TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#48576: Jan 31st 2013 at 2:48:36 PM

Bear in mind, it is easy for people who live in the coastal metropolises to say "oh, but I don't need a gun, and neither does anyone I know", but not quite so easy for the people in Flyover Country, where the police response time is sometimes measured in hours. I remember I was once on a coach ride through there (I think it was Wyoming or Nebraska) and saw this farmhouse out in the middle of nowhere, nothing but an hour of the Great Plains in either direction. If I lived there, I'd want to be packing something like an AR-15.

Schild und Schwert der Partei
DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#48577: Jan 31st 2013 at 2:59:55 PM

@ Lawyerdude: And all of this talk of the Founding Fathers could never imagine having an "assault rifle" are not exactly up on their history. They did in fact have knowledge of such weapons, since they placed an order for repeating rifles during the Revolutionary War, just a few years before the writing of the Constitution (cancelled only because they couldn't afford them). I don't think the "Original intent" argument really holds up there.

@ Fighteer: You may want to read again. I'm not straw-manning anything, simply pointing out that there are people who do think that way, and this is where the issue arises.

As we're seeing now, with many police departments and military, they are standing up for the second amendment and declaring that they will not follow orders to confiscate weapons, so no, it's very unlikely that the US will ever "confiscate" weapons.

Yet there are still people out there who are making the argument that the UN small arms treaty is going to be used to bring in UN forces from outside the US to confiscate weapons. It's nonsense, but some people still believe that.

Calls for restrictions on certain types of purchases, stronger background checks, stricter licensing requirements, national research into violence and its prevention, comprehensive tracking of inventories and serial numbers to identify criminal dealers and purchasers... all of these rational measures turn into, "You'll take our guns from our cold, dead hands, you dirty Feds."

The problem is with most of the measures themselves and the question of how effective they will be versus what law-abiding citizens stand to lose. Giving ground in any case is essentially seen as an attack on the large majority of the law-abiding citizens who do exercise the right to bear arms responsibly.

Again, the large majority of gun owners want their guns to be handled safely and responsibly. As much as people want to hate on pro-gun crowds, they are the ones who have pushed safety ads for guns. Who better to teach people about guns than people who use them?

The United States even Congressionally chartered a company to help with the safe education and use of firearms. You can even buy old "military style firearms" (including those that are potentially being banned by Feinstein's legislation) through them.

Again, it's the responsibility of vetting the people, not the objects. A man who is drunk should not be combined with an automobile. Same as a man with mental problems or a criminal history should not be combined with firearms. Is that not what everyone is after?

If we're looking at better background checks, or even licensing, fair enough, so long as the process is fair and not arbitrary, the way some states do this. That's what a lot of people are afraid of, that even the smallest discrepancy will have their right to bear arms revoked.

When you put a decision like that into the hands of another person, and not through something like the Constitution, it becomes very unclear, and yes, it's very easy to suddenly jump off the Slippery Slope from there.

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#48578: Jan 31st 2013 at 3:27:18 PM

The Constitution is just a piece of paper. Without people to do what it says, it has exactly the same value as any other piece of paper with a bit of ink scribbled on it.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I don't give a crap about the Constitution for the sake of itself. I care about the stable and free society that the Constitution allows. As we've seen throughout history, when society stops being stable and/or free, it is the responsibility of the people of any country to take the necessary measures to resolve the problem, even if it means amending their Constitution, or, in extreme cases, overthrowing their government.

The reason our Constitution has worked as well as it has is that it provides a mechanism for a sufficient number of people with a grievance to demand that it change without having to resort to war.

The reason I call Perfect Solution Fallacy on these assertions is that there must be a middle ground between "ban all guns" and "let people have all the guns that they want" that achieves the goal of stopping these shootings. If the measures suggested don't seem like they are sufficient to achieve that task, then go ahead and suggest some. If you throw up your hands and declare the problem unsolvable, so that we just have to allow that from time to time a bunch of schoolkids will get murdered so that everyone can enjoy their Second Amendment rights, I'm going to call bullshit.

