Hacker News Reader

Comment by Acrobatic_Road | Hacker News Reader

Starting in the 1980s anti-gun groups pivoted from trying to ban handguns to a top-down approach. Start with bans on big scary weapons AKA "assault weapons", which aren't as common, then move on to handgun bans. Ironically, their push to ban "assault weapons" has only made them more popular with the general public.

View on HN

I’m actually convinced that most ‘anti-gun’ groups don’t care about banning guns so much as making political hay over the general issue. If they were serious, the “solution” to the “assault weapon problem” is a semi-automatic firearms ban. It’s not realistic, but it is the maximalist position (and only effective way to remove guns of that capability from common possession).

I mean, the latest assault weapon bans are approaching a full semi-auto ban minus handguns (unless defined as an "assault pistol").

The strategy is probably to pass -something-, then followup with a more complete ban.

In other words: not every slippery slope is a fallacy?

It's always a "fallacy" because the fallacy points out that the "next step" is not an inevitable consequence of the step it's arguing against. An assault weapons ban, to follow this example, will not magically manifest a handgun ban by its very existence, and it is entirely plausible that a handgun ban will still face tremendous resistance.

That the "next step" can be someone's eventual goal or desire is irrelevant to the "fallacy" part.

Not only not every, but in fact “slippery slope” rarely is a fallacy.

> Not only not every, but in fact “slippery slope” rarely is a fallacy.

Personally, I think a ratchet is a better analogy. While it's theoretically possible to stop at any point, realistically each click is just one partial step towards a complete goal, and it's harder to go back than go forward.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com