Vermin, from B2 (I got stuck on a call), a few points. First, the slippery slope argument is truly a silly argument in this context because it
Posted by
pmb (aka pmb)
Apr 26 '13, 11:33
|
presumes that people who are willing to accept limited gun control laws (universal background checks) will somehow lose the ability to say no to additional proposals. Like the current legislation, any further changes would require additional legislation that would be subject to future votes. Saying yes now has no impact on the ability to say no later, and any legislation at all would be subject to constitutional limitations. Second, the reason that background checks would not have caught Lanza is because of the proposed loophole for transfers within a family that was created to try to satisfy the NRA (which it still didn't do). Finally, the idea of "identifying the crazies" raises all sorts of troubling issues on its own. To the extent that information about people seeking treatment becomes public, it would likely have a chilling effect on people seeking treatment. And where do we draw lines? Hospitalization? Seeing a psychiatrist/psychologist? Taking anti-depressants? It amazes me that people so concerned with their constitutional right to bear arms seem unconcernced with protecting rights of privacy to interact with doctors confidentially.
|
Responses:
|