For the record, I have absolutely no problem with the folks in "flyover country" owning a rifle to deal with the occasional fox or bear. What I do object to is the notion that their safety and freedom requires a fortified bunker stocked with enough weapons and ammunition to invade Canada.

edited 31st Jan '13 3:30:56 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#48579: Jan 31st 2013 at 3:29:29 PM

Again, it's the responsibility of vetting the people, not the objects. A man who is drunk should not be combined with an automobile. Same as a man with mental problems or a criminal history should not be combined with firearms. Is that not what everyone is after?

You'd think that would be a reasonable compromise point where both sides could come together and agree, but no.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2013/1/statement-from-chris-w-cox.aspx

This is exactly the problem: people who view ANY KIND OF REGULATION WHATSOEVER as an infringment upon their rights.

It is, we should note, not a problem in America that is confined to guns.

edited 31st Jan '13 3:32:09 PM by Karkadinn

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
Achaemenid HGW XX/7 from Ruschestraße 103, Haus 1 Since: Dec, 2011 Relationship Status: Giving love a bad name
HGW XX/7
#48580: Jan 31st 2013 at 3:59:24 PM

[up][up]

The law is not always found in books. I don't think the American people would stand for tyranny, Constitution or no.

Schild und Schwert der Partei
TotemicHero No longer a forum herald from the next level Since: Dec, 2009
No longer a forum herald
#48581: Jan 31st 2013 at 4:12:23 PM

I will point out that just because the presence or absence of an amendment does not guarantee whether something will be legal or not.

In fact, given how self defense laws in the U.S. are written, you couldn't make an all-out gun ban stick, even if the Second went the way of the dodo. The courts would likely toss that one out real fast.

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#48582: Jan 31st 2013 at 4:23:50 PM

I sense there's a fundamental problem in this debate when it comes to desires vs. intentions.

I want to ban guns but even if I was elected I wouldn't actually go through with that. Why? Simple, I see it as causing far more trouble than it would solve. This doesn't mean I'm in favor of the current status quo though which is why I support harsher restrictions on guns.

I have similar views on drugs (illegal and legal), the existence of Fox News, and abortion. I don't like the fact that they exist at all and, if I felt we lived in an ideal world, I would ban them all (with certain exceptions for abortion). Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world so I don't think outright banning these things is the way to go.

That does not mean we must assume a defeatist attitude and not do anything to fix the problem. There are certain steps we could take that would fix all these issues. The problem is the GOP is often on the wrong side of this from my perspective and frequently uses fear mongering, emotional appeals, and ad hominem rather than presenting actual research or logic for why their views should be public policy.

I would love to have a rational discourse with them but when one side simply refuses to do so and treats any attempt to curb violence as the prelude to a gestapo esque crackdown it pisses me off.

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#48583: Jan 31st 2013 at 4:28:45 PM

Devil: Okay so maybe the founding fathers could imagine assault rifles-in the same way that people in the 50s could imagine flying cars, or cars that drive themselves.

Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#48584: Jan 31st 2013 at 4:37:37 PM

You'd think that would be a reasonable compromise point where both sides could come together and agree, but no.

Mostly because people on the other side have been convinced that the only reason a total gun ban isn't around the corner is because it's politically untenable. In areas where it is politically tenable to pile mountains of bullshit on it, it does happen. You can see this in states like California or New York (two of the most populous states in the US, so it's not surprising that those issues get talked about a lot). There's also the view that the further you can push against regulation, the harder it will be to do bad things with it, essentially creating buffer rights.

I would love to have a rational discourse with them but when one side simply refuses to do so and treats any attempt to curb violence as the prelude to a gestapo esque crackdown it pisses me off.

Many people who are okay with reasonable (for various descriptions of reasonable) restrictions on gun access won't support gun control groups because they get the vibe that the only thing that is stopping those groups from banning all the guns is the momentum to do so. You can ask Barkey on that one specifically.

Fight smart, not fair.
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#48585: Jan 31st 2013 at 4:41:00 PM

Again, who wants guns to be banned? I have yet to see a single person in any prominent position of power demanding that. You'd think, will all the frenzy over this, I'd have seen at least one video clip of a politician actually saying this outright.

edited 31st Jan '13 4:41:17 PM by Kostya

DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#48586: Jan 31st 2013 at 4:49:48 PM

Feinstein would if she could, but she at least recognizes that she can't. "That dog doesn't hunt" as she says.

