The pro-gun folks oppose any form of gun control based on the slippery slope argument. They fear that if they agree to reasonable gun control, that will just be the first step toward a total ban on gun ownership.
To some extent this fear is well-founded. When you look at many mass shootings, the types of reasonable gun regulations that are being proposed would not have stopped those mass shootings. For example, the background check legislation currently stalled in Congress would not have stopped the Uvalde shooter from obtaining his gun, because he would have passed that background check. The Sandy Hook shooter stole his gun from his mother, who obtained it legally and would have passed a background check. Once all of the reasonable regulations are in place and there are still mass shootings, thoughts tend naturally toward more of a ban on the ownership of some or all guns as the only step that is actually effective, hence the type of approach New Zealand took.
We also know that:
- Just complaining, venting and writing editorials about the need for more effective gun control after each mass shooting doesn’t work. We’re seeing that principle in operation right now — even right after the latest mass shooting, there doesn’t seem to be any actual, substantive movement toward more gun control. It’s just people on the left venting, and people on the right making the same arguments they’ve always made and blocking any actual change.
- There is zero chance in the foreseeable future to eliminate the Senate or the Electoral College, the two main themes of our current form of government that form a sort of "minority veto” on laws that might otherwise be passed. Changing either of these areas would require amending the Constitution, which itself would require the ratification of 75% of the states (determined independently of population). It is not possible to get to that 75% without the consent of at least some of the lower-populated states, who won’t grant that consent because it means their populations would lose the extra influence they have now. No amount of complaining or venting about this state of affairs will change it.
- There is zero chance in the foreseeable future for the Supreme Court to meaningfully limit or regulate guns, and in fact the more substantial chance is that the Court strikes down new gun regulations imposed by particular states. No amount of complaining or venting will change this either, and there appears to be no real chance of expanding the Court as some have suggested..
So what might work? In my opinion, enough conservatives might go for a compromise that (i) eliminated their slippery slope concerns; but also (ii) allowed for reasonable gun control.
This might be accomplished by re-writing the applicable laws (Second Amendment, federal legislation, state and local legislation) to (i) remove any doubt about the right of Americans to carry guns for self-defense (i.e., for the Second Amendment, removing the “well-regulated militia” language); but (ii) allow reasonable gun regulations that don’t unreasonably burden that right. A revised version Second Amendment might read like this:
“Law-abiding citizens of sound mind have the right to carry concealed firearms for their personal self-defense. Federal, state and local governments are authorized to adopt reasonable regulations that do not unduly burden this right, including but not limited to requirements for training and background checks, and restrictions on gun ownership by persons with histories of crime, violence or mental illness.”
The compromise from the left would be: We acknowledge that even with reasonable restrictions, there will still be mass shootings, and we agree that we will not seek to ban firearm ownership on that basis. It’s basically a “harm reduction” position vs. a “harm elimination” one. The left would effectively be saying something like, “In return for a 50% reduction in gun violence, we’ll accept that the remaining 50% will continue and we won’t try to further restrict guns because of the shootings that are still occurring.”
The compromise from the right would be: “In return for an unquestionable guarantee that law-abiding citizens of sound mind can carry guns for self-defense, we’ll abandon our slippery slope argument and we won’t stand in the way of common sense gun regulation.”
Our system of government usually operates on compromise since there are only rare occasions where one party controls the House, the Senate with 60 seats or more and the Presidency. Based on what has happened after every other mass shooting, I don’t see any material chance for reasonable gun regulation without this kind of compromise.
