The most tired and overused rhetorical argument is to create a straw man - in other words to distort your opponent's position to the point that no sane person would agree with him or her. The "slippery slope" argument is nothing more than a variation on this straw man argument, where it is frequently used in defense of present and real oppressions by playing on fears of dystopian futures. The argument goes something like this: "If we allow the passage of this law, then what is next? It is only one small step away from (insert dystopian vision here)." This sort of argument is diversionary; it shrugs the issues at hand and plays upon listeners' emotions. Lately, the slippery slope argument has been used in the gun control debate, thereby distorting the issue at hand.
I am tired of the argument that if the government restricts gun rights (something that governments do, and always have done) that suddenly America will turn into a dark socialist/fascist/communist wasteland. Gun rights are not sacred, nor inviolable, nor have they ever been. It is currently the case that individuals cannot own all types of firearms, and further restrictions upon gun ownership are not a new and unheard of infringement upon citizen's rights. New gun control measures are necessary as part of large-scale action to reduce gun violence, and are not the first step toward fascism or dictatorship.
Here is how the argument plays out. Gun control advocates propose legislation that is reasonable and fair: ban assault rifles that have no sporting use, require universal background checks on gun sales (something that I had assumed was already the case), limit high capacity magazines, etc. The NRA replies that if we ban assault rifles that it is only a hop, skip, and a jump away to tyranny and government take-over. Rather than arguing over the merits of the gun control proposal, the NRA diverts the discussion to a shouting fest. Essentially, they paint gun control advocates as proponents of tyranny and enemies of liberty, instead of as concerned citizens fighting for greater public safety.
What sacred right do these proposals violate? The second amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed." To me, the letter and spirit of the law are explicit: within a regulatory framework, the right to bear arms for the express purpose of security is inviolable. The well-regulated militia clause permits the government to restrict the ownership, use, and sale of certain types of firearms. It is plainly ridiculous to argue otherwise: individuals cannot legally possess rocket launchers, grenade launchers, or a host of other weapons. It is only recently that regulatory frameworks have been discarded in the name of "freedom." In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment really didn't mean the "well regulated Militia" part of the clause and that individuals can own firearms for any purpose that can be justified as self defense. This seems a more frightening modification of the law than a high-capacity magazine or assault rifle ban.
In fact, the slippery slope has been slanted toward gun rights for decades. Government agencies used to be able to collect information on gun ownership for the purpose of research, treating gun violence as a public health and public safety issue. The NRA fought against this research for years and won their case. Assault weapons were banned previously, now they are not. Handguns were illegal in DC, now they are not - and the Supreme Court that overturned the handgun ban greatly increased the rights of gun owners. So tell me, which way is the slippery slope going? Are we headed toward a tyrannical society where no individual has the right to defend themselves, or are we headed toward a modern wild west society where no gun control is acceptable?
Gun violence is a serious problem across America - hundreds of people die from it every year, far more than many other issues to which we devote a lot of time and energy. Although a tragedy, the Benghazi attack claimed the lives of 4 individuals and congressional Republicans have played an obstructionist role ever since. If they would bring a proportionate amount of vigor and passion to curbing gun violence, hundreds of lives could be saved every year. Gun violence should be treated, like vehicular accidents are, as a public health issue. It should be approached holistically, and many different, complementary steps should be taken.
Obviously, legislation cannot stop all wrongdoing. For example, murder is illegal, but people still murder. Does this mean that governments should legalize murder, because it is not a perfect fix? The argument that no legislation is sufficient, therefore no legislation is necessary is a logical fallacy. It would be like referees in sports declaring that "players break the rules anyway, so I'm just going to throw away my whistle." Governments must legislate, to the best of their ability, and hope that this legislation can provide a partial solution to the problem.
Laws cannot do everything, and gun violence is a complex problem. Yes, mental health is a big issue. Thus, we should require universal background checks on the purchase and sale of guns, in order to keep them out of the hands of dangerous or unbalanced individuals. We should also better fund initiatives to help the mentally ill, and conduct research into the causes of gun violence and the effects of gun ownership. These arguments are not objections to legislation, but should be undertaken along with legislation to combat violence from all sides. Your right to a gun is not supreme to the inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
