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.
Actually those who would place certain restrictions on gun ownership (not "anti-gun folk") do have statistics.
The II Amendment does not trump the other amendments and Constitutional rights (such as voting, free speech, free press, &c). The II Amendment also calls for a "well-ordered Militia, necessary for the security of a Free State." It was a court case that decided "individual" is the functional equivalent of "well-ordered militia." It is also noteworthy that American Rifleman when it quotes the II Amendment always seems to leave out the first clause of that amendment.
How has the restriction on your purchasing hand grenades or anti-aircraft surface-to-air missiles impacted on your right to bear arms as part of a well-ordered militia? Those are arms. The II Amendment does not specify which kind of arms.
We'll start with cars. One hundred years ago states started licensing drivers and autos; this did not result in the taking of cars away from owners; it did result in better prosecution rates for auto crimes.
In the Seventies, the "impossible" ruling of installing safety belts in autos came into force. No surprise, auto deaths per 100,000 crashes plummeted.
Stricter rulings against drunken driving have been adopted by all states. Drunken driving deaths have plummeted too, though no one came for the alcohol or bars (it was the religious that did that in 1919).
Every Western nation that has imposed gun restrictions of some sort or another has seen a concomitant reduction of deaths by guns. This experiment has already been run, repeatedly.
Now in the USA, thanks to restrictions placed on the government studying gun violence and mitigation factors thanks to legislation crafted long ago by the NRA, we do not have recent data here, and it is unlawful for the government to gather such data.
Why would the NRA support such legislation, and continue to this day to fight against the idea that gathering empirical evidence is bad? Could it be they are afraid of the result? After all, the tobacco industry did the same thing for many years, and look what happened when the government was allowed to gather evidence for the putative health benefits of smoking. (Yes, the tobacco industry used to tout smoking as healthful.)
We have the evidence from Mexico, that its own gun control laws were in fact reducing gun deaths, until the War on Drugs arrived, and hundreds of gun shops opened along our southern border selling weapons to straw buyers to carry to criminals in Mexico. Aside from any issue of whether guns made Mexico more safe (they did not), said gun dealers and their NRA masters are in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (subverting the laws or officials of a foreign country is against the law here).
But like Fox News and Rupert Murdoch, the NRA and its gun dealers will not be prosecuted: follow the money.
"But like Fox News and Rupert Murdoch, the NRA and its gun dealers will not be prosecuted: follow the money."
Cynicism can quickly relieve the symptoms of stress; it does not relieve the stressor. It's also resorted to by people who feel powerless.
Except that it is not cynicism when it is true. And you assume I am powerless, and that I am cynical . . . seems quite a stretch on one remark I made, and you didn't answer the issue of why we need so many gun shops along the desert boundaries of the USA when hardly anyone lives there, or why we are not enforcing our laws. Those were not cynical statements, those are truthful ones.
Fox News openly states that they report the "other side of the story." That implies that stories only have two sides, and Fox only reports one of them.
Have you seen Rupert Murdoch prosecuted yet for News Corporation's paper News of the World in the phone hacking scandal in England? For corrupting Scotland Yard inspectors and members of the UK Parliament? Rebeccah Brookes (his final editor of News of the World, selected after the paper was called on the carpet) was jailed.
Our laws say the corporation should be heavily fined and its officers jailed. Didn't happen, isn't happening. The congressional commission called to study the issue never released a report one way or the other.
Fox News reporters themselves were caught on tape noting they would not cover the issue (from CNN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG7rgX3vk4I)
For scores of examples of how Fox manipulates the news, see LiberalViewer's channel on how they selectively quote, edit, cherry pick, &c.
He goes after other news outlets on this channel when they make such "errors," but Fox is the overwhelming host of the entries.
James, what follows are my conclusions and opinions. You need not agree.
Political idealism and cynicism differ from the philosophical idealism and cynicism I studied in college.
A political idealist needs the world to be better than it is; a political cynic needs the world to be worse than it is.
A political realist deals with the world as it is. Henry Kissinger used the German "real politik".
Politics is about power and four years in hardball politics, during which six men lost their jobs and one man lost his life, changed my perspective. My political idealism became political cynicism, until my opponents gave me a compliment; they'd recognized my power.
You predicted, "...the NRA and its gun dealers will not be prosecuted...." A prediction might be accurate; it is neither true not false.
Your prediction expressed pessimism about the future.
Your "follow the money" identified a motive, and a pessimistic view became a cynical view.
You predicted failure, powerlessness. I would have said it's for someone to prosecute, keeping my power.
James, you're free to reject my conclusions and opinions; your choice will affect your future, not mine.
Tom you are focusing on James predicting failure and powerlessness. Isn't the person who needs guns predicting failure of government or failure of law enforcement. You might reply that you are being a realist with that approach. But, a realist should also have to acknowledge those approaches are working in other countries and the numbers coming in from those countries back that up.
