The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Atheist Reasoning on Gun Control in the U.S

Atheists are a small minority in the U.S. Advocates of gun control might be a minority in America as well. In light of the recent shootings in Aurora I am curious as to how atheists in this network view the lack of gun restrictions. There are probably divergent views.

I have trouble believing that both presidential candidates are steering away from any call for reform after the horrific mass shooting. In my opinion it is insane to allow citizens access to assault weapons that can kill scores of people in a few minutes. It was even more shocking to hear on a news show that a family had to raise money to pay for the immense hospital bills for one of the victims while they were already crippled with medical bills from the mothers fight with breast cancer.

As a Canadian I came to stand with my U.S brothers for the reason rally and freedom from religion. I would be willing to come down to the capitol and march for two other important causes. Gun control and universal health care.

4 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Russell Pangborn on January 22, 2013 at 7:07pm

Idaho - I think your last sentence "I also think many of the soldiers would be on the side of the people" is essentially why there should be less guns in society. We don't need guns to defend ourselves from a dictatorship because of the attitude of the people is essential in whether there is a dictatorship or there is not one.

If the push comes from another country - you have the army for defense. If the push comes from within, soldiers and policemen who have grown up with the ideals of liberty would not allow a minority to dictate to the majority.

The only problem would be if the majority in the country decided to dictate to a minority. For example all religious people decided that atheists should be stripped of all their rights. If everyone carried assault rifles and atheists used theirs to win back rights, they would be outgunned. If only the army carried guns and atheists tried to fight back - they would also be outgunned.

Liberty, education and freedoms are the values that should move a society forward. If the people buy into those ideas (and they basically do in the U.S), you don't have to arm them with assault rifles. Your neighbor the cop or the marine won't stand for a takeover by a dictator.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Idaho Spud on January 23, 2013 at 8:00am

Russell, you make some good points and I'm considering them, as I have with all posts here that weren't dogmatic or used name calling.

If I eventually decide you're right, that still leaves me with the desire to be able to defend myself against individuals or groups that attack me, especially those that break into my home. That's one thing that will take much more convincing to get me to change my mind.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Asa Watcher on January 22, 2013 at 3:04pm

TNT666;

I apologize for the “all bold”. My eyesight is not so good, and it helps me see. Normally sites do not recognize my choice of “text style”, and default to their own font, but I have found that A/N does not.

Again, I apologize, and do not intend to post in “all bold”. I will make an effort to see that it does not happen again.

That being said, I think "evolution" is a perfectly appropriate word, as civilization evolves just as organisms have and will continue to evolve.

I do not share your jaundiced view of government, nor do I share your (or Idaho Spud's) paranoia about the future. (as there are simply no "arguments for getting rid of our guns" being made)

“I'd take a free violent society over a Big Brother safe society any day.” is a perfect example of a false choice.

Your personal freedoms do not transcend the common good. In reality it is the common good that protects and enhances your individual freedoms.

The gun argument in the U.S. is a result of the impression that the freedom of unrestricted access to weapons has turned against the common good.

I can’t speak for Canada, but here in the U.S. the Constitution is a document that allows the continuing balancing act between personal freedoms and the common good to occur, and for us to argue about it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on January 22, 2013 at 6:22pm

Tell me this, what dystopian novels/essays have you read, and do you find their outcomes to be desirable? Do you really think 1984 or Equilibrium are desirable lifestyles????? There is practically no difference between N.American democracies and "1984". The Equilibrium version is under way... the percentage of permanently medicated humans is nearing 30% in some areas and will soon reach a majority of society.

So no, I do not have 'paranoia' about the future... I have dislike of the present directions of politics in N.America, present... And no, the good of all is not always better than individuality. And I'm saying this as a leftist!!! Much (not all) of the proposed anti-gun legislation favour power structures/institutions over people. Western society has nearly erased the individual in order to satisfy the resource consistency needs of our oligarchy.

Remember that we are apes, we are not ants, we are not sardines, we are not bees, nor are we meerkats. Though we're a sociable species, we are NOT biologically EVOLVED to live in these over-crowded, no individuality environments. Our biological engines know not how to handle this ridiculous lifestyle we have chosen.

