Many do not understand the purpose of identifying fallacies. Fallacious arguments are made in Courts all the time and are accepted all the way up to the SCOTUS.
Example:
Slippery-Slope. The only purpose in identifying this fallacy is to prepare a response or counter-argument. Just identifying the fallacy does not refute it. Slippery slope is a fallacy because starting down a particular path does not necessarily lead one to the logical conclusion that one will continue on that path.....unless there is EVIDENCE proving that starting down the path HAS lead to such a continuation.
In the case of bullshit gun control, we have 80+ years of evidence to support the slippery slope conclusion.
So, yes we are making a fallacious argument on gun control being a slippery slope, but both historical evidence and reasoning out the logical next step (gun control didn't stop violence, so we now need more)suggests we are right.
