The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑
The thing is, this is still a slippery slope fallacy, wherein the assumption seems to be that the current demands for regulation will inevitably just be stepping stones to a total ban. That isn't really the case, any more than banning heroin is a stepping stone to banning alcohol.
Jesus Christ dude, you can't just spout "nuh uh it's a fallacy!" like it's a damn Harry Potter spell, especially when we have actively seen it
play out in what could be best described as natural experiments.
The underlying assumption here seems to be that people who supports banning certain types of guns are dealing in bad faith, and secretly conspire to ban all private firearm ownership. That's not fair, and its frankly ridiculous coming from a group that on the national stage enjoys vastly disproportionate political power right now.
Do you really think that the absolute loudest anti-RKBArs in the US aren't also for opposing ownership of other types of firearms? Ignore the soccer moms who think that little jimmy's school is going to get shot up. I'm talking the mirror of the no-limits RKBA people.
Why on earth would I go "huh, they are gonna stop with the rifle(all rifles, not just semiautomatics) that kill fewer people than fists, I can trust that they would stop there when the next shooting uses a handgun(which most shootings do) or some jackass kills 16 people w/a bolt action after climbing a clocktower"?
Are there people who will "shift the goalposts", as you put it? Yeah, probably.
If, tomorrow morning, all semiautomatic rifles were banned in the US and we had a shooting with handguns, followed with copy cats(say, Eliot Rogers style in CA, complete with low cap mags) what would your response be
"oh well I promise we'd stop so we'd stop"?
"Oh shit something needs to be done, America has such shitty gun laws why can't they be like, uh, Finland"?
How about if it was with a manually fed shotgun?
I'd prefer open-carry, to be honest (with restrictions for certain areas, like airports and government buildings, and a right for private businesses and institutions to choose to ban guns on their property).
Concealed carry makes it too easy for criminals to carry concealed arms.
(1)Your argument is that open carry is less disruptive than concealed carry walking around?
(2)Your argument is that criminals, who can't pass the permitting process, will just...not carry conceal?
Again, what purpose do silencers serve except to facilitate crime? You don't need a silencer for home defense, surely?
(1)Guns are loud, even a silencer brings it down to "only" about the noise of a mechanical jackhammer
(2)If you have private land it's less disruptive to your neighbors
(3)If you hunt with dogs, it's less damaging to the doggy ears
(4)Guns are louder indoors, so, yeah, actually it would be helpful for home defense. Tinnitus sucks.
Need to do more research before I get back to you on that.
But not anything else before you comment, eh?
UBC(if done in a way to avoid a registry)
adding violent misdemeanors to prohibited persons lists.
How about certain psychiatric conditions,
we already do
and persons who have not committed violent acts but have made threats?
GVROs? How would you manage it for not being abused?
So if you're in San Francisco, and you have a NRA sticker on your car, according to the CLEO you're a member of a "domestic terrorist organization". How do you manage that?
How would you feel about open-carry instead of concealed carry?
Open carry should be legal and largely is, recall that hunting is basically open carry, as is transport of firearms. I've done it. I'll note that in your scenario I'm not gaining
anything in most states, even in most strict carry regime states. So that falls flat on the "compromise" bullshit.
That said, open carry as executed
is usually brandishment.
Let's say you and I are neighbors. You're having a party. I show up at your door, knock, and when you open it you see me with a pistol open hosltered. For the sake of argument, let's say we're in a liberal carry regime state(which are most states) and there is no real reason to have been prevented from conceal carry unless you're a prohibited person. I then say "hey can you keep the volume down".
In that scenario, what purpose
do you think there is with me open carrying a firearm over? Just for the hell of it?
By the way, be cognizant that you basically poo poo'd "giving" anything, even though you claimed that there was nothing to give
. You didn't even entertain "giving anything". This, by the way, really fucking supports the bad-faith negotiation hypothesis, unless you're running with the "I have altered the deal, pray that I do not alter it further" school of jurisprudence.