• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why compromise is stupid

Slippery slope - Wikipedia

A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is often viewed as a logical fallacy[1] in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.[2] The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences. The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process that leads to the significant effect. This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fearmongering, in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience.
 
That's not the point though, they can be and they'd make a hell of a choice for a mass shooter.

Weren't AK-47 clones used in the North Hollywood bank raid ?

I believe so-illegally converted to full auto; Only people killed were the perpetrators so apparently, they weren't nearly as effective as the civilian legal hunting rifles that cops borrowed from a gun shop to take the baddies out
 
Australia is a really good example. There was a mass shooting. They implemented laws to reduce gun violence, and that's what happened.

NY jumped on the bannedWagon years ago, and limited honest people to ten round magazines, mainly as a reaction to a felon who used a already banned (for him) AR with 30 round magazines to perpetrate some nastiness. Cuomo then tried to push that limit to 7 rounds-he couldn't name a crime that justified it but many of us who claimed that the 10 round limit was going to ultimately be reduced even further, were told that we were making bogus slippery slope arguments. We were not

we pointed out that the mindset of the gun banner is usually one of two things

1) those who actually believe the bs they want to pass will reduce crime. If it does not (such as the ten round limit) they engage in a faith based belief that further restrictions will be successful when prior ones failed or

if the crime goes down, no matter what reason, they will demand more restrictions, claiming it will mean more reductions in crime

2) those who lie about what really motivates them-and mostly the real motivation is to harass honest people and punish pro gun voters for opposing the anti gunner politicians and their schemes to pander to weak minded voters. In this case, they will keep pushing no matter what happens, because harassing honest gun owners is their goal
 
I believe so-illegally converted to full auto; Only people killed were the perpetrators so apparently, they weren't nearly as effective as the civilian legal hunting rifles that cops borrowed from a gun shop to take the baddies out

A corporal once told me that the British version of the FN-FAL (the SLR) could be converted from semi-automatic to fully automatic with a simple wooden match stick

Those two robber would a few cops in the process and changed the LAPD's firearms policy.
 
A corporal once told me that the British version of the FN-FAL (the SLR) could be converted from semi-automatic to fully automatic with a simple wooden match stick

Those two robber would a few cops in the process and changed the LAPD's firearms policy.

never fired the British version--I own the Belgian version, an American made version and a south american version. I have fired the full automatic version-not a great weapon in full auto.
 
never fired the British version--I own the Belgian version, an American made version and a south american version. I have fired the full automatic version-not a great weapon in full auto.

The British version was semi-auto only (and built to British imperial measurements so parts weren't inter-changeable).

The rifle was designed to fire a smaller round, like the German 7.92mm Kurz but the USA made all of NATO adopt the 7.62x51mm.


I've seen it said that the FN should have been the M-14 rifle but the trials were rigged.
 
That's not the point though, they can be and they'd make a hell of a choice for a mass shooter.

Weren't AK-47 clones used in the North Hollywood bank raid ?

And besides they look scary and make a lot of noise!! :eek:
 
The British version was semi-auto only (and built to British imperial measurements so parts weren't inter-changeable).

The rifle was designed to fire a smaller round, like the German 7.92mm Kurz but the USA made all of NATO adopt the 7.62x51mm.


I've seen it said that the FN should have been the M-14 rifle but the trials were rigged.

I agree- you see parts kits for INCH pattern and METRIC pattern. Mine are all metric.

I have a civilian version of the M14-the super national match with the douglas barrel, double lugged receiver and is guaranteed to shoot under an inch at 100 meters. I had the basic version but sold it when I got the NM. and you are right, the only area where the M14 was better is long range sniper roles (the flexible cover on the top of the FAL is not conducive to a solid scope mount-though there are some remedies, they are not cheap nor easily installed). The M14 is slightly better in full auto, but again that was a waste of ammo.
 
NY jumped on the bannedWagon years ago, and limited honest people to ten round magazines, mainly as a reaction to a felon who used a already banned (for him) AR with 30 round magazines to perpetrate some nastiness. Cuomo then tried to push that limit to 7 rounds-he couldn't name a crime that justified it but many of us who claimed that the 10 round limit was going to ultimately be reduced even further, were told that we were making bogus slippery slope arguments. We were not

we pointed out that the mindset of the gun banner is usually one of two things

1) those who actually believe the bs they want to pass will reduce crime. If it does not (such as the ten round limit) they engage in a faith based belief that further restrictions will be successful when prior ones failed or

if the crime goes down, no matter what reason, they will demand more restrictions, claiming it will mean more reductions in crime

2) those who lie about what really motivates them-and mostly the real motivation is to harass honest people and punish pro gun voters for opposing the anti gunner politicians and their schemes to pander to weak minded voters. In this case, they will keep pushing no matter what happens, because harassing honest gun owners is their goal

You hit the reply button. How come you didn't reply to what I said at all? I was talking about Australia, which implemented gun laws that work. You bring up New York out of nowhere, and then say everyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or lying.
 