Full PBS Newshour clip from Feinstein's youtube channel

edited 31st Jan '13 4:53:37 PM by DevilTakeMe

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#48587: Jan 31st 2013 at 5:05:55 PM

Mostly because people on the other side have been convinced that the only reason a total gun ban isn't around the corner is because it's politically untenable. In areas where it is politically tenable to pile mountains of bullshit on it, it does happen. You can see this in states like California or New York (two of the most populous states in the US, so it's not surprising that those issues get talked about a lot).

Okay, those are concrete examples of a functioning firearm 'slippery slope.' Let's take a look.

California bans ' assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles,' 'pen guns' and silencers. Every OTHER type of firearm, including handguns, shotguns and other rifles, can be acquired with the right permit. So you can't legally have an AK-47, a sniper rifle or a silenced weapon.

Firearms with significant niches for self-defense or hunting or historical reenactment, even concealable ones (by far and very consistently the worst offenders for homicide), are still perfectly legal.

And that's your example of the worst it can get, the bottom of the slope in the most liberal state in America. Cry me a river.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#48588: Jan 31st 2013 at 5:11:59 PM

Geraldo Rivera 'truly contemplating' run for Senate in New Jersey.

Justice Department opposes big brewers merger, sues to keep beer prices down

Leon Panetta to testify on Benghazi

Idaho state Senator Sheryl Nuxoll compares health care to Holocaust

For the first time, a majority of Americans believe the federal government threatens their rights and freedoms, according to a poll released Thursday.

Vice President Joe Biden conceded on Thursday that gun regulations aren’t going to end every murder or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting, but argued changes are needed to save lives.

NRA president: Harry Reid 'under incredible pressure'

Reid is in a sticky situation here. I wonder how he'll get out of it.

ON THE WHOLE GUN CONTROL THING:

@Deboss does have something of a point. The city of San Francisco tried to ban all guns a while ago, and was only stopped because courts reminded the city that this was a violation of the 2nd Amendment. So the slippery slope idea is not all that fallacious.

At the same time, I realize something needs to be done regarding the issue of gun violence that is plaguing this nation. While there is no 'magic bullet' solution that will prevent mass shootings; we can still decrease there frequency. Obviously the Assault Weapon Ban has proven to be both ineffective and invasive so that is clearly not the solution.

I still believe we should have universal background checks and end the gun show loophole.

I also believe @Midgetsnowman to be correct about our culture being somewhat responsible for our current situation. But changing a culture is incredibly difficult, so there is not much we can do at that front.

edited 31st Jan '13 5:20:37 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Aprilla Since: Aug, 2010
#48589: Jan 31st 2013 at 5:18:22 PM

"I still believe we should have universal background checks and end the gun show loophole."

Works for me.

Everyone is throwing their cards on the table as to what the problem with gun violence (and violence in general) is at its source. As someone who has metaphorically been in the trenches of academia and as someone who has worked with children, I'm going to say it's largely due to our education system.

I'm a fairly left-leaning person. I support socialized healthcare, I'm opposed to criminalizing abortion, and I support gay marriage. I'm also an avid gun owner. Given those two major characteristics, I've been more than a little upset by the rhetoric that both major political platforms are using. I don't really buy into the whole "armed against possible tyranny argument" not because of the unlikelihood of such an event happening, but because it precludes greater social emergencies in our nation such as lack of affordable healthcare, a disproportionately wide gap between the rich and the poor, and poor education among the general population.

I've said these things elsewhere and I'll say it here. I support gun ownership and the gun subculture, but I believe the use of guns as a means of self-defense, while marginally necessary, is often exaggerated by advocates and used as a source of demonization by anti-gun supporters. I would love to have a CCW permit, and I don't have a problem with people who exercise their public carrying because they have gone through the necessary legal channels to secure those permits. However, I believe that the first line of defense against tyranny is not a well-armed citizenry, but a well educated and well informed citizenry.

