General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What if Gun Owners Paid a Tax to Help Defray the High Costs of Gun Violence? [View all]Orrex
(63,208 posts)"They'll find something else." Maybe, maybe not.
Gun advocates--further adhering to the NRA's strategy--love to cry "slippery slope" in any discussion of gun regulation. I've heard it in the media at least a dozen times this week alone. They fear that allowing regulation X will quickly and inescapably result in door-to-door gun confiscations.
But you're happy to embrace the slippery slope fallacy when it suits you. Why?
Guns are used for mass killings because they are designed for killing, and they are very efficient to that end. The other methods that you propose are less efficient, less certain, and often require more work; therefore it is false to assume--as you are assuming--that the removal of guns will result in increased car attacks.
The removal of guns does result in decreased suicides, because the efficient lethality of guns makes impulsive suicide easy, but other methods--less quick and less certain--are not nearly as attractive. By your logic, if we remove the gun from the potential suicide victim, that victim will simply find some other way. Reality doesn't bear this out.
Nor does it support the assumption that we'll see a greater number underwear attacks in the wake of sensible gun control measures.