I was listening to a couple of fairly well educated people I know debate about gun control. The constant threat and recent rise in mass-shootings in the United States came into discussion at some point, and I took notice when one of the guys made this statement:

 

"So...I'm told that I'm not supposed to worry at all about the Muslim faith because the 3,000 innocent people killed by the hijackers on September 11th died at the hands of very small number of very radical Muslims who do not accurately represent the views of the overwhelmingly vast majority of Muslims. However, when it comes to the small number of gun-owners who have taken part in a mass shooting, then suddenly the legality of everyone owning a gun is brought into question."

Valid point. I never have understood idiots who fear all Muslims the same way I don't not understand people who fear all people with guns.

I don't know that the two arguments come from the same place. It also paints all of gun control with a pretty broad brush.

 

It's a nice line that omits all subtlety in either premise.

I don't know that the two arguments come from the same place. It also paints all of gun control with a pretty broad brush.

 

It's a nice line that omits all subtlety in either premise.

 

That was along the lines of my thought.

 

When the gentleman in favor of gun control said that the two items in that statement weren't comparable because the statements were apples and oranges, the other guy said, "Islam and guns are both things that, by their design, have a definite potential for human death. Both can certainly be applied otherwise and used without bringing that about, but both have that potential in their essential makeup." He also stated that, "Why is it that, to so many people, the idea of legal restriction on one potentially dangerous thing okay, while legal restriction of the other potentially dangerous thing seen as completely unacceptable?"

That was along the lines of my thought.

 

When the gentleman in favor of gun control said that the two items in that statement weren't comparable because the statements were apples and oranges, the other guy said, "Islam and guns are both things that, by their design, have a definite potential for human death. Both can certainly be applied otherwise and used without bringing that about, but both have that potential in their essential makeup." He also stated that, "Why is it that, to so many people, the idea of legal restriction on one potentially dangerous thing okay, while legal restriction of the other potentially dangerous thing seen as completely unacceptable?"

 

I'm just not following that guys argument. Regardless, two totally separate issues that one can't legitimately draw a comparison to I don't think.

It depends on which side of these topics you are on on whether you think it's valid or not.

I was listening to a couple of fairly well educated people I know debate about gun control. The constant threat and recent rise in mass-shootings in the United States came into discussion at some point' date=' and I took notice when one of the guys made this statement: "So...I'm told that I'm not supposed to worry at all about the Muslim faith because the 3,000 innocent people killed by the hijackers on September 11th died at the hands of very small number of very radical Muslims who do not accurately represent the views of the overwhelmingly vast majority of Muslims. However, when it comes to the small number of gun-owners who have taken part in a mass shooting, then suddenly the legality of everyone owning a gun is brought into question."[/quote'] I agree! Valid point!

 

Also, are their any statistics that show who actually owes these guns in the shootings? Were they theirs or were they stolen? Were they even allowed to have a gun? And why stop at "mass shootings"? How many people per day are killed by shooters?

Your friend compares bigotry and legality. It doesn't make sense. Is he saying that it is only fair if both are prejudiced against or that both are outlawed?

Your friend compares bigotry and legality. It doesn't make sense. Is he saying that it is only fair if both are prejudiced against or that both are outlawed?

On the contrary, I think what he is doing is stating that you can no more blame gun owners for the misuse of guns by a handful of maniacs than you can blame Muslims for what a handful of radicals did on Sept. 11th, 2001. He's pointing out the absurdity of lumping in a large group with a small group in both cases, it has nothing to do with bigotry or legality overall. I think he makes a valid point.

Only thing wrong he said was Islam and guns are both things that, by their design, have a definite potential for human death. Radical Islam, yes, Islam, no.

Valid.

That was along the lines of my thought.

 

When the gentleman in favor of gun control said that the two items in that statement weren't comparable because the statements were apples and oranges, the other guy said, "Islam and guns are both things that, by their design, have a definite potential for human death. Both can certainly be applied otherwise and used without bringing that about, but both have that potential in their essential makeup." He also stated that, "Why is it that, to so many people, the idea of legal restriction on one potentially dangerous thing okay, while legal restriction of the other potentially dangerous thing seen as completely unacceptable?"

 

This still doesn't make much sense. There's been a fairly extreme policy response to 9/11 aimed at preventing future terrorist attacks, from the TSA to the incredible level of surveillance by the NSA. There've been a few tepid gun control bills that have died in Congress after mass shooting tragedies. And that's considering about 10,000 people die a year in firearm related homicides.

 

I also don't believe those who believe in certain gun regulations want to persecute all gun owners, just as I don't believe those who believe there should be preventive security measures against terrorism want to persecute all Muslims (though, there are extremists in both camps that do).

This still doesn't make much sense. There's been a fairly extreme policy response to 9/11 aimed at preventing future terrorist attacks, from the TSA to the incredible level of surveillance by the NSA. There've been a few tepid gun control bills that have died in Congress after mass shooting tragedies. And that's considering about 10,000 people die a year in firearm related homicides.

 

I also don't believe those who believe in certain gun regulations want to persecute all gun owners, just as I don't believe those who believe there should be preventive security measures against terrorism want to persecute all Muslims (though, there are extremists in both camps that do).

If you believe the president and the majority of the Democrats don't want to persecute all gun owners and do their best to outlaw guns, I have some swampland you might be interested in.

If you believe the president and the majority of the Democrats don't want to persecute all gun owners and do their best to outlaw guns, I have some swampland you might be interested in.

Where ?

Where ?

 

Southgate

If you believe the president and the majority of the Democrats don't want to persecute all gun owners and do their best to outlaw guns, I have some swampland you might be interested in.

You and your NRA pals ought to be more worried about the exorbitant increase in the price of ammunition (unfettered capitalism) instead of circulating these persecution/outlaw myths.