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 Steph S. on July 25, 2012 at 11:13am

I don't understand assault weapons myself - why would someone need a gun like that?

I am still researching these issues and trying to decide on them.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nerdlass on July 26, 2012 at 1:20am

It's for all those mutant deer that shoot laser beams out from their antlers. Obviously. x.x

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on July 26, 2012 at 1:25pm

This is correct. You forgot to add that the mutant lazerbeam deer are gay illegal immigrant muslim atheists to boot.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by A. Noni Moose on September 24, 2012 at 11:00am

The argument is not who "needs" that gun. It is who "wants" that gun. I have friends with AR-15 rifles. They are not full auto weapons. You cannot just buy a full auto weapon as a normal citizen. So, what a gun looks like is not a crime. That is the problem with gun control activits, they know nothing about guns. An AR-15 is a .223 caliber semi-auto rifle. My deer gun is a .308 caliber rifle. Any one with math skills knows that .308 is a larger number than .223 . In other words, my deer rifle does more damage than an AR-15. Also, semi-auto is semi-auto. 1 bullet is released with each trigger pull. An "assault weapon" fires no quicker than any other semi-auto rifle that you can pick up from Wal-Mart. People don't want us buying them because they look like military weapons. That is all.

All that being said, here is the issue to me: it is not about what I "need", it is about my right to have anything I want as long as it does not hurt others. I have been around guns all my life and have never shot anyone, robbed anyone, etc. And, what about this: I have never killed a deer with my rifles. I use them all for target shooting only. That is what I enjoy doing with them and that is my business, not some scared ill-informed activist.

It seems that we, as atheists, should always want to be on the side of freedom. My gun is my business. NOW< if I rob or shoot someone then I should be prosecuted. That is where this country drops the ball. We don't make it a deterrent to commit crimes..we only use the crimes to make our own politcal statement.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dr kellie on December 19, 2012 at 12:58pm

I agree.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mathew T. on January 23, 2013 at 11:59am

Not to sound like a smartass now, but why then couldn't you lay claim to owning a nuclear reactor, so long as you promised never to harm anyone with it? After all, there is very little (if any) evidence supporting the claim that personally operated nuclear reactors have ever hurt anyone. If your logic is that something should only be taken away the moment it does harm, why are we stopping people from owning anything at all? Rocket launchers, crystal meth, lion cubs, and nuclear reactors included?

I'm with you on the AR-15 - it's a hot topic and most people don't understand how a pistol is far more dangerous when in the hands of a would-be gunman, simply by virtue of he/she being able to hide it - but I can't get behind the idea that my neighbour should be able to own a jeep-mounted mini gun and 100,000 rounds just because he's a free "soul", and he's never committed a crime.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard K. Emms on September 24, 2012 at 9:25pm

Steph,

I agree with you. Please see my reply below.

The Colonial Gunsmith

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. Allan H. Clark on July 25, 2012 at 12:37pm

I agree, but it seems we are definitely in the minority on this one. Americans love guns and will not stand for any restrictions on their possession.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph Heston on July 25, 2012 at 7:16pm

You're right about Americans not standing for restrictions on their possessions even though the 2nd Amendment gives the states the right to regulate weapons.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on December 19, 2012 at 3:42am

Joseph, until you add some specifics, your conclusion differs from that of another Heston: Charleton, a recent NRA officer. It also differs from current law.

You'll find specifics if you do a google search on "scotus heller" (you'll find the US Supreme Court ruling).

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tammy S on July 25, 2012 at 3:48pm

I think I was shocked that the ban on high capacity magazines had been lifted while I was sleeping a few years ago! I was floored that someone 'off the street' could just purchase a drum capable of holding 100+ rounds without a federal firearms license. I remember people being up in arms just after the ban when they couldn't buy a 31 round banana magazine and I remember thinking, if you don't hit the target the first or second shot, you probably shouldn't be shooting to begin with. So where's the necessity for carrying that high capacity of a mag unless you're a soldier involved in a protracted gunfight? It just makes no sense at all. I've also heard the argument, but you can hunt with it! But why would you when there are better hunting rifles, far more reliable 'for use' in hunting on the market? Are we going to be ventilating the deer to reduce drag on the corpse, or did we want to eat it after? Frankly you should be taking the animal down as cleanly, quickly and humanely as possible with 'one' well placed shot, not terrorizing and torturing the poor thing to death, besides the method of death does effect the texture of the meat! First nations people bow hunted... but I digress...

All that having been said however gun control won't stop the flow of illegal weapons into and out of our country because we've been at this ownership thing for far too long now creating a healthy black market that would only grow by leaps and bounds if we legislated a ban. I own guns myself and I see nothing wrong with 'responsible' gun ownership, if you have nothing to hide you won't mind a little regulation. So we need to consider other methods like:

Better ownership record keeping with some possible penalties for failure to register private purchases

Flagging the 'amount' of ammunition and weapons purchased in a specified time frame,

Setting purchase limits on ammunition for bureau notification like we do certain fertilizers and ag chemicals since the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building.

Frankly someone as hell bent on destruction as he was, will find a way even if guns aren't available to them. He seemed to be a rather proficient bomb maker as well, I shudder to think it, but it's probably a good thing he had a penchant for guns or we'd have likely seen a great many more fatalities than we did.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sentient Biped on July 26, 2012 at 1:29pm

For a minute I thought a round banana magazine was a periodical about unusual shaped tropical fruits.

IN Oregon hunters and hikers occasionally disappear during hunting season. I assume they were mistaken for deer. I once discussed with a hunter that I wore fay-glo orange while hiking and he told me "for god's sake, do do that! Hunters will use you to set their scopes" whatever that means. Didn't sound good tho.