(November 6, 2017 at 1:09 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:(November 6, 2017 at 1:03 pm)wallym Wrote: Common sense, to me, says that if you are going to say "This needs to be stopped! Mass murder is unacceptable!" The goal is no guns. There isn't a number of children that can be shot in a Sandy Hook scenario that is going to be okay. If the guy in Vegas kills 5 people with a deer rifle, that's still a cause for outrage. If the acceptable number of mass murders with guns is 0, you can't have guns around. That would be my take if I were a humanist. We need to get rid of the guns. Feasibility would of course be an issue, but everything would be pushing towards as close to that end goal as possible.
I'm not a humanist though. I don't care either way. Take all the guns. Give everybody a free gun. Whatever. I'm uninvested on the issue. That's probably why I don't have any problems with thinking things through from both sides.
Nice, but it's still a slippery slope fallacy.
The goal is (nearly) no guns. That's the actual endpoint. We've seen it all over the world. 'No guns' is not 'marrying a horse.' I am not going beyond the actual objective to some hypothetical nonsense which is what slippery slope fallacy is. The goal is not a maximum of 5 kids killed per mass shooting at an elementary school. It's 0 shootings at elementary schools. You achieve this through the removal of guns. It's obvious. Australia and the UK figured it out with little difficulty.
Currently, it's not feasible or politically expedient in the US. But that doesn't change the fact that is the objective for many, and that number is going to grow going forward.
Now if I said "What's next, we can't have cars because you can kill someone with them?" That would be a slippery slope fallacy.
