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.

Views: 11873

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"i have a ctc cwp.. there'd be less dead in that movie theater in CO..."-Ventura

education is key
keep up w/the kids though in teenage years huge.
once the respect is found guns are ok w/me..
again, education is key. school should literally have parents sign off and get kids to a range 1st w/pellet gun then 22..
I
M
H
O

2nd amendment here.. in MX u cannot own one.. so.. why are there more dead there?

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?

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.

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

Thanks.  Love it.  Love Bill Maher.

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."

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.

Some more Canadian perspective on gun control

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

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

Adam Lanza, the Connecticut shooter, was definitely mentally ill.  He murdered his mother in her sleep, then spent the rest of the day murdering six-year-olds.  QED.

Craig

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?

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service