Mathew, most of this we've done/said here enough that I don't feel like going over it again. But on seatbelts, no, it's a totally different math altogether. Seatbelts were fully tested before they were mandated. Thousands of test dummies were put through the wringer (unlike light-weight helmets in sports) and were amply demonstrated to EFFECTIVELY RESTRAIN PEOPLE IN THEIR SEAT. Since being thrown from the vehicle was a major cause of serious injury and death, keeping the person in their seat was demonstrated, beyond the shadow of a doubt, to save many lives. They do what they are meant to do, it was demonstrated with solid statistical analysis before laws were passed. That was a correct procedure to follow.
Numbers from other countries are just numbers in a void. There is no indication whatsoever that they provide insight on the efficacy of anti-gun legislation. You're focusing all your math inquiry into a social snapshot instead of looking at long term trends. That simply does not stand up to scrutiny.
And I'm sorry to inform you, but your example of "scientific" procedure is simply misinformed. In order to test whether anti-gun laws are effective, if you refuse to actually run a proper experimental model, and desire against rationality to rely strictly on demographic data, then, as I've indicated to Russel several times, your graphs must accomplish this: demonstrate a STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT difference between the "before" trend and the "after" trend. Without a conclusive demonstration of CAUSALITY, any data purporting to be "scientific" is just hot air. Comparing Canada and USA has no scientific credibility. We have different population density, different wealth disparity, different demographics (Canada's violence is incredibly unequal across the country), different drinking ages, different gun manufacturing industries, different educational attitudes and different healthcare. Comparing Australia to Canada would make a little more sense...
If personal knowledge is worth nothing in a conversation my dear, then acquiring that personal knowledge is worth nothing... then the entire debate on educating people to reduce social problems must be in vain too.
TNT, you're right about statistical significance. There once was a time when researchers could ignore it and get their work published. Not now.
Literacy in statistical analysis may well be the single most important tool of knowledge to have in these decades of false internet debates. Armchair science indeed just does not cut it. The number of irrelevant numbers that have been thrown around this discussion is depressing. :(
"Isn't the person who needs guns predicting failure of government or failure of law enforcement."
1. I don't know what the person who needs guns is predicting, or if he's predicting anything.
2. What do your "failure of government" and "failure of law enforcement" include and exclude?
Define your terms and discussion is possible.
A realist knows that violence has many causes and complex correlations.
I'll name a form of violence in America that few people consider.
If you followed the recent presidential campaign, you heard Republicans charge that Democrats want to bring European socialism to America.
Set aside the emotions the word "socialism" stirs up and look at the reality: European forms of capitalism and their more generous "entitlement" programs.
Compare European and American forms of capitalism and you will not escape the conclusion that "survival of the most fit" (or survival of those who bribe those who govern) describes American capitalism well.
Economic violence is epidemic in the US of A. Here are two considerations.
1) Some forms of economic violence have decreased during our lifetimes: labor-management law, consumer protection law, even store return policies.
2) Some forms have not decreased: mediation/arbitration does not exist or has been denied for employment-related conflict and "disgruntled former employees" use guns to settle scores.
People here who cite the gun laws in various nations as if they account for high or low rates of gun violence are providing far too little usable evidence.
Instead of hurling opinions at each other, we might set out to identify the many forms that violence takes in the US of A.
Let us then recognize the truth the ancient Roman Seneca expressed when he said violence arises from powerlessness.
Do that and we can start identifying the many ways that power is denied to people in the US of A and compare these ways with those in nations with differing rates of gun violence.
Or we can emote.
That sentence you quoted from me was a response to the two basic arguments I hear in this debate. Guns are necessary to overthrow a bad government and guns are required to save your life when the criminal comes to your home to do horrible things to you.
This is a fear mentality and a lot of horrible things have been done in the name of fear by countries and people individually. Fear does have a purpose in our survival, but it is like our appetites. When there is a plentiful food supply there is an obesity epidemic - we can overdo things with our primal instincts.
Your emote comment is a tricky one. I sound over emotional to you when making a case and I get that sense sometimes from your side. I wasn't going to post a video where a commentator makes fun of some of the NRA arguments because of the emotional baggage we can't seem to avoid in this discussion, but what the heck. People are welcome to include a video or tract that makes fun of the way I feel about gun control.
Excellent points are made, but it is long - the most eloquent point starts at 7:41, so if you don't have 8 minutes to waste drag the cursor to that time.
Here it is:
"[...hand grenades or anti-aircraft surface-to-air missiles] are arms. The II Amendment does not specify which kind of arms."
1. Google "SCOTUS Heller" and you can download the ruling. Read the part that denies II Amendment protection to certain kinds of weapons and some of your words above don't strengthen your case.
2. I ask, "In 1787, which kinds of arms would the II Amendment have specified?" and the rest of your words above don't strengthen your case.
Hurling what seem like randomly chosen sentences weaken your case.
Just came from the Comedy forum and got all inspired to inject a bit of humor into this topic
How many NRA members does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
I don’t know, how many?
The NRA who?