• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Islamic Dilemma

I believe we should have the right to buy a gun if we want one. Not because we need them for self defense or anything - just because we want one. That is freedom.

I believe we should have the right to drive as fast as we want on the highway. Not because we need to but because we want to. That is freedom.

I believe we should have the right to make meth in our garages. That is freedom.

I believe we should have the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, just to see people's reaction. That is freedom
 
I believe we should have the right to drive as fast as we want on the highway. Not because we need to but because we want to. That is freedom.

I believe we should have the right to make meth in our garages. That is freedom.

I believe we should have the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, just to see people's reaction. That is freedom

Of course you didn't include my entire comment. I said reasonable measures to control said buying would be reasonable - to try and keep them out of the hands that would make them dangerous. That would be similar to speed limits. Everyone is able to drive, we have just established agreed-upon limits as a society.
As a society we have decided that there are no redeeming qualities or safe recreational uses for meth - so that is not really an apt comparision. The same goes for yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
 
Of course you didn't include my entire comment. I said reasonable measures to control said buying would be reasonable - to try and keep them out of the hands that would make them dangerous. That would be similar to speed limits. Everyone is able to drive, we have just established agreed-upon limits as a society.
As a society we have decided that there are no redeeming qualities or safe recreational uses for meth - so that is not really an apt comparision. The same goes for yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

Not really. A speed limit is not a "reasonable measure" to limit the legal ability to drive 120 mph on the highway to those capable of doing so safely. It's an outright ban on driving that fast.
 
Of course you didn't include my entire comment. I said reasonable measures to control said buying would be reasonable - to try and keep them out of the hands that would make them dangerous. That would be similar to speed limits. Everyone is able to drive, we have just established agreed-upon limits as a society.
As a society we have decided that there are no redeeming qualities or safe recreational uses for meth - so that is not really an apt comparision. The same goes for yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

That's the point. A large segment of our society is arguing that there are no redeeming qualities or safe recreational uses for guns.
 
Of course you didn't include my entire comment. I said reasonable measures to control said buying would be reasonable - to try and keep them out of the hands that would make them dangerous. That would be similar to speed limits. Everyone is able to drive, we have just established agreed-upon limits as a society.
As a society we have decided that there are no redeeming qualities or safe recreational uses for meth - so that is not really an apt comparision. The same goes for yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

If all the gun owners who say they are in favor of "reasonable measures" actually were, then those reasonable measures would be in place.
 
Gee I don't know. How would you receive that question when discussing gun control?

You were dismissing hard data on the subject (gun deaths fewer in gun control areas) in favor of your baseless prediction of what bad people (criminals) would do with guns if the gun controls were in place. This board is rife with data on the results of gun control. You (apparently) disagree with all of it, and believe the opposite of what the data suggests.

So I thought maybe you had some insight into the American criminal mind that defies all of that data. Like maybe you were a guy who wanted to shoot people with a gun but have heretofore been reluctant to do so because lax gun controls meant more good people have guns and could shoot you back.
 
... Not sure why this is so hard to understand...

Because it's stupid baseless bullshit. Until we get some Minority Report level pre-cogs to predict terror attacks, we should focus on controlling the weapons that terrorists, gang members, homicidal racists, and trigger happy cops are most likely to use. Or we can just be Islamophobes and continue to ignore gun violence #whytry
 
But you gotta love the desperation from gun nuts after San Bernadino "Thank God they used guns, otherwise they would have used bombs!"
 
Have you or anyone in your sphere of influence committed a crime? Just asking.

What was your answer?

Most people just answer such a benign question instead of claiming victimhood. He doesn't know you or your background and friends.

We live in a country with the highest incarceration rates in the world. Plenty of people know "criminals" without the implication that something is wrong with them.
 
Last edited:
You were dismissing hard data on the subject (gun deaths fewer in gun control areas) in favor of your baseless prediction of what bad people (criminals) would do with guns if the gun controls were in place. This board is rife with data on the results of gun control. You (apparently) disagree with all of it, and believe the opposite of what the data suggests.

So I thought maybe you had some insight into the American criminal mind that defies all of that data. Like maybe you were a guy who wanted to shoot people with a gun but have heretofore been reluctant to do so because lax gun controls meant more good people have guns and could shoot you back.

Hilarious. Thanks for proving my point. Since I disagree with you, maybe I want to shoot people. Rigorous debate.
 
What was your answer?

Most people just answer such a benign question instead of claiming victimhood. We live in a country with the highest incarceration rates in the world. Plenty of people know "criminals" without the implication that something is wrong with them.

Don't dodge my question. Are you a criminal. Are you afraid to answer. Most people would answer.
 
Which point did I prove? You have based your entire rigorous debate on an assumption, not data. A theory at best. I was giving you a chance to qualify your position with, at the very least, some anecdotal evidence from your experiences.
 
Not really. A speed limit is not a "reasonable measure" to limit the legal ability to drive 120 mph on the highway to those capable of doing so safely. It's an outright ban on driving that fast.

It is a limit on what you can do when driving. Guns are safe when used responsibly and without criminal or evil intent. Cars are safe when operated in a rational manner, not under the influence of drugs or alcohol and without evil intent. Guns have positive uses - hunting, target shooting, self defense - people collect them for historical reasons, for appreciation of the technology and even the artistic nature of some firearms. Cars clearly have positive uses - transportation, recreation, artistic appreciation, etc.

I am not equating the two - cars are more integral and necessary to modern society. But both can be dangerous under certain circumstances so limits have to be placed.
 
I do not believe that is true. Define "large segment".

I should have stated that differently. A large segment believes that any redeeming qualities or safe recreational uses for guns is extremely minimal in the face of the damage they cause.

Change meth to weed and the comparison is more apt.
 
Back
Top