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.
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
>>> 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.
Better to have a live family member than a dead one you just shot by mistake.
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? :)