shot in the line of duty. Operation PASS (People Against Senseless Shootings) paid a $50 "bounty" for surrendered guns and $100 for tips leading to the confiscation of illegal guns. Some bounty seekers attempted to game the system by buying cheap, new guns that retailed for $21.95 and then trying to turn them in. In all, the police collected 13,500 firearms - mostly handguns - at a cost of over $660,000. However, the city's already high gun homicide and assault rates actually increased during the program, for which police officials offered no explanation.
You're making this too easy my man.