This debate both online and offline has really gotten on my nerves because there's a lot of willful ignorance rearing its ugly head. Regardless of how you feel about gun control, it stands to be mentioned that we have a severe problem with how intelligent, articulate, open-minded, and critically analytical our general population is in the US. We are raising a society of people who have a narrow and ill-encouraged world view, and we are not adequately equipping our youth with the tools to critically evaluate their own culture as well as the cultures of the world at large.

Personally, I think this whole national debate turned to custard the moment it was politicized, which was arguably inevitable.

EDIT: Additionally, I see two dominant attitude groups on each political platform in this debate. Gun advocacy based on conservative rhetoric employs knee-jerk reactionary panic, anti-intellectualism, jingoism, xenophobia and fetishized conspiracy theories. Gun control based on liberal rhetoric employs Ivory Tower bullshit truisms, academic self-righteousness, and smug, sanctimonious assertions of supposedly self-evident logic. Both groups also heavily emphasize a myopic brand of moral authority that has a stronger basis in instant gratification than it does in taking a long, hard look at the reality of the situation.

edited 31st Jan '13 5:52:53 PM by Aprilla

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#48590: Jan 31st 2013 at 5:50:47 PM

I certainly think that the assault weapons thing is a massive red herring and an unnecessary imposition; a negligible number of gun crimes are actually committed with AR-15s. (Not to mention that including a plastic stock among the "features of an assault weapon" is plainly stupid.)

Close the gun show loophole, require background checks before gun sales, require mandatory classes on gun safety prior to receiving a firearms license, step up prosecutions of convicted felons found with firearms. These are broadly sane regulations comparable to automobile registration, and I predict that these measures will have a measurable impact on gun crime.

shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#48591: Jan 31st 2013 at 5:55:29 PM

I know where I live it's handguns that we need more regulation on, not assault weapons. That said, when the assault weapons do come out, there tends to be a lot of collateral damage.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#48592: Jan 31st 2013 at 6:05:17 PM

Anywhere in the US at least (I don't know about elsewhere), handguns are the major figure in homicide statistics. Assault-classified weapons are not nearly as statistically major a problem by comparison. Nonetheless, I'm not especially sympathetic to people who argue that we need to continue to see thousands of people die from firearms annually because they want to play with their firearm cosmetics.

A theoretical inability to possess a shotgun with (for example) a pistol grip does not strike me as a meaningful hit to your quality of life.

[down]

Addressed in this post. To put it succinctly and as neutrally as possible: I do not support ineffective regulations, of course, but neither do I see their existence in some cases as a rationale for denouncing effective ones. As has been proven in this thread, most vocal pro-gun advocates oppose both on principle regardless.

edited 31st Jan '13 6:11:15 PM by Karkadinn

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#48593: Jan 31st 2013 at 6:06:08 PM

California bans ' assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles, ' 'pen guns' and silencers. Every OTHER type of firearm, including handguns, shotguns and other rifles, can be acquired with the right permit. So you can't legally have an AK-47, a sniper rifle or a silenced weapon.

Banning a weapon based on cosmetics (which is what an "assault weapon" is) is useless and should not be done since it's been proven to have a near non-existent effect on crime (see the nation wide version). 50 BMG rifles are never used in crimes (the only one being a suicide, by a police officer so the ban had no effect anyway) because they're too frickin' expensive to use and impossible to conceal.

The right permit is obtained generally by knowing the right people or "donating" huge amounts of money to whoever decides they want to sell their will issue license to. It's possible to get one in the same way that it's possible to own a minigun: throw enough money at it and it's good.

Cry me a river.

Aw, poor baby doesn't understand the concept of serious discussion based on statistics.

Edit:

Assault-classified weapons are not nearly as statistically major a problem by comparison. Nonetheless, I'm not especially sympathetic to people who argue that we need to continue to see thousands of people die from firearms annually because they want to play with their firearm cosmetics.

If legislators aren't willing to pass worthwhile laws directed at statistically major issues, I don't see why you should hate on the cosmetics.

A theoretical inability to possess a shotgun with (for example) a pistol grip does not strike me as a meaningful hit to your quality of life.

