The slippery slope argument

[Quantum Windbag]

It is true that limiting magazines would not have a significant impact on crime. However, they are unnecessary...

Do you not see the hypocrisy in your statement? BECAUSE a magazine ban has no effect on criminals, they are in fact necessary. We KNOW the bad guys will have them, so it is only reasonable that we not prevent good people from having the same. Unless of course you want thugs to have the advantage...

In addition, large cap magazines are necessary (or at least highly desirable) for several methods of hunting (wild boar and varmints for example) and many of the shooting sports (IPSC, 3 gun competition, etc).

Lastly, it's a Bill of Rights, not a bill of needs.



Your firearms ignorance is showing. High capacity magazines have NO relation to the power of the weapon, only the capacity.

And, given that changing magazines in front of terrified children would have made no difference, you are not able to state that "the death toll would have been different" with any credibility. That's not conjecture, it's a wild ass guess. Then there's the obvious: What makes you think a ban on high capacity magazines would have any impact whatsoever on a crazy person's actions?

There are many millions of high capacity magazines out there. Every low capacity (<10 rounds) can very easily be converted to high cap. Further, magazines are made of nothing more than sheet metal and a spring. You can't ban that. That point is, a ban would not have, nor will it, make a damn bit of difference.



Bullshit. What Australia faces today is a close to an all out ban as you get. If that's what your're calling "reasonable" gun control, you've outed yourself as a full on gun grabber.

Ain't gonna happen here. No way.

Molon Labe.



So what? Do you care about HOW someone is killed or the fact that a murder has been committed? Is some that is knifed to death less dead that if they were shot? England has a HIGHER rate of violent crime than the US, a rate that skyrocketed following their gun ban. So much for "effective" gun control.

Further, for all the firearms in America, our murder rate still doesn't make the list of the top 100 countries by rate of intentional homicide. Kinda kills your argument that more guns equals more crime.

Bottom line, it is true that when Americans kill another, they tend to use a gun. That does not mean the gun did it. It's still people that kill, not firearms.



England having the highest violent crime rate? Yes, that is staggering. But what really sucks is that the good English people are disarmed against all those violent thugs. How in the fuck is that a good idea?

So yeah, gun control laws, in general, saves lives.

Which is why Detroit, Chicago, and Washington DC...and Mexico for that matter are so damn safe?

Fail.

Why would the capacity of a weapon not have anything to do with its power? Is the gun not more effective in that sense? Why is it not acceptable to compromise on capacity on any level?

I never said a ban would have any impact on a crazy person's actions. It's just common sense he would have less sucess using a less powerful weapon (including capacity). The amount of bullets fired in one minute is completely relevant as well. Even so, my assumption about these weapons in massacre situations is no better than your assumption about having the upper hand in a situation of both parties using guns in a confrontational situation.

England having a high crime rate? Based on what? What crimes specifically? We are taking about guns and gun related deaths in the UK. The numbers on that speak for themselves.

There is also no causal link between less control laws and overall crime rate. To suggest that is stupid.

I used to have a paint gun that held 500 rounds, I don't recall anyone telling me it was more powerful than a single shot .22 rifle.

 

[Zona]

Here we are. Slippery slope is a fallacy. This sums it up better than I could,

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My wife is Asian. I am offended by all this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Many conservatives have this idea that giving into progressive ideas is a slippery slope. I don't remember what dumbass republican politician said it, but he made the laughable argument that "if we legalize gay marriage, then what? One man and three women? One woman and 4 men? How about having sex with animals?"

Do I even need to explain how stupid this quote is?

Legalizing gay marriage would not lead to polygamy. Why? Because no one besides Mormon fundamentalists want polygamy. What gives a political issue grounding, is how large the movement is.

This idea also applies to less absurd examples. Limiting certain, small freedoms, for example, does not lead to totalitarianism. Why? Because the larger population is always going to be against unfair and unjust government influence. Take limiting magazines on guns for instance. There is no major, legitimate movement to eliminate guns completely. Therefore, it is never going to happen! The NRA can go fuck themselves with their black and white thinking.

So contrary to what many of what you cons like to believe, raising taxes does not lead to communism. We are no where near socialism. We are nowhere near totalitarianism. There is always going to be people, such as yourselves, who are going to make sure we retain enough personal freedoms to live happy and fulfilling lives.

The trick is weighing certain legislation on a case by case basis to decide what is best for the country. That's it. It's that simple.

Considering that leftists have achieved everything they've ever done through incrementalism, this post trying to tell us there's no such thing is pretty fucking hilarious.

Contrary to your ignorant religious prejudices (Yes, I know that's redundant), polyamory is alive and well outside of the Mormon community. It's a big, bright, diverse world outside your mom's basement and your own imagination. Why don't you try getting out in it and meeting some of the people in it?

