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 Tom Sarbeck on December 21, 2012 at 1:56am

Guitarzeroh, if by "MX" you mean Mexico, it is reasonable to conclude there are more dead there because many there practice a violent form of free enterprise, supplying the USofA with the drugs we consume in amounts greater than people elsewhere.

Do you have any views on why we consume so much?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lillie on September 28, 2012 at 9:35am

What kills me is the those of 47% who truly believe President Obama is going to "prize their dead fingers from around their gun." They are voting Republican for this reason alone when it is against their well being otherwise. No one is going to ever take guns away from Americans. It is too much of an ingrained tradition and no one knows this better than politicians of both parties. Meanwhile, Romney has said he doesn't care a flip about the 47% and trickle down economics has never worked. Romney has already said he is not going to let anything trickle down to these lazy, good for nothing freeloaders. No matter they are working two jobs just to make ends meet.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pat on October 4, 2012 at 11:17am

Lillie, I posted this in the "Humor" group, but I think it is appropriate here as well.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lillie on December 19, 2012 at 6:59pm

Thanks. Love it. Love Bill Maher.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Russell Pangborn on October 4, 2012 at 10:09am

A Columbine incident averted in Spain.

Check out the part in bold about purchasing guns:

"The statement said the man had openly expressed his hatred for society, and particularly students. A police spokesman said there was nothing to indicate that the man had planned to carry out the attack for any set ideological reasons.

Twelve students and one teacher were killed in the Columbine attack in Colorado. The two perpetrators then killed themselves. The Spanish man’s diary indicated he had considered committing suicide once he had carried out the attack.

Spanish police said the man had tried several times to purchase guns for the university attack, but finding this impossible then opted to use bombs by buying explosive-making material on the Internet. The statement said he had planned to make shrapnel pipebombs."

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Simeone on October 16, 2012 at 12:35pm

I am so tired of people talking about freedom. America is not a free society; in fact, when it comes to issues of justice and civil liberties we have fewer freedoms than those which are enjoyed by citizens of many other nations. Ironically, the same folks who scream about freedom when it comes to having the right to own weapons that can’t even be effectively used to defend one’s home are often the same folks who want to deny same-sex couples the right to marry or women the right to have abortions. So, if we’re going to have this discussion let’s at least stop talking about the mythical free America so many on the right pretend exists until they decide that someone else’s hoped for freedom is offensive.

Since America is not a free society the choice of what weapons and ammunition should be legal should be made after considering what’s best for American society as a whole. Since high-capacity ammunition and assault-style weapons have no practical purpose other than shooting at paper targets but they kill thousands of Americans each year they should be outlawed. In a just society the right of all Americans to not be shot as part of a nut's campaign of mass murder should take precedence over someone’s desire to shoot at paper targets. Unfortunately, this kind of reasoning isn’t possible in a nation full of people whose values are determined by their own selfish desires rather than a desire to create the best possible society for all Americans.

America is not a free society; in fact, when it comes to issues of civil liberties America is much less of a free society than are many other nations.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Goscicki on October 17, 2012 at 1:16pm

It’s interesting how many pro-gun right-wingers spout “life is precious” when it comes to abortion, but defend the right to own and use instruments of death.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Russell Pangborn on December 17, 2012 at 2:20pm

Some more Canadian perspective on gun control

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/16/f-rfa-macdonald-guns....

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Kz on December 17, 2012 at 6:20pm

Pat wrote:

>>> Just out of curiosity, should there be a line drawn that states a citizen cannot own a particular type of weapon? And, I'm including everything in here from a slingshot having surgical tubing with a metal ball bearing, up to and including a nuclear device. Where is the line drawn? And, in drawing the line, if there is one, who draws it, or where is it drawn? It's going to be an arbitrary decision by someone. So, who gets to decide? By the way, I'm a gun owner also.

--- ---

So am I. I own a 12g shotgun. I also live in a very tiny village a long way from a city, and sixteen miles from my sheriff's office, who only has one deputy and one car in a very large, rural county.

We have not had a crime here since the 1930's (an illegal poker game in a boxcar broken up by the county sheriff) but we do have large wild animals that occasionally lumber through town (cougars have recently been sighted, one was hit by a car near here). We even had a bull attack the post office.

But the idea that the mentally ill are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed weapons is specious. The DOJ reports that the mentally ill are eleven times more likely than the general populace to be victims of violent crime. The disabled two times more likely.

The shooter is crazy is the jack-leg response that leads to "I don't want to have that crazy bastard living next to me."

On the Connecticut shooting, one could make an argument that if the fellow has Asperger's (as some media is entirely speculating, since they do not know) or schizophrenia (as other media is entirely speculating) then such people would be incapable of organising an attack that left eleven hundred spent rounds on the scene.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16061769 Mentally Ill in USA eleven times more likely to be victim of violence in last year (NIH)

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2238

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Lawrence on December 18, 2012 at 6:29am

Had this young man used a vehicle to commit these murders would we be talking about banning cars outright? Probably not. Why? Because the two are completely unrelated; it doesn't take much sense to see that.

The right to bear arms means that if some lunatic with a gun picked MY house to break into in order to make headline news I live in a country where I can own the means necessary to fight this menace on its own terms. I can shoot back and in that situation I would certainly want an assault-type weapon. Why wouldn't I? I am defending my family and home. Give me as much firepower as possible. I am also free to forgo gun ownership and hope the police arrive in time. I think things should be kept as-is.

As to the reasoning, gun-control advocates never want to consider the views of people who have lived through a tragedy and were asked what would have happened if they were armed. I wonder why that is?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Goscicki on December 18, 2012 at 9:25am

An interesting slant on this debate is to consider the directives of the 1933 Gestapo of Nazi Germany as compared to the laissez-faire attitude of the plutocrats of 21^st -century U.S.. Himmler and Muller definitely wanted all fire power to be in the hands of automaton police agents of the state. Makes for a more controllable populace, methinks.

If the pendulum should move toward stricter and tighter gun control, lawmakers should consider what might happen if it moves too far ‘cause it may never swing back.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Russell Pangborn on December 18, 2012 at 9:45am

That is where the attitude of the people comes in. A lot of those lawmakers, soldiers etc would be on the side of democracy and not stand for a dictatorship.

When you have secret police that torture and kill in Iran with the Shah and in Russia with the Tsar and overthrow those governments you got secret police that torture and kill with the Ayatollah in Iran and do the same with the Communists in Russia. The attitude of the people does not change radically overnight with a different government.

Certain countries have evolved into hardy compassionate societies and they do not advocate an overarmed citizenry for this "just in case" scenario.