Your world view will eventually lead us to a bubble wrapped life, the only danger in that type of society is severe depression (which is already started, depression is becoming the number one healthcare cost in Western societies).

Bubble wrapped, in the name of survival at all costs. That's not living. No thank you. Life is not precious. We live we die, the point is, if there is one, to make the best of the time in between.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mathew T. on January 23, 2013 at 12:19pm

@TNT

Wow. You've made an awful lot of claims in that one post, all of which (to me, anyways) need to be demonstrated.

Why/how are our democracies a joke? In what way do you not feel that your vote counts?

Why/how is a gunless world dystopian, and as James Kz has mentioned above, why do you think that the gun toters of America could possibly stave off any sort of militarized statehood if the government really wanted to turn the country into a modern day Soviet Union? They have drones now that they can fly up the ass of a camel from 400 miles. A redneck with 2 gunrooms won't have anything to say about that.

There are an enormous amount of countries in the world who are (relatively) gun free, who could not less resemble Orwell's book, so basically, it's difficult for me to not look at this post and essentially read: "they're going to take the guns away and turn everyone into a slave." You've cited that Canada is no longer a true democracy. Very well, what is a true democracy to you, and how does it differ from what we currently have? Would simply giving our guns back change that? - because this is essentially what the tone of your post sounds like.

Sorry, but I just don't get it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on January 23, 2013 at 6:48pm

Our democracy is a joke, well if you don't see it you simply have not been looking at any numbers for the past 30 years in North America anyway, generally, and the last decade specifically, very visible with the squashing of demonstrations. You realise the reason you see less demonstrating in N.America is because our law and order shuts them down before they get anywhere. Agents provocateurs have been denounced in all major events, having been used as law enforcement excuses to bring in the heavy hand.

As for defending against government, indeed, drones flying up camels' asses are a great demonstration of how minute the power of guns are in society. Death by gun on innocents is rare, sufficiently rare, for it not to bother me. But if it really came down to our drones used by our military on us... and we're real close to that when you look at the technology now used to squash people here, at least having a gun you could possibly stop the person controlling the drone. It's better than nothing.

Dystopian novels are a favourite genre of mine, dystopias in print are generally the result of powerless and medicated civilians. There are a couple of exceptions of course, but I'm speaking generally. Many events in human history have also evidenced that the easiest way to overthrow a people is to de-weapon them. It's really no secret. Not just physical weapons, organisational tools also. For example in France and Italy, coffee was originally prohibited because it got the masses riled up and talking politics and threatening to overthrow power. I am in favour of any tool that can be used to overthrow power, it is the only way that the government does not become a dictatorship owned by money... but we're already on our way there. Democracy was developed in restricted groups of people of similar cultures. Democracy is not adapted to rule giant masses of heterogeneous humans. Then it just becomes domination of a majority over various minorities, and occasionally, the rule of minorities over disenfranchised people.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on January 23, 2013 at 9:41pm

Matthew, the term "our democracy" is a lie.

The truth? Our oligarchy, a nation ruled by a few.

If the few, the Congress especially, were our best, America would be an aristocracy. They are not our best.

America is a democracy only on the days we vote for those who will become our oligarchs.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Idaho Spud on January 22, 2013 at 9:57am

I hate violence and long for a peaceful society, where I don't need alarms, locks, fences or guns. But I'm not giving up my guns until it becomes clear that there is no more chance of this country becoming a dictatorship. History is replete with examples of those that want to control others, and I don't see it changing much so far. It does appear that things are changing for the better, but I don't expect a peaceful society for a long time.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on January 22, 2013 at 6:31pm

The statistically proven to reduce social violence is to reduce economic disparity and improve infant education.
Yet, we're obsessed with knee-jerk political reactions to small events. Yes. This most recent shooting is but a small event and should not affect the our thinking in the larger picture. Guns are really irrelevant to the conversation on violence. That raped lady in India was not at the end of a gun, most people who die violently do not do so because of guns.

As a lefty, I am more and more depressed at the crying liberal attitude I see. The trouble with the crying liberal methodology is it's constantly about applying little teensy bandages to fix non relevant problems, while we let the real big time criminals get away with all sorts of crimes. Reducing clip size and banning certain uglier looking guns is a useless endeavour.

