Is there an apparent contradiction or fallacy represented by the statements in the details?

I’m not going to speak to a contradiction or fallacy, but I will make some comments that might contribute to the conversation…

1. You are talking about belief here. It’s true that a fundamentalist belief in martyrdom and certain religious beliefs can increase the likelihood of violence. This isn’t isolated to Islam, although it would incorrect to just say that all beliefs are the same or that all religions pose an equal threat currently. But again, you are talking about belief and how it informs our actions. We have had a few incidents in the U.S. where belief has informed some very violent actions.

It’s also important to point out that “crazy” in this context does not mean “suffering from a mental illness”. It’s meant as an assessment of the idea that someone can take a fundamentalist understanding of ancient texts, which as pretty evil (Koran, Bible).

2. I’m not sure we’re talking about belief at all here. What you are referring to is the fact that a large amount of lethal hardware is leading to a ridiculous amount of lethal violence. The question of guns and gun rights (an issue I’m not entirely clear on myself) is not one that is in any way a discussion of what people believe leading to violence. People who wish to “infringe on the rights of all gun owners” are those that are living in a country where 33k people are killed by guns every year.

If lions were owned as pets in the U.S. and they killed 33k people per year in the U.S., there would be those that would oppose any restrictions on lion ownership. They would cite how they are responsible lion owners and their rights should not be restricted because there are irresponsible owners. But this line of reasoning is bizarre to those who just want to stop the f*cking lions from killing their kids. “But the lions don’t kill the kids. It’s the crazy people that let their lions kill kids. Prosecute the criminals and leave us law-abiding responsible lion owners alone.”

There are people who see the violence and want to find a cure. In some sense, I think we need a cure for both gun violence and religious/ideological violence. The latter probably requires education and an encouraging of moderation and secularism. The former, I’m not exactly sure. I can surely see how it makes complete sense to say “fuck you” to people resisting even the most sane restrictions on guns on principle. But I’m not sure how practical this is in the U.S. Our obsession with guns is deep and puzzling. It may not be practical to just rid the U.S. of guns any more than it would be to rid the U.S. of drugs. And, I’m in support of complete legalization of all drugs, so I struggle a bit with the guns issue.

Sorry. Least helpful, rambling response.

Extremists exist in all religions.

It goes a little deeper than that, actually. In the minds of many, the fact that guns are so available is the cause of our society being as violent as it is, therefore eliminating weapons will curb the desire of people to bet violent.

One key difference is empirical facts. While the majorities of both groups are not homicidal maniacs, the simple truth is that guns have killed more people in the US this year than Muslims have. To be sure, in other parts of the world there is sectarian violence involving violence, but those are a bit more secular; civil wars, attempted coups, and other such political reasons. Also, they are generally outside the US.

Also, the Second Amendment never foresaw the destructiveness of modern firearms. Go back a couple of centuries and the thought of a rifle that could fire 30 bullets in three seconds and punch through ¼’ steel plate with each round was preposterous. In light of that, the Second Amendment requires some serious review as to On the other hand, the thought of religions other than Protestantism hasn’t really changed much over the centuries and thus the First Amendment’s “freedom of religion” clauses require far less adaptation from their origins.

The second statement, that “murderous lunatics aren’t THE problem” sounds correct. Murderous lunatics are certainly A problem. THE problem is murderous lunatics WITH GUNS. How about the argument that we are all safer when everybody’s packin? Now there’s a straight up contradiction with not only observable fact; it defies common sense. And for a real contradiction involving that first proposition. No matter how high the casualty totals due to fanatical Muslims may rise, they will be meaniningless next to the staggering totals inflicted on the society by “God fearing Christians.”

Your argument assumes that people have the unconditional right to bear arms, like they do to believe in a religion. There are clearly limits on the “right” to bear arms (e.g. you can’t own an anti-aircraft missile launcher, or a nuke), furthermore I think the 2nd amendment pretty clearly states that it’s for the purpose of a well-regulated militia and not an individual right to own assault rifles. The current supreme court disagrees (due to of pieces of human excrement like Scalia) and have decided to radically expand the original amendment through extreme conservative judicial activism. It used to be interpreted more literally prior to the fairly recent ruling.

There is a difference between having a religion and owning a gun.

There is certainly an apparent contradiction, which is to say that the statements at least appear to be in tension with one another. There is not, however, an actual contradiction. An actual contradiction requires internal inconsistency of some type. One must either assert both A and not-A, or commit oneself to a course of reason that could lead to both A and not-A. The statements in question cannot be logically represented as negations of one another (and, indeed, are about quite different things), so asserting the two statements does not amount to asserting both A and not-A. Furthermore, we are given the statements in isolation. We are not given any course of reasoning for either. Thus there is no course of reasoning in the statements themselves that can be said to lead to both A and not-A. And as fallacies are also errors in a course of reasoning, the statements themselves cannot present any fallacies.

Therefore, we have to ask if there is any possible course of reasoning that could lead to both statements without committing to a contradiction or committing any fallacies. There are plenty of ways to fail this test, of course, and I imagine that many people who would assert both statements would end up contradicting themselves. But we do not test for consistency by looking for ways that the course of reasoning could go badly. We test for consistency by attempting to find at least one possible way of avoiding contradiction. Is there such a way? It seems to me that there are several.

One might hold that the freedom of religion is more fundamental than the right to bear arms for some reason or another. Perhaps freedom of religion is both a moral right and a political right, whereas the right to bear arms is merely a political right. Alternatively, one might hold that rights are not absolute (that is, there are exceptions to all of them), and that the conditions for limiting the right to bear arms have been met, whereas the conditions for limiting the freedom of religion have not been met. Perhaps Islam is simply a flimsy justification for crimes that would have occurred anyway, whereas guns are a necessary part of the explanation for the commission or severity of certain crimes.

In the latter case, limiting the freedom of religion would have no effect (the crimes would have been justified some other way), whereas limiting the right to bear arms might improve the situation—it reduces the opportunity for criminal action, leading to fewer who choose to go on a killing spree; those who choose to go on a killing spree anyway might have to choose a less deadly weapon, leading to less severe outcomes; and those who pursue illegal weapons have a higher chance of getting caught before they can carry out their crime.

We might find fault with either of these courses of reasoning, but that they may be mistaken does not entail that they are inconsistent. That is to say, factual shortcomings are importantly different from logical shortcomings. We should also ask whether or not the statements in question are both accurate and charitable representations of the existing arguments and their conclusions. Many would hold, for instance, that limiting access to certain sorts of weapons does not infringe on the right to bear arms so long as weapons for self-defense are still available. Thus why we do not object to being denied access to nuclear bombs. This, they might say, is consistent with allowing people to have their religion, but nevertheless banning certain practices (it is legal in the US to sacrifice goats, for instance, but not children).

Sorry you haven’t received many actual answers. Apparently, some didn’t notice that you did not present any argument, but rather asked a question about a pair of statements.

@SavoirFaire The question appears to me to be an attempt at an argument from analogy (unstated premise) combined with reductio ad absurdum.

@gorillapaws Even if we assume that the question has an agenda, it still does not present an argument. At best, it invites us to draw conclusions on our own without having to go through the effort of making an argument. That is, it asks us to make the analogy and draw the reductio conclusion. This is basically the way that push polls work: they make statements and hope you will find your own way to an argument for a particular conclusion without presenting an argument or a conclusion. But if it’s a push poll, the best strategy is to refuse to see an argument where there is none. Whether we want to be charitable to @josie or not, then, the best way to respond seems to be with a direct answer to the question actually asked.

@SavoirFaire That makes sense. +1