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.
>>> 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)
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.
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?
It's because we gun-control advocates are evil bastards.
After having read a lot of online posts claiming that there is no such thing as an assault weapon and that rifles considered assault weapons by the government and the media are no more harmful than other rifles, why would you want the assault weapon? It doesn't have all that much firepower.
'Gun control" is not the same thing as "gun bans." There are plenty of steps that could be taken that would protect your right to defend your family but still reduce firearm killings.
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 21st -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.
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.
Better to have and not need than need and not have.
Isn't the basic intent of the Second Amendment to keep 'lawmakers' as far away from this discussion as possible?
I live in one of the safest areas of the country crime-wise if FBI statistics are to be believed. Yet, there are still armed break-ins and robberies with tragic consequences in a number of instances. If I were to pick a weapon to defend myself, my home and my family against this sort of crime I would pick an assault weapon as I alone would be facing a number of intruders. It is the best thing I can do to even the odds which are decidedly stacked against me.
This reasoning seems insane to you? :)
I think there are a number of good arguments on both sides of the gun control debate, but the US is so large and diverse that proper gun usage can only be legislated for in a fairly basic way at a federal level. Relevant arguments include:
For Gun Control
- It makes it easier for tragedies such as the recent school shooting to take place. If the man had done the same attack with a revolver then less people would be dead. If he only had a knife, he would have done even less damage and maybe would not have attacked the school at all.
- A number of children die every year accidentally playing with guns. There will always be accidents from stupidity or user error which cause deaths and injuries to people no matter how careful we are. The only way to stop this is to have no guns.
- The majority of criminals will be better armed and more willing to use their weapons than their victims whatever controls we have. It is better to let the police be armed and deal with these people rather than risking our lives instead of just our possessions.
- Gun control will reduce the number of criminals with guns. You can run from a mugger with a knife, but not from one with a gun. A gun can go off accidentally during a crime, a knife can't.
Against Gun Control
- If you live in an area where dangerous animals wander near where you live or might travel to, guns powerful enough to kill these animals are required for daily life. People need the means to deal with bears, alligators, snakes etc that go beyond merely avoiding them.
- Those who are isolated from the prescence of law enforcement need some means of defending themselves against criminals for the hour they may need to wait before police arrive when an incident occurs.
- The people most likely to comply with gun control laws are just average people. Criminals, the mentally ill, and others who pose the most danger will just ignore these laws so in practice gun control just takes power and security away from the average law abiding citizen.
- The right to bear arms in the US is culturally ingrained into a large number of people, and it will be difficult for gun control to gain public support (and also general adherence) because of this. There are many people who do not own a gun who would fight to retain their right to bear arms, even if they choose not to exercise that right.
- Guns will always exist in the US and restricting their use means the general population will have less education in how to be around and use guns safely, leading to more accidents.
The situation seems to be that in some places guns should be banned completely except for law enforcement use and in other places they should be standard issue along with subsidised training. I'm sure most places would fall somewhere between these two extremes.
You missed a couple on the -for- side:
That high-capacity clips and military weaponry are not "self-defence" weapons. They are meant for killing large numbers of people in short amounts of time.
The Second Amendment is treated by its acolytes as a religious document, as holy writ.
There have been mass murders by gun in schools in the USA in every decade since 1765.
That the argument of the NRA (that guns are to keep the government in fear) is not what the Second Amendment says. It says a well-ordered militia, being necessary to the security of the State is why there is a right to bear arms. "Militia" as defined in law is the organised armed forces of a state or the Federal government. The vast majority of gun owners wouldn't know a proper militia (not running around the woods in camos) if they tripped over it.
In general I would agree with you, but I am trying to be as reasonable and fair as possible with my limited knowledge.
I know that a hippo is bullet proof for many guns. I do not know how tough other animals might be so am currently willing to accept that military weaponry could be reasonable to gun down 3 alligators that simultaneously decide to chase me.
While many do take the Second Amendment as seriously as you have stated, there are many who don't but would still fight to keep it.
I would definitely agree that the ease of gun ownership has contributed to the frequency of school shootings and the type of guns available have contributed to the amount of damage caused.
It is my understanding that the intention of the Second Amendment was to aid people with self defence and law enforcement as the country was more lawless than in modern times. It also meant people would be better prepared if required to act as a military force in an emergency. Whatever the intention was is probably irrelevant now as the situation is more than 200 years removed from the original circumstances.
James, first three minor points then a major point.
1. Few if any Second Amendment acolytes are on the courts that determine the Amendment's meaning now.
2. Do you have evidence on mass murders in schools since 1765?
3. Of course the Amendment doesn't say "guns are to keep the government in fear". Nor does it say "guns are to keep the people who act for government in fear".
A major point. After the 1787 Federal Convention drafted the Constitution (without a bill of rights), they referred it to their Committee on Style to write the final draft. At least one history of that time said the Committee was chaired by a man who liked language to have some ambiguity ... for people living then.
I don't know if the people who drafted the Bill of Rights, in particular Amendment Two, intended ambiguity, but an increase of ambiguity in two centuries would not surprise me.
The terms 'bear arms", "well-ordered" and "necessary to the security of the state" had ambiguity then. They certainly have ambiguity now.