• 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

PhDeac said:
He thinks the problem is gun free zones and "racial."
Click to expand...
Deacfreak07 said:
It's pretty naive or willfully ignorant to suggest we don't have a gun problem in the US.
Click to expand...
So by saying our gun violence issues are complex, I've supposedly limited the problem to gun free zones and "racial" and am naive/willfully ignorant about gun issues????

amfqm9.jpg
 
you've said the issue is complex but failed articulate the contributions to that complexity
 
knowell said:
Reading comprehension issues, this one has.
Click to expand...

You specifically said it would increase suppliers but dodged the question on whether it would increase supply. You also said this in response to a conversation about how people didn't see how a rational argument could be made that banning guns would increase the number of guns. Seems more like an articulation issue on your part rather than a comprehension issue on my part. Explain your positions more clearly and there will be fewer comprehension problems. So suppliers increase but guns will decrease in sum if all guns were banned? Just clarifying now.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
You specifically said it would increase suppliers but dodged the question on whether it would increase supply. You also said this in response to a conversation about how people didn't see how a rational argument could be made that banning guns would increase the number of guns. Seems more like an articulation issue on your part rather than a comprehension issue on my part. Explain your positions more clearly and there will be fewer comprehension problems. So suppliers increase but guns will decrease in sum if all guns were banned? Just clarifying now.
Click to expand...

Some things are obvious. No one said the gun supply would increase. The profit per sale would increase. New suppliers would enter the market to make up for those that end up in the justice system. The overall supply would fluctuate in a black market as in any other. You would likely have fewer gun sales because of higher prices, but those who wanted them (people who make a living in crime) would have them.
 
pourdeac said:
Or to blame the NRA.....instead of addressing the complex issues of violent gun use in this country, which would include the expansion of gun free zones where most of these mass killings occur and/or the racial aspect of the issue in general. Being PC means not addressing complex issues.
Click to expand...

pourdeac said:
So by saying our gun violence issues arecomplex, I've supposedly limited the problem to gun free zones and "racial" and am naive/willfully ignorant about gun issues????
Click to expand...

Your posts dismisses that the NRA is a problem and your only examples of complexity are gun free zones and an undefined "racial issue."
 
The OP linked piece offers literally no insight whatsoever into anything.

Basically, Douthat is starting with the premise that Islam is this monolithic religion where everyone believes the same thing. This is ironic because the rest of the piece is full of references to the many different strains of Christianity and Judaism (conveniently using these references as a vehicle to take potshots at liberals). He goes on to offer no real solution at all, before concluding that Islam must "lay down the sword".

This completely ignores the fact that 100s of millions of Muslims are not holding swords, have never held them, and have no intention of picking them up.

In reality, 100s of millions of Muslims are living every day in exactly the middle ground that he says either doesn't exist or isn't recognized by Americans. Further, it is not particularly relevant to those Muslims what American commentators on the left or right think their religion should be or become, just as it is not relevant to Ross Douthat what some op-ed writer for the Damascus Times thinks Christianity ought to do.

The dillemma, if there is one, is how to fight the violent strains of radical Islam while simultaneously not alienating the 100s of millions of non-violent Muslims, and preferably gaining them as allies in the fight to eradicate ISIS and its ilk. Ross Douthat telling them what their religion "should become" doesn't sound like a promising starting point.
 
sailordeac said:
Does anyone believe that the problem of guns in the US is not complex?
Click to expand...

The solutions are complex because the problem is so simple. To solve our gun problem, we have to untangle American gun culture in which many people have faith in weapons to solve their problems.
 
knowell said:
Some things are obvious. No one said the gun supply would increase. The profit per sale would increase. New suppliers would enter the market to make up for those that end up in the justice system. The overall supply would fluctuate in a black market as in any other. You would likely have fewer gun sales because of higher prices, but those who wanted them (people who make a living in crime) would have them.
Click to expand...

Okay solid. So there isn't really a logical argument out there that banning guns would not decrease the amount of guns in the United States? That was the focus I think, not what it would do to the cost of guns - although I guess that's somewhat interesting too
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Okay solid. So there isn't really a logical argument out there that banning guns would not decrease the amount of guns in the United States? That was the focus I think, not what it would do to the cost of guns - although I guess that's somewhat interesting too
Click to expand...

My point was that it matters who has the guns, not just the total amount of guns in the market. If someone wants to buy cocaine, they will be able to find it on the black market for a reasonable but inflated price. Same for guns. If you want to buy a gun illegally you will be able to. Disarming the general population while leaving the criminals and the police armed does not necessarily make anyone safer (except for maybe the criminals).
 
knowell, you post as if the "black market" is located right beside Wal-Mart and just charges more. You're underestimating the amount of time and effort it would take to illegally buy a gun and how much that would discourage people from committing crimes with a gun.
 
knowell said:
My point was that it matters who has the guns, not just the total amount of guns in the market. If someone wants to buy cocaine, they will be able to find it on the black market for a reasonable but inflated price. Same for guns. If you want to buy a gun illegally you will be able to. Disarming the general population while leaving the criminals and the police armed does not necessarily make anyone safer (except for maybe the criminals).
Click to expand...