New Sexual Revolution: Polyamory May Be Good for You: Scientific American

It never ceases to amaze me how, for all leftists' claims to be supporters of sexual freedom and alternative lifestyles, they are the most prudish, straightlaced, cloistered, ignorant, sexually-uptight people outside of Muslims, and even that's debatable.

"Limiting small freedoms doesn't lead to totalitarianism" . . . except in every place that's ever HAD totalitarianism, dumbfuck.

Seriously, you need to have the blood flow to your brain checked by a professional.

It doesn't fucking matter if people outside of the Mormon church, the movement is completely insignificant. It is never going to get anywhere. The fact that you think it will is a testament to your stupidity.

Like most conservatives, you clearly lack any critical thinking skills. Limiting personal freedom does not.lead to totalitarianism. Every country in the world has laws that limit personal freedoms. Are you really so stupid to believe that isn't true? It's so unbelievably pathetic that you generalize liberals as all being the same. You are as dumb as a post.

Just because ONE scientific study has evidence of psychological benefit, it doesn't mean they are advocating for it politically. Get a fucking clue.

Argument from ignorance again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Many conservatives have this idea that giving into progressive ideas is a slippery slope. I don't remember what dumbass republican politician said it, but he made the laughable argument that "if we legalize gay marriage, then what? One man and three women? One woman and 4 men? How about having sex with animals?"

Do I even need to explain how stupid this quote is?

Legalizing gay marriage would not lead to polygamy. Why? Because no one besides Mormon fundamentalists want polygamy. What gives a political issue grounding, is how large the movement is.

This idea also applies to less absurd examples. Limiting certain, small freedoms, for example, does not lead to totalitarianism. Why? Because the larger population is always going to be against unfair and unjust government influence. Take limiting magazines on guns for instance. There is no major, legitimate movement to eliminate guns completely. Therefore, it is never going to happen! The NRA can go fuck themselves with their black and white thinking.

So contrary to what many of what you cons like to believe, raising taxes does not lead to communism. We are no where near socialism. We are nowhere near totalitarianism. There is always going to be people, such as yourselves, who are going to make sure we retain enough personal freedoms to live happy and fulfilling lives.

The trick is weighing certain legislation on a case by case basis to decide what is best for the country. That's it. It's that simple.

The main problem with your reasoning is that government rarely ever reverses itself, and relinguishs control that it has taken. Consequently every act of government takes another small bite out of the apple of freedom. That apple is limited, and at some point will be entirely consumed. Your freedom is gone, and you didn't even notice it going.

You will realize it when you wish to do something that you believe to be your right, and you find that some bureaucrat tells you no, you cannot do that. Perhaps when you get ready to build your home on a piece of property you purchased years ago, and find out that the EPA has declared it a wetland, and you are not allowed to do anything with it. Except of course, you will still have to pay property taxes on it.

Or, perhaps your local government has declared your neighborhood to be a historical district, and you find that you cannot paint your house, modify it, of much of anything else, without permission from the government. And, they tell you what colors they will accept, or what your windows will look like, or even whether you can put in a paved driveway.

You only notice a loss of freedom when it affects you personally. By then, it is far too late to rectify it. The two examples that I have cited, are only the tip of the iceburg when it comes to government taking over our liberties.

This fallacy is not saying that the government never does anything unfair. it's saying that it is illogical to assume that every issue that you do not agree with is inevitably going to evolve into something else.

Really?

Then you wouldn't have a problem with a law that mandated church attendance?

 

[jgarden]

The last thing conservatives need to do is compromise with liberals, because the liberal utopian ideology will never accept mere compromise. The only reason liberals think conservatives are stupid, is because conservatives aren't willing to buy into liberal ideological nonsense, and that pisses liberal kooks off. That, and that pesky Constitution always seems to railroad the liberal utopian dream. Well...Boo f-in hoo.

That is the kind of thinking that resulted in the 2008 and 2012 Presidential Elections.

Women, visible minorities and young voters that form the core of the Democratic Party represent an ever increasing % of the electorate at the expense of males, "whites" and older voters.

Unless the Republican/Tea Party coalition is able to introduce policies that would will attract these 3 expanding groups, the 2016, 2920, 2024 ..... elections have for all intents and purposes been decided.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

You do realize your post is a slippery slope argument, right?

I especially loved the idea that " Limiting certain,(sic) small freedoms, for example, does not lead to totalitarianism

This is a peach, too.

"no one besides Mormon fundamentalists want polygamy. What gives a political issue grounding, (sic) is how large the movement is."

You is scary.

 

[The Rabbi]

Many conservatives have this idea that giving into progressive ideas is a slippery slope. I don't remember what dumbass republican politician said it, but he made the laughable argument that "if we legalize gay marriage, then what? One man and three women? One woman and 4 men? How about having sex with animals?"