It also won't improve the lives of others. If you don't see why passing restrictions that won't help anyone but inconvenience the people that are opposed, I'm not sure why you complain that people refuse to compromise with you.

Most pro-gun advocates oppose anti-gun advocates in principle because they're ignorant and think it's okay to ban things that you don't need, even if it won't help. That's the kind of opposition to law that should be encouraged.

edited 31st Jan '13 6:12:35 PM by Deboss

Fight smart, not fair.
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#48594: Jan 31st 2013 at 6:21:22 PM

Of course, if you do that, then it's no longer a fallacy because you have PROOF - not because you assert that it's not a fallacy.

It was never a logical fallacy in the first place because asserting the possibility of a slippery slope or the desire to keep a cautious distance from one is not a fallacy. If you want a 100% burden of proof on every goddamn thing you do when speculating the results of laws, you might as well just cut out the middlemen, fire all your legislators, and use the building for firewood, because you wouldn't be able to provide it for much of anything ever. Unless of course you'd rather just redefine "Slippery Slope Fallacy" to mean "being leery of anything I ever want to go through".

Again, who wants guns to be banned? I have yet to see a single person in any prominent position of power demanding that. You'd think, will all the frenzy over this, I'd have seen at least one video clip of a politician actually saying this outright.

Michael Bloomberg, AKA "the NYPD is my personal army and the rest of you should give up your guns".

Also, RE: assault weapons, pretty much none of the kinds of guns targeted are the kind of "spew a bajillion bullets a second" models people seem to expect; those are Title II weapons that are already very heavily regulated and indeed prohibited in a lot of states. Most assault weapon bans target ordinary one-pull-one-shot semiautomatics with cosmetic features like — GASP — folding stocks, pistol grips, and bayonet mounts. You're essentially banning a bigger, fancier-looking pistol that shoots slightly larger bullets.

edited 31st Jan '13 6:25:09 PM by Pykrete

Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#48595: Jan 31st 2013 at 6:29:24 PM

Close the gun show loophole, require background checks before gun sales, require mandatory classes on gun safety prior to receiving a firearms license, step up prosecutions of convicted felons found with firearms. These are broadly sane regulations comparable to automobile registration, and I predict that these measures will have a measurable impact on gun crime.

I suppose the biggest problem is that it's hard to implement these because it doesn't fit on a sign the way most political slogans do. "My political views have nuance and won't fit on this sign" doesn't get a lot of reaction. So regardless of how good or bad of an idea these are, nobody really cares enough about implementing smaller legislation actions if they can't get a huge perception boost.

I suppose it would be a much better world if we didn't have to rely on make-or-break political goals as the defining characteristic of elected officials. Or if we elected people to individual councils instead of a general issues group.

edited 31st Jan '13 6:32:52 PM by Deboss

Fight smart, not fair.
Karkadinn Karkadinn from New Orleans, Louisiana Since: Jul, 2009
Karkadinn
#48596: Jan 31st 2013 at 6:38:28 PM

It was never a logical fallacy in the first place because asserting the possibility of a slippery slope or the desire to keep a cautious distance from one is not a fallacy.

Under what circumstances WOULD you call something a slippery slope fallacy, then? Are you rejecting the notion that it's even a real fallacy in the first place, or what?

People are screaming about potential 100% comprehensive gun bans equivalent to prohibition when the most liberal bastion states have managed to do no worse than banning a variety of unnecessary features while still allowing the use of shotguns, rifles and handguns for legitimate purposes.

Is this the dystopian regulation-crazy future we're supposed to be so afraid of? Because I don't see what's so terrible about it. Maybe the regulations aren't perfect or fair or always targeting the right things, but that's cause for IMPROVING them, not ditching them entirely or fighting them every step of the way.

But if the pro-gun political forces are unable to accept that and support genuinely good legislation when it does appear, whether it's because they feel like they need a 'buffer' or for some other reason, then they're only going to hasten the day when people get sick of putting up with their 'hands off my guns' philosophy as people continue to die. And when that day comes, there may very will be a very emotional and irrational reaction against firearms, and it's going to be on the heads of the NRA and people like them who did nothing to stop it by supporting reasonable compromises when they had the chance.

