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

Guns/Second Amendment

I know we're all different thinkers, but I'm just curious if there is a consensus view among atheists regarding firearms?

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Secular Forces 2013 on December 2, 2010 at 6:10am

show the kids while their young
and educate them on fantasy and reality, media hype etc..
there's always MMA (mixedmartialarts) as well

Colt Defender is expensive but nice.

Nonbelievers probably have more respect for guns than the fear-mongers.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ryan cameron on December 2, 2010 at 8:48pm

I think a bunch of 1/2" thick steel plating, 2-3' thick concrete and an underground bunker fully alarmed and surrounded by trenches and barbed wire fences is the way to protect yourself. If what they have is going to penetrate that kind of reinforcement, there isn't gun you can buy that would offer any defense.

Besides, a gun doesn't protect, it is an offensive tactic that can be used to threaten or actively harm, and effectively draw attention to yourself as a potential danger in a community. Not only that, but they can be quite easily turned on the owner in a panic situation.

As a rational thinker, I don't think gun ownership is compatible with intelligence, and atheists tend to be atheists due to an intelligent, skeptical, and logical approach to life's big questions.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TK on December 2, 2010 at 9:34pm

Your assertion that firearm use is always offensive is blatantly false. There are plenty of examples of defensive firearm use that occur in the U.S. every year. Explain how using a firearm against an armed intruder into your home is an offensive move. Also your assertion that people who own guns aren't intelligent is also blatantly false.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ryan cameron on December 8, 2010 at 9:50pm

I'm being technical. "Defense" in the strictest sense is making a "sheild" or protection from attack, guns could only be used as defense in a fight if they were welded together to form some kind of armor. When you shoot an attacker, you are attacking them back, IE retaliating.

I'm not saying its never justified to retaliate against an attacker, but I think using the words "self defense" as a means of making gun ownership appear more ethical and intelligent is a smokescreen that obfuscates the real motives for the gun lobby. Again, any rational person can see that, and that is why we see lower gun ownership among educated, rational populations, and higher gun ownership among paranoid, religious populations.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Park Bierbower on December 8, 2010 at 10:00pm

I have to agree with Travis. Defense is not only deflecting an attack, but being able to stop an attacker. by your reasoning, a shield would only stop elements of the attack, but not the attack itself. if you used it against the person, it would then be an offensive weapon. that doesn't seem to make sense. an offensive weapon is what is used to start an attack. a defensive is what is used to stop it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sam Jones on December 2, 2010 at 10:21pm

I believe in self defense. If A criminal can bring a gun to a fight, I should have the right to protect myself with an equal amount of defense. i.e. don't bring a knife to a gun fight. I'd vote in an across the board gun ban if the government could effectivly collect every gun avalible. Hell, i'd even pay some extra sales tax or whatever to fund the effort. The fact is that they can't and won't be able to enforce a gun ban ever. They can regulate the sale of guns and they can bust people they find that have them, but, they can't fix the problem. We will find other ways to aquire guns, law abiding citizens and criminals alike. I have a conceal and carry here in Oklahoma, but, when i go to NYC I carry a very very nasty knife on me. Believe you me, if you make me feel that my life or the life of my family, or friends is in danger by attacking me or you try and take something from me. i'm going to kill you. Period. I don't care if guns didn't even exist, or even if I have no weapons. If I feel you are threatening my life, im going to take yours by any way possible to save my own. Gun or bare hands and I won't feel a bit of guilt or empathy for your family or anything, why? because you had no right to try and take my life.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hidden in the crowd. on December 3, 2010 at 10:49am

i support your self defensive statement but killing?
i would say seriously injure, or incapacitate is efficient enough, of course i wont say that killing isnt the way in a situation that doesnt allow you to be careful or show restraint

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TK on December 3, 2010 at 8:02pm

Center mass and shoot to stop the threat. Once the threat has been neutralized, I would try and do what I could to save their life. However, if they die in the process of me stopping them as a threat, oh well.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on December 3, 2010 at 8:09pm

You wouldn't be so flippant if the "threat" turned out to be a loved one and you shot without assessing the situation.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TK on December 4, 2010 at 9:02am

Then I'd imagine I'd be having a pretty bad day. I don't think I'd shoot someone without first positively identifying the target, and knowing what is beyond that target. I'd be breaking rule #4 if I didn't do that.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sam Jones on December 4, 2010 at 1:35pm

If it were family then it's not a threat. If you are assuming that i'd just pull the trigger in a panic then you are wrong. Attackers are met with equal force and lethality. Someone who is unarmed and not threating my life wont get a bullet to the head or a knife to the neck.