You hit the reply button. How come you didn't reply to what I said at all? I was talking about Australia, which implemented gun laws that work. You bring up New York out of nowhere, and then say everyone who disagrees with you is either stupid or lying.

Australia really has no relevance to the USA and the topic is why compromise is stupid. And I showed why
 
Australia really has no relevance to the USA and the topic is why compromise is stupid. And I showed why

Bullseye asked for examples of countries that have implemented successful gun laws. I replied to Bullseye. You replied to me and started talking about New York. My point is that you're ranting.

Of course Australia is relevant. If other countries can have gun laws that work, how come we can't? Is there really something particular about the culture of the United States that makes it impossible to stop shooting each other so much? What a dim view of America you have.
 
Bullseye asked for examples of countries that have implemented successful gun laws. I replied to Bullseye. You replied to me and started talking about New York. My point is that you're ranting.

Hardly. There is no evidence that the gun laws were the reason why crime allegedly decreased
 
Hardly. There is no evidence that the gun laws were the reason why crime allegedly decreased

Are you sure that's true? Maybe you just haven't looked for the evidence. Would you examine the evidence with me if I provided it?
 
Are you sure that's true? Maybe you just haven't looked for the evidence. Would you examine the evidence with me if I provided it?

Many times there is a correlation but no causation or other things can explain it. Australia banned magazine fed rifles, Believe the same about shotguns and heavier caliber pistols (target crossbows were restricted btw) but the number of people owning smaller caliber pistols increase. and in most countries, it is smaller caliber handguns that are used in most of the crimes and suicides.
 
Many times there is a correlation but no causation or other things can explain it. Australia banned magazine fed rifles, Believe the same about shotguns and heavier caliber pistols (target crossbows were restricted btw) but the number of people owning smaller caliber pistols increase. and in most countries, it is smaller caliber handguns that are used in most of the crimes and suicides.

OK, so you're already well aware of the correlation. Yes, correlation does not prove causation on its own. But if you're so concerned with the minutia of debate, what are you doing basing a whole thread on a slipper slope fallacy?

A strong correlation between an action (gun laws) and its desired result (reducing gun deaths) is hard to dismiss in the absence of an alternate explanation. You say that "other things can explain it." Would you expound?
 
OK, so you're already well aware of the correlation. Yes, correlation does not prove causation on its own. But if you're so concerned with the minutia of debate, what are you doing basing a whole thread on a slipper slope fallacy?

A strong correlation between an action (gun laws) and its desired result (reducing gun deaths) is hard to dismiss in the absence of an alternate explanation. You say that "other things can explain it." Would you expound?

in the USA, since 1993, millions more people are carrying guns since many states adopted shall issue laws. 15-18 shot handguns have become the most popular handguns in the USA and the AR 15 rifle has become the most popular centerfire rifle in America. yet violent crime went down.

The goal of the anti gun movement in the USA is two fold

1) to curry votes with low intelligence voters who think their schemes actually decrease crime and

2) to harass the pro gun movement for political reasons. so people who work for gun bans are always going to push for more restrictions which is why it really isn't a slippery slope argument anymore than noting untreated cancer will continue to spread.
 
in the USA, since 1993, millions more people are carrying guns since many states adopted shall issue laws. 15-18 shot handguns have become the most popular handguns in the USA and the AR 15 rifle has become the most popular centerfire rifle in America. yet violent crime went down.

The goal of the anti gun movement in the USA is two fold

1) to curry votes with low intelligence voters who think their schemes actually decrease crime and

2) to harass the pro gun movement for political reasons. so people who work for gun bans are always going to push for more restrictions which is why it really isn't a slippery slope argument anymore than noting untreated cancer will continue to spread.

Yeah, everyone who doesn't agree with you is either lying or stupid. And they're out to ruin America for some ill defined nefarious reason. We get it.

Is there a way to get Americans to stop shooting each other quite so much that doesn't hand the country over to the lib commie conspiracy? That would be the best way to take the issue away from them. What do you propose to solve the problem? Or do you not believe there is a problem? It seems like you're A OK with the status quo of lots of Americans dying from gun violence.
 
Yeah, everyone who doesn't agree with you is either lying or stupid. And they're out to ruin America for some ill defined nefarious reason. We get it.

Is there a way to get Americans to stop shooting each other quite so much that doesn't hand the country over to the lib commie conspiracy? That would be the best way to take the issue away from them. What do you propose to solve the problem? Or do you not believe there is a problem? It seems like you're A OK with the status quo of lots of Americans dying from gun violence.

