 |
| Trump visits victims of a mass shooting. Apparently it went fabulously. |
Recently, President Donald Trump changed his mind again about universal background checks on gun sales. As he had before, he went from supporting expanded background checks to opposing them, and he used a well-known phrase to justify his opposition.
“A lot of the people that put me where I am are strong believers in the Second Amendment,” Trump said. “And we have to be very careful about that, you know, they call it the slippery slope. And all of a sudden everything is taken away; we’re not going to let that happen.”
Trump’s mention of the slippery slope argument is typical of the dance he’s done after mass shooting events. In the days after such tragedies, Trump often moderates his tone toward gun control, only to harden it again when lobbied by the National Rifle Association (NRA).
But what is the slippery slope argument we hear about so often? First, we should note that any slippery slope argument is generally considered to be a “logical fallacy.” If a small step A is taken, the argument goes, then steps B, C, etc., will follow, until some bad final outcome is achieved.
But what first step leads us down the slippery slope? That’s the first problem with the slippery slope argument on firearms:
1) Slippery starting points—any change is bad.
But what is the slippery slope argument we hear about so often? First, we should note that any slippery slope argument is generally considered to be a “logical fallacy.” If a small step A is taken, the argument goes, then steps B, C, etc., will follow, until some bad final outcome is achieved.
But what first step leads us down the slippery slope? That’s the first problem with the slippery slope argument on firearms:
1) Slippery starting points—any change is bad.
Gun control opponents use the slippery slope argument frequently, but the descriptions of how the process will start often change, depending on who you talk to. Will it be the act of banning a specific weapon? Enacting more stringent background checks? Passing Red Flag laws?
“YES—all of the above!” say gun rights advocates. So, any state trying to get a handle on mass shootings or other gun violence is going to hear the slippery slope argument, no matter how benign or non-restrictive the proposal may be. Even universal background checks, which according to a Fox News poll, have 90 percent support from all voters and 89 percent support among Republicans, is considered the beginning of the long slide toward widspread gun confiscation.
It’s an argument against any action at all, no matter how reasonable.
“YES—all of the above!” say gun rights advocates. So, any state trying to get a handle on mass shootings or other gun violence is going to hear the slippery slope argument, no matter how benign or non-restrictive the proposal may be. Even universal background checks, which according to a Fox News poll, have 90 percent support from all voters and 89 percent support among Republicans, is considered the beginning of the long slide toward widspread gun confiscation.
It’s an argument against any action at all, no matter how reasonable.
2) It happens every time, except all the times it hasn’t.
America’s gun violence problem has a long history, and many times governmental bodies have passed laws to address the issue. They did so in the early years of the country, they did so in the Wild West days, and they did so during the Prohibition era, when machine guns and sawed-off shotguns were restricted.
If the slippery slope argument is correct, how can it be that millions of Americans still own guns today? Why didn’t all these earlier efforts lead to confiscation of guns and the disarming of American civilians?
3) Europe’s example: much lower rates of gun violence; no tyranny.
The slippery slope argument also hasn’t worked out in modern Europe—a continent with some of the most free and prosperous nations on Earth.
Since the 1950s, we've seen almost 70 years of European democracies enjoying strong economies and high standards of living. Nearly all have more stringent gun regulations than the US and much lower rates of gun violence.
Western European countries have not collapsed into tyranny or forsaken their commitment to civil rights. None of them have turned out the way gun rights advocates say that countries turn out when you deny people unfettered rights to guns. Could it be that guns aren’t the only—or even the main—guarantor of freedom and good government?
4) Brutal dictatorships aren’t caused by gun regulation.
Guns rights advocates often point to Nazi Germany, the USSR under Stalin, and other historical cases of genocide, and link these acts to gun control. In most of these cases, brutal military dictatorships stripped away any number of rights, including the right to bear arms, from ethnic or religious minorities, as part of their murderous regimes. These arguments oversimplify history and suggest that guns are a panacea against oppression. But the truth is more complicated.
Armed-to-the-teeth civilian populations may be popular in movies or other fictional venues, but in real life, each situation is unique, and there is no silver bullet, so to speak, to address authoritarian governments. There are also many cases of oppressive regimes overthrown with peaceful protest. In general, it could be said that “guns don’t stop tyranny, people stop tyranny.”
5) Are we really so insecure about the Constitution? A strong democracy protects our rights without gunfire.
The US has one of the most robust democracies in the history of the world. We don't need to stockpile weapons to preserve our way of life. Our system of checks and balances has ensured that even during difficult times, we can move forward as a nation and not descend into the chaos that has destroyed or crippled other countries.
Expanding background checks, creating red flag laws, even banning assault rifles, none of these constitute an existential threat to our democracy. Mass shooters and everyday gun violence in the U.S. is an existential threat to all of us.
The US has one of the most robust democracies in the history of the world. We don't need to stockpile weapons to preserve our way of life. Our system of checks and balances has ensured that even during difficult times, we can move forward as a nation and not descend into the chaos that has destroyed or crippled other countries.
Expanding background checks, creating red flag laws, even banning assault rifles, none of these constitute an existential threat to our democracy. Mass shooters and everyday gun violence in the U.S. is an existential threat to all of us.
As our history shows, we can address gun violence without taking away all privately-owned guns. There is zero chance of the U.S. government taking “everything” away when it comes to gun ownership. But there is plenty of reason to fear the next mass shooting—and we shouldn’t use irrational excuses to avoid addressing our gun violence problem.
###
No comments:
Post a Comment