It's social paradigm shift that is needed, and this paradigm shift should be much more evident in a growing atheist crowd. Unfortunately, people cling to Christian values, even when deleting God ideas.

The only way to achieve a peaceful society is dictatorship and cultural homogeneity. Look at history books, take a good look at history books, all the "safe" periods in various countries (safe for the majority, but lethal for the few/several shit disturbers) point to that.

The grand ole dream of "PEACE on Earth" is a 20th century delusion. It is impossible to achieve at a grand or polite scale.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mathew T. on January 23, 2013 at 12:42pm

"Most people who die violently do not do so because of guns".

Well.... in the United States they sure do...

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm

You build a very strong case with the economic disparity and education, though. I've heard super racist arguments from people that it's the blacks and hispanics in America responsible for all the crime, because of their skin - with no regard whatsoever given to the economic disparity that you are talking about. Ignoring it is just stupid.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on January 23, 2013 at 6:57pm

I didn't say "homicide" I said "violently". Violently is anything that is not natural. Even dying of emphysema is violent, try it, I have relatives who died that way, and it was a daily physical violence. I am un-preoccupied by homicide rates, and much more preoccupied by quality of life, while we're alive. Once someone is dead there's no pain, they cease to exist, so I don't have much issue with it, now if it's done slowly and painfully, that concerns me more, so given the choice, I'd prefer a crazy person with a gun than with a knife.

Now if we, as a society, are really concerned with reducing deaths, we should focus our energy on where it will really make a difference and stop wasting our time with trivialities. To me, guns are trivialities. There is much worse in society.

Caucasians are just less in jail because they receive better treatment from the legal system, that is an entirely other debate. Also us whities have learned that corporate crimes pays much higher dividends, sufficient to stave off the law in a vast majority of cases. Now that's the way to go.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mathew T. on January 23, 2013 at 7:32pm

Well, sure. I guess if you're going to open up violent deaths to really anything that involves a human being suffering before the synapses in their brain stop firing, then yeah... guns are completely a non-problem.

I mean... I really don't know what to say to that. Were you sincerely trying to make the point that as long as people are dying of diseases, accidents, and non-homicidal causes of all kinds, we might as well forget about the fact that an enormous percentage of the murders in America are gun related? At least make the case that people would still be murdering at the same rate, whether they had guns or not. I wouldn't believe it, but it would actually be a case against what I said. I'm not worried about diseases in a gun control debate.

"I'd prefer a crazy person with a gun than with a knife".

I personally wouldn't. At all. And truthfully, I'm not sure how much support you're going to gain with this idea, but I know where you stand at least.

Furthermore, the "whitey", white-collar crime you're referring to accounts for less than 4%. Impoverished whites commit comparable levels of "blue-collar" offences to blacks and hispanics in America. I think your point has been lost on me on that one.

Listen, I'm not trying to be the jackass who constantly challenges you on everything, I'm really not. You raise some veritable points in terms of poverty, education and overall living improvement for the masses. You'll get no argument from me there. I suppose (in response to the above comments) I could even agree that Harper has stepped on protests more than any Prime Minister in recent memory (the postal workers, Air Canada, and CP Rail come to mind) - but I don't consider this nearly strong enough evidence to support your position that democracies are falling to pieces. In a democratic sense (the exact definition of which is that each person is equally represented), I'm very certain the majority of Canadians wanted these people back to work as well. I'm not saying it was a just decision, and in fact it pissed me off just as much as it seems to have you - BUT - a few bad calls on his part in no way reflect the symptoms of democratic failure. You still have just as much say now as 30 years ago (to use your figure), so I reject your claim outright. Personally, it's none of my business, but these dystopian novels you enjoy so much may have inoculated you with severe paranoia, just like Asa said. I'm not sure what kind of "lefty" you are, but it generally doesn't encompass such an impractical fear of governmental involvement...

Again, my wish isn't to come across as so strongly combative, it's just... you're making so, SO many claims without any real substance to back them up. It's a lot of anecdotal rhetoric and Orwell ideas, at least to me. Data is all that matters in a discussion like this, and the fact is, it doesn't support many of your positions.