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.
TNT I stand by my "we" in Canada. I don't run into many people with your viewpoint in Ontario. I also have relatives out in Western Canada in media who don't run into many people with your perspective.
Unfortunately there is a Conservative government in place that got in by a split of the Liberal and NDP vote and the gun registry got scrapped.
You can look in the west to the article I posted about the American lawman who felt threatened and wanted to pack a gun while visiting. I don't remember a lot of people clamoring for his right to carry a weapon.
Along with my Liberal friends I have a lot of Conservative friends who openly voice their dismay at a country allowing easy access to assault weapons.
But that still is anecdotal.
Just watch our news programs and read our newspapers and tell me about all the outlets defending the right of people to carry assault weapons. Also let me know any major media outlet in Canada that promotes the idea that our government may need to be overthrown by an armed citizenry.
You are not going to find much.
No, you won't much, that's true... because most people simply don't give a hoot. The one group of people I don't generally hang out with are liberals and conservatives, NDP, meh, so so. I'm part of the near 50% of Canada's political landscape who dislike all three main parties.
I remember this one huge bear attack in Yukon, where in the end 4 people were mauled of which 2 died. The bear attack was two bears, it was at a hot spring where people had towels and bathing suits for weapons. The parking is a km away. A USA tourist ran to his vehicle, ran back, shot one bear, both bears ran off, though the shot one was later caught. The 2-bear mauling was ongoing, and was interrupted in the full of its force by this USA guy with a illegally, which was illegal in Canada. Of course he was not charged for his gun possession crime, as he'd saved 2 more lives.
People who experience such encounters are not anti-gun... and that's a lot of folks in Canada, probably somewhere near 30-40% range. Many politicians lost their constituency on the gun registration. "We" are in no way "united" on this issue... a simple majority, yes certainly, but united no, there's a difference.
A horrific attack with a knife in Canada. Seven victims. I think at least one did not make it.
What would the casualty rate have been if this person had easy access to a gun? What would the casualty rate have been if this person had easy access to an assault rifle?
I'm glad to be living in a country where the access to those types of weapons is more restricted.
We could become more like the States with gun access laws or more like England and Japan with restrictions on guns. The repeal of the long gun registry was a move in the wrong direction and a lot of Canadians wring their hands about this - including our police force. This letter from Tim Shields eloquently states this:
You know what, it really doesn't matter which weapon it is, death happens, you simply won't legislate death away. Breath, take a deep breath, let it go.
Legislation can, however, do something to reduce the number of deaths from firearms by restricting access in reasonable ways. It is a mistake to argue that nothing can be done.
Hot air, there is no evidence that legislation achieves that. It's global societal historical choices that achieve different levels of overall violence. If you really cared about untimely death, you would place your focus on societal issues that have been demonstrated to reduce general rates of violence.
Not at all. It is not legislation per se that is effective, but laws combined with good enforcement. The experience of other countries with more restrictive laws is both relevant and convincing. The sources of violence are hard to root out, but limiting the means available is certainly one way that appears to be effective in reducing it.
"Reasonable." Therein lies the problem.
Arguing that nothing can be done is more than a mistake; it's evidence of feelings of powerlessness.
BTW, feelings of powerlessness are fatal to democracy.
They are not fatal in the US of A because the US of A is not, and has never been, a democracy.
In your preferred major dictionary, look up the words "oligarchy" and "plutocracy".
The country where I came from [NZ] even the police don't carry guns. There are no mass everyday shootings.
I find it quite amusing that usa has no health care. The first time I ever saw a beggar was when I went to USA.
There is no necessity for the public to own guns.
The gun loonies quote the silly amendment, but forget the " A well regulated Militia" part.
America represents the worst of western culture
The only country that has more guns per capita than USA is Yemen.
I once read of a Pacific Island whose people had little more than yams to eat. Medical exams revealed them to be malnourished.
Here in the US of A, something in our diet facilitates the growth of a violence hormone.
More seriously, about health care and beggars. The more you read of the USA's founders, the more certain you can be that they intended these and similar outcomes. Alexander Hamilton said he wanted the "rich and well born" to govern. Among James Madison's writings is this jewel: he wanted the government to protect "the opulent minority from the majority".
A Committee on Style wrote our Constitution's final draft and one history said a man who liked ambiguity chaired the committee. He prevailed. He might have intended to provide for lawyers.
Alexander Hamilton said he wanted the "rich and well born" to govern. Among James Madison's writings is this jewel: he wanted the government to protect "the opulent minority from the majority".
A very British idea—that only landowners could be trusted with governing as they had natural interests to preserve along with the education to know how to govern. Pure democracy was equated with mob rule.
This seems strange to us now, but it was the rule throughout most of history and continued to be the case in Britain up through World War I. Barbara Tuchmann begins her book "The Proud Tower" with a recital of the ranks and qualifications of the Salisbury cabinet of 1895. All were peers and held extensive land. It is only in modern times in the United States that an impoverished background has been considered advantageous in politics. At present it seems that lack of education is also helpful in getting elected.
A love letter from the Chigago Tribune mentions our low gun crime.
The Chicago Tribune has written a love letter to Canada, suggesting that we have taken that city by storm.
Land of the north, Chicago is calling to you. Calling your sesame bagels, smoked meat and Tim Hortons double-doubles. Calling your low rates of gun crime, and universal health care. Calling your oil, especially your oil. We hope some of that Canadian good fortune rubs off on our city.
I doubt if a city newspaper in Texas would see us in the same light.