Do I even need to explain how stupid this quote is?

Legalizing gay marriage would not lead to polygamy. Why? Because no one besides Mormon fundamentalists want polygamy. What gives a political issue grounding, is how large the movement is.

This idea also applies to less absurd examples. Limiting certain, small freedoms, for example, does not lead to totalitarianism. Why? Because the larger population is always going to be against unfair and unjust government influence. Take limiting magazines on guns for instance. There is no major, legitimate movement to eliminate guns completely. Therefore, it is never going to happen! The NRA can go fuck themselves with their black and white thinking.

So contrary to what many of what you cons like to believe, raising taxes does not lead to communism. We are no where near socialism. We are nowhere near totalitarianism. There is always going to be people, such as yourselves, who are going to make sure we retain enough personal freedoms to live happy and fulfilling lives.

The trick is weighing certain legislation on a case by case basis to decide what is best for the country. That's it. It's that simple.

Yeah, no one wants polygamy.
Judge allows 'Sister Wives' suit to proceed ? USATODAY.com

What a dolt you are. While logically the slippery slope is a fallacy in real life it often works out that way.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

If you need a damn AK-47 to protect your house.... you a gun nut or you living in a really bad place and should move. If it's the former.... then go over to Iraq and live. I am sure they be happy to have you.

How are you going to stop them? Go to war with Obama? Good luck!

That's your retort? Wow.

If you'd like to make your case without childish name calling or ad hominen attacks, then by all means, let's here it. Tell us exactly what gun control laws you advocate and why. Suggesting that those that support the Bill of Rights should move to Iraq only makes you look ridiculous.

The floor is still yours.

You do not need an Assault Rifle to protect yourself. It is your turn, not mine, to explain. Why do you need one, and tell me WITHOUT using the Bill of Rights as an argument. I bet you can't, because you're a gun right, plain and simple. I own several guns myself.... shotguns. Do I need a AK-47? Nope. If they are taken away, would I care? Nope.

Who are you to tell me what I need to defend myself?

What gives you that right?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

The last thing conservatives need to do is compromise with liberals, because the liberal utopian ideology will never accept mere compromise. The only reason liberals think conservatives are stupid, is because conservatives aren't willing to buy into liberal ideological nonsense, and that pisses liberal kooks off. That, and that pesky Constitution always seems to railroad the liberal utopian dream. Well...Boo f-in hoo.

That is the kind of thinking that resulted in the 2008 and 2012 Presidential Elections.

Women, visible minorities and young voters that form the core of the Democratic Party represent an ever increasing % of the electorate at the expense of males, "whites" and older voters.

Unless the Republican/Tea Party coalition is able to introduce policies that would will attract these 3 expanding groups, the 2016, 2920, 2024 ..... elections have for all intents and purposes been decided.

My, another slippery slope argument.

 

[ELITEofWarman8]

I'm fucking done here

Promise?

When you realize that what YOU think OTHERS need makes no difference whatsoever, then you can come back and debate with the grownups. Until then, off you go.

No, how about you learn how to be a grown up and when you actually do something in life and not sit at a computer all day, you come back and debate like a big boy ok? You haven't told me why you need an AK-47 yet. You think you can fight the government? I'm going to bet you won't win.

 

[eflatminor]

I'm fucking done here

Promise?

When you realize that what YOU think OTHERS need makes no difference whatsoever, then you can come back and debate with the grownups. Until then, off you go.

You haven't told me why you need an AK-47 yet.

So you're not done here. Figures...you're a liar as well as an idiot. Good luck with all that.

And yes, I and others have told you why we need any firearm...because that's exactly what the bad guys will have. So once again, you've only demonstrated a willingness to give criminals an edge over law abiding citizens.

 

[eflatminor]

That's your retort? Wow.

If you'd like to make your case without childish name calling or ad hominen attacks, then by all means, let's here it. Tell us exactly what gun control laws you advocate and why. Suggesting that those that support the Bill of Rights should move to Iraq only makes you look ridiculous.

The floor is still yours.

You do not need an Assault Rifle to protect yourself. It is your turn, not mine, to explain. Why do you need one, and tell me WITHOUT using the Bill of Rights as an argument. I bet you can't, because you're a gun right, plain and simple. I own several guns myself.... shotguns. Do I need a AK-47? Nope. If they are taken away, would I care? Nope.

Who are you to tell me what I need to defend myself?

What gives you that right?

Cuz it knows what's best for everyone, don't cha know...

It's just another typical central planner wannabe that doesn't know shit about that which it's attempting to debate. It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

 

[eflatminor]

You're a stupid fucking gun nut. Fuck off.

Ah the brilliant debating skills of elite...now on full display for everyone. The logic, the reason, the specificity...really impressive.

The stupid runs deep in this one.