You act like citizens having guns is a check on gun crime rather than the reason we have gun crime.

Curious as to how you can support that when all of the data in other countries that have limited gun ownership indicates that it leads to less gun crime rather than more
 
knowell said:
. Disarming the general population while leaving the criminals and the police armed does not necessarily make anyone safer (except for maybe the criminals).
Click to expand...

We disagree on this point. For this to be true doesn't it have to be true that banning guns would actually increase the number of deaths and shootings? I don't see how that could possibly be true.
 
pourdeac said:
Other than the fact that ISIS just killed >500 people in 6 countries in attacks that are escalating? Radical Islam is a serious threat to the Liberal fundamentals we believe in, and the global economy. I think it's fairly obvious why that moves the needle.

As far as non-Islamic terrorist mass deaths are concerned, the gun control lobby uses every one of them to get rid of guns. It's pretty obvious that for them, there will never be enough gun control until all guns are gone. All that does is ratchet up the opposition. Apparently guns rights even expanded after Sandy Hook....in response to the reaction by the gun control lobby. If the press pushes the needle on this too hard, lots of people will stop watching.

http://www.wral.com/states-expanded-gun-rights-after-sandy-hook-school-massacre/15174833/
Click to expand...

Woof.
 
knowell said:
My point was that it matters who has the guns, not just the total amount of guns in the market. If someone wants to buy cocaine, they will be able to find it on the black market for a reasonable but inflated price. Same for guns. If you want to buy a gun illegally you will be able to. Disarming the general population while leaving the criminals and the police armed does not necessarily make anyone safer (except for maybe the criminals).
Click to expand...

But it would still take a lot of effort to get a gun, and a lot of people who commit gun crimes aren't career criminals who would put that much advance thought into getting a gun if it wasn't so easy. Sure the Bloods and Crips will still have and be able to get guns, but they're not currently getting into shootouts with everyday people. What disarming the general population would do would be to prevent the regular dude who just snaps and shoots someone because he would normally get in a fistfight with them (or just even give them the finger) but instead shoots them because a gun is nearby and he is really pissed and not thinking clearly. And I think those types of pissed off shootings are far more common than actual premeditated, planned-out shootings. So I think most people not living in criminal circles would be safer.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
But it would still take a lot of effort to get a gun, and a lot of people who commit gun crimes aren't career criminals who would put that much advance thought into getting a gun if it wasn't so easy. Sure the Bloods and Crips will still have and be able to get guns, but they're not currently getting into shootouts with everyday people. What disarming the general population would do would be to prevent the regular dude who just snaps and shoots someone because he would normally get in a fistfight with them (or just even give them the finger) but instead shoots them because a gun is nearby and he is really pissed and not thinking clearly. And I think those types of pissed off shootings are far more common than actual premeditated, planned-out shootings. So I think most people not living in criminal circles would be safer.
Click to expand...

Damn. Another good 2&2 post.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
But it would still take a lot of effort to get a gun, and a lot of people who commit gun crimes aren't career criminals who would put that much advance thought into getting a gun if it wasn't so easy. Sure the Bloods and Crips will still have and be able to get guns, but they're not currently getting into shootouts with everyday people. What disarming the general population would do would be to prevent the regular dude who just snaps and shoots someone because he would normally get in a fistfight with them (or just even give them the finger) but instead shoots them because a gun is nearby and he is really pissed and not thinking clearly. And I think those types of pissed off shootings are far more common than actual premeditated, planned-out shootings. So I think most people not living in criminal circles would be safer.
Click to expand...

I think this is absolutely the case. Also, significant benefits to lowering accidental deaths from unsecured guns and suicide deaths.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
But it would still take a lot of effort to get a gun, and a lot of people who commit gun crimes aren't career criminals who would put that much advance thought into getting a gun if it wasn't so easy. Sure the Bloods and Crips will still have and be able to get guns, but they're not currently getting into shootouts with everyday people. What disarming the general population would do would be to prevent the regular dude who just snaps and shoots someone because he would normally get in a fistfight with them (or just even give them the finger) but instead shoots them because a gun is nearby and he is really pissed and not thinking clearly. And I think those types of pissed off shootings are far more common than actual premeditated, planned-out shootings. So I think most people not living in criminal circles would be safer.
Click to expand...
2&2 on a good post roll recently. Keep it up, bro.

jhmd, on the other hand, has never managed two productive posts in a row.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top