Particularly when the best they can do at explaining firearm violence in the US is 'video games!'

I'm getting a bit too emotionally involved in this topic so I'm going to take a break now; I'll read up again tomorrow and respond if need be once I'm more collected.

edited 31st Jan '13 6:39:55 PM by Karkadinn

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Aprilla Since: Aug, 2010
#48598: Jan 31st 2013 at 6:50:44 PM

[up]Interesting. President Obama himself has been somewhat ambivalent about immigration until recently. Even then, he doesn't strike me as exactly gung ho about it. Likewise, I see his general response to gun control as "I'll look into it". I'm not criticizing him, but he seems to be in a shaky position of having to play a balancing act on many key issues in the nation. I know I'm stating the obvious at this point.

On cosmetics, the problem with that debate is two-sided. One side says "you don't need holographic sights and foregrips, so we should get rid of them." The other side says "there's little proof that these accessories are actually increasing violent crimes, so why should we?"

edited 31st Jan '13 6:52:55 PM by Aprilla

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#48599: Jan 31st 2013 at 6:54:41 PM

Under what circumstances WOULD you call something a slippery slope fallacy, then? Are you rejecting the notion that it's even a real fallacy in the first place, or what?

The formal definition of the slippery slope fallacy is to abuse intuitive transitivity of a sequence of non-deterministic events (any or all of which may well even be likely), without recognizing the possibility of a stopping point, interruption, or middle ground. Nothing short of a bald "this will happen" claim is such a fallacy. But of course, that's a lot harder to throw at people on internet forums.

Also, it's bad form to cry slippery slope fallacy when there are people in the very thread who explicitly want the endpoint of the slippery slope to happen and have repeatedly said as much.

edited 31st Jan '13 7:03:36 PM by Pykrete

Deboss I see the Awesomeness. from Awesomeville Texas Since: Aug, 2009
I see the Awesomeness.
#48600: Jan 31st 2013 at 7:05:55 PM

banning a variety of unnecessary features while still allowing the use of shotguns, rifles and handguns for legitimate purposes.

You are aware that both AR and AK derivatives are rifles, and not some other definition?

You're also aware that banning things that aren't used in crimes is what people are upset about? It's not about whether or not you think it's necessary, it's about whether or not it will actually effect crime and save lives. Wanting things that are not necessary is not a crime. Banning things just because they're not necessary should not be an acceptable principle on which a law is judged necessary. It should be based entirely on how much good it's going to do and how much bad is suffered in its implementation. "I don't mind losing this right" is not an acceptable reason to demand that others not defend that right.

In addition, can you point out who is proposing good gun laws in the US congress? And I do mean good, not just some good and a bunch of bad stuff. Is it seeing serious attention at all? Or is it falling by the way side so that elected officials can be seen doing something big and dramatic but not useful?

And when that day comes, there may very will be a very emotional and irrational reaction against firearms, and it's going to be on the heads of the NRA and people like them who did nothing to stop it by supporting reasonable compromises when they had the chance.

This is what an assault weapons ban is. If a law doesn't help, then by definition it is an emotional reaction rather than a rational one. The vast majority of gun crime is committed with hand guns. More than 20:1 ratio between handguns and rifles. And yet most gun control laws seem to target rifles. If you can't work up the political clout to do something about handguns, turning on rifles is not the answer.

it's going to be on the heads of the NRA and people like them who did nothing to stop it by supporting reasonable compromises when they had the chance.

First, good gun laws need to be proposed seriously, by people that can actually implement them. Second, gun users have been compromising. That you don't consider it enough is hardly their fault.

Particularly when the best they can do at explaining firearm violence in the US is 'video games!'

Scapegoating is easier than a serious rebuttal and gets more air time.

Edit:

@ Aprilla: I suspect "I'll look into it" being a common response of a lot of politicians on issues they don't care about is why so little gets done with off the radar events until an emergency. Resulting in only the single issue wonks getting elected on it (and single issue wonk people are always the most sane and rational) so nobody cares until shit happens.

edited 31st Jan '13 7:08:57 PM by Deboss

Fight smart, not fair.

Total posts: 417,856
Top