Are you a US citizen? I am and have dealt with the anti gun movement for decades: debated them on radio, TV, in front of law schools, universities, local governmental bodies etc and I stand by what I say about their motivations

now how do we decrease violent crime

get rid of the idiotic war on drugs

stop putting non violent people in prison-which turns them into more violent criminals when they get out

really hammer the small percentage of criminals who cause most of the violence

teach firearms safety in public schools

get rid of "gun free zones"

hammer those who lie on form 4473
 
Are you a US citizen? I am and have dealt with the anti gun movement for decades: debated them on radio, TV, in front of law schools, universities, local governmental bodies etc and I stand by what I say about their motivations

now how do we decrease violent crime

get rid of the idiotic war on drugs

stop putting non violent people in prison-which turns them into more violent criminals when they get out

really hammer the small percentage of criminals who cause most of the violence

teach firearms safety in public schools

get rid of "gun free zones"

hammer those who lie on form 4473

It looks to me like you've lost perspective. You're too close to the issue, and you can't see the forest for the trees. Can you come back to us and try to rebuild a functioning civil society? One where we don't assume that our political opponents are all either lying or stupid. I swear to you there are a whole bunch of people who want gun laws just because they don't want to see so many dead Americans.

We have some common ground on mass incarceration. But it isn't the liberal politicians who started the War on Drugs, and so it won't be the liberals who end it. It's the conservatives who are dragging their feet on ending that fiasco. So is it your position that conservative policies are creating more gun violence?

Here's a suggestion. The next time you talk to a gun law advocate, instead of going straight for the recriminations, try to find common ground. I'll bet they want to dismantle the police state built around the War on Drugs too! You can build a bipartisan coalition and really get it done, since you can bring all of your partisan buddies and the liberals are already on board. Then when gun violence declines, it won't be an issue any more. It'll take all of the wind out of the sales of the gun law advocates. So we can both get what we want. You get a lack of gun laws. I get less dead Americans. America takes a step back from tyranny. Everyone wins!
 
Last edited:
We have some common ground on mass incarceration. But it isn't the liberal politicians who started the War on Drugs,

The political left laid the groundwork for the WoD with alcohol prohibition and the idea that the federal government has the legitimate power to control what people may put into their own bodies. The vile Controlled Substances Act (which created the drug war) was passed in 1970, when both the house and senate had Democratic majorities.

and so it won't be the liberals who end it.

That's for sure.

Here's a suggestion. The next time you talk to a gun law advocate, instead of going straight for the recriminations, try to find common ground. I'll bet they want to dismantle the police state built around the War on Drugs too!

lol, for 50 years no one has even been able to get weed rescheduled. You're not going to "dismantle" anything. Your problem is you don't understand how government works.

Then when gun violence declines, it won't be an issue any more.

Oh Lord, another howler. If gun violence were to decline, the left would view it as evidence that gun control laws work, hence more gun control laws are needed to reduce gun violence further. See the first post in this thread.
 
I agree- you see parts kits for INCH pattern and METRIC pattern. Mine are all metric.

I have a civilian version of the M14-the super national match with the douglas barrel, double lugged receiver and is guaranteed to shoot under an inch at 100 meters. I had the basic version but sold it when I got the NM. and you are right, the only area where the M14 was better is long range sniper roles (the flexible cover on the top of the FAL is not conducive to a solid scope mount-though there are some remedies, they are not cheap nor easily installed). The M14 is slightly better in full auto, but again that was a waste of ammo.

A lot of British soldiers discovered that parts are not interchangeable in the 1982 Falklands War.

I knew a soldier who got himself a spare gas plug for the SLR, it saved him ages when cleaning rifles for inspection.

I read that the M-14 rifle was issued to the infantry for only 6 years...so it must have been really bad. Shame the the British MOD are so stubborn keeping the SA-80 but seems to be OK now, nevertheless it's regarded as total junk. I hated mine. It was actually heavier that the SLR when fully loaded.

Apart from the gas plug the SLR was easy to clean and reliable and by all accounts Australian soldiers loved theirs in Vietnam.

Today, the rifle I wish would replace the SLR is the HK-416 / 417.
 
A lot of British soldiers discovered that parts are not interchangeable in the 1982 Falklands War.

I knew a soldier who got himself a spare gas plug for the SLR, it saved him ages when cleaning rifles for inspection.

I read that the M-14 rifle was issued to the infantry for only 6 years...so it must have been really bad. Shame the the British MOD are so stubborn keeping the SA-80 but seems to be OK now, nevertheless it's regarded as total junk. I hated mine. It was actually heavier that the SLR when fully loaded.

Apart from the gas plug the SLR was easy to clean and reliable and by all accounts Australian soldiers loved theirs in Vietnam.

Today, the rifle I wish would replace the SLR is the HK-416 / 417.

The M14 is still in service.
 
So you compromise and give in, and more "common sense" gun control laws are passed. Afterwards:

If gun violence goes up or remains the same, that's evidence that still more gun control laws are needed.

If gun violence goes down, that's evidence that gun control works - hence more gun control laws are needed to reduce gun violence further.

Compromising on gun rights is foolish. Give a filthy leftist an inch, and he'll take a mile and a half every time.

Hmm. I'm a filthy leftist, and I think people should be able to own all the guns they can get ahold of, of any type whatsoever.
 
Back
Top Bottom