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.
David, for all of the reasons you stated so well, I'm on your side.
A gentle-looking white-haired old lady in a senior citizens discussion group several years ago said she feared meeting an NRA member in a state park.
Not wanting to quibble, I didn't ask her if she feared meeting a criminal in a state park. Not wanting to frighten her, I also didn't tell the group I'm an NRA member.
By saying nothing, I guess I denied her remark a dignity it didn't deserve.
I don't own a gun, never have, maybe never will. The last time I saw one it gave me the jitters, so I took a gun course so I wouldn't feel like such an idiot. It helped. I don't fear meeting criminals in any park and have travelled solo at night in many dangerous countries, but I'm a big girl with an even bigger attitude.
But the truest statement in your discourse is this: That our government will make us safer in exchange for some of our rights is a lie.
Following others' lead, here is an attempt to return to the original question in this thread... atheist reasoning on gun control.
In religious circles, the operative question is whether a given idea is or is not consistent with the holy-book. One does not ask whether the idea is good or bad, just or unjust, useful or useless - but merely whether it is biblical or quranic and so forth. The debate is about the interpretation of the book, about the book's author's intent. It is not about first-principles, because those principles are already assumed.
Notice the similarity between the holy-books and the US constitution? Too often, Americans debate laws not in terms of their essential merit, but whether they are constitutional or not. So for gun control, mimicking the religious mindset, the question invariably devolves to the meaning of the second amendment; namely, whether it suggests private ownership of "arms", or only individual possession in the context of a "well-regulated militia". Gun control proponents claim the latter, while gun-rights activists the former.
The atheist viewpoint, as we have seen in this tread, is neither consistently pro nor against guns. But most of us can probably agree that our reasoning for or against guns should be from first principles, from consideration of guns' effect on society, and from questions of whether or not it ever makes sense to take personal recourse to violence. We don't get wrapped up in timidly reverential constitutional scholarship, ceding our reasoning on justice to the all-mighty "founders".
We are not ever going to take away all guns, but we can limit the kinds of weapons and the kinds of people who have access to them in reasonable ways. The notion that no restrictions consistent with Constitutional rights can be placed on gun ownership which will improve safety in public places is not sensible. Re-instituting the ban on assault weapons, limiting the size of magazines, registering guns, and licensing owners are all reasonable restrictions. They could improve public safety over time while allowing gun ownership to continue in relative freedom.
So how exactly is that "atheist reasoning"? You are ignoring both the science of statistics and how gun legislations do not significantly change murder rates, and you are ignoring the principal (whether you like it or not) that citizens have the right to armed rebellion. How the hell are "little guns" going to help in an armed rebellion against the most military country in the world? You don't believe in that concept and would like to have it struck from the Constitution? well change the 2nd amendment... But that will never happen right, because the stats show that the passing of anti-gun laws don't prevent little kiddies from dying in schools so changing the constitution would be a double negative whammy.
I like to do as others have asked here... get out of the dogma and look at the facts, as any atheist should do. Fact: yes most other Western countries have lower rates. Fact: No, those lower rates were not the result of passing anti-gun laws. I am a non gun owning Canadian, but I agree with the intent of the 2nd Amendment, to have an armed citizenry. In fact I think we should look to Switzerland as a model for how to run a military... No professional army, just an armed citizenry. It insures they don't spend too much time going around the world shooting citizens of other countries, but don't mess with them at home.
Everything else that gets discussed here is just talk.
Statistically speaking, violence in the USA has been going down faster than in Canada, if people just stop panicking and knee-jerking, within maybe a decade or two, the US rates of violence will be down to the Canadian levels.
Fact: yes most other Western countries have lower rates. Fact: No, those lower rates were not the result of passing anti-gun laws.
What evidence supports your conclusion that gun control is not the reason for lower rates in other countries?
Statistically speaking, violence in the USA has been going down faster than in Canada,
I pointed out the problems with the statistic you posted before, but your response was that you didn't care. The statistics you need to compare are rates of gun-related violence.
No professional army, just an armed citizenry.
Not a sensible proposal at all in today's world.
-Yes I know, you think other methods of murder are totally cool.
-Because anyone calling themselves an atheist should be able to display a modicum of critical thinking.
This is how you demonstrate mathematically that a new law is effective : you have to compare the trend before the measure and the trend after the measure and calculate IF the before and after TRENDS are SIGNIFICANTLY different. Out of the many many stats posted on this discussion, there are simply no stats that show that. Be a critical thinker Allan, look at the math. The mere fact that countries have different murder rates infers nothing at all about the passing of laws, and everything to do with their cultural makeup. But let's not discuss cultural opinions... let's stick to demonstrable math, what any reasonable atheist should do.
Yes I know, you think other methods of murder are totally cool.
You claim to be arguing rationally on the basis of facts and you make a remark like that?
you have to compare the trend before the measure and the trend after the measure and calculate IF the before and after TRENDS are SIGNIFICANTLY different.
You would have to compare the trends in gun-related crimes to see what the effect is, but that may not be sufficient since results would depend on how well the laws are being enforced. Law alone is not enough, enforcement is required and where enforcement is not sufficiently funded you may not see results.
The mere fact that countries have different murder rates infers nothing at all about the passing of laws, and everything to do with their cultural makeup.
That implies the United States is a country with a culture more prone to violence than other developed nations. If that is the case, then we need to do something about the means of violence—stricter gun control.
Relying on one faulty statistic is not sufficient to prove your point.
It looks like Dr. Clark is debating rationally and TNT666 is letting emotion overtake the arguments.
That reminds me of a recent discussion I had with a religious person over the holidays about atheists and Christmas. It was going okay until I came up with some good arguments. Then I got the equivalent of "Yes I know, you think other methods of murder are totally cool."
When you attack like that it shows you are losing the debate or are unwilling to at least ponder seriously the other point of view.
Russell, you and Dr. Clark both missed the paradoxical intention in TNT's post.
My reply to Dr. Clark has my explanation.
A good mind can put up formidable barriers to attempts to get past the mind...to the emotions.
Now, what do you know about people who are without emotion?
Oh FFS! I never attack anyone here. He's the one who keeps repeating that only gun deaths are of interest, I'm pointing out his irrationality, not the opposite. Anyone who repeatedly dismisses other methods or homicide just to make a point is clearly not using their entire brain potential. I expect that fault from faithers, but am not so comfortable with this coming from an atheist. Have a look at every single stat that's been posted here and reassess who'd being emotional.
TNT, I agree.
This ex-faither was once a faither, a result of the faither-producing schools my dad sent his kids to. Freeing myself from a dependence on the mental contortions that faithing requires wasn't easy; there were no support groups although in a Catholic high school I heard harsh verbal attacks on a man named Glen (maybe Glenn) Archer, a founder of a group with the very long name "Protestants and Other Americans United for the Separation of Church and State", now Americans United, a political action group more than a support group.
The mental contortions that faithing required included adopting an ideology. Several years in hardball politics persuaded me that ideologies are ways (often self-deprecating ways, such as self-fulfilling prophecies like "You can't fight city hall" which translates to "I can't fight city hall") to protect a belief when the belief itself lacks logical strength.
As to repeating an argument, such as here repeating that only gun deaths are of interest, the repetition might indicate that the person doing the repeating feels s/he has not been heard, is trying again, and (as you say) is not using their entire brain potential.
I stumbled on the paradoxical intention thing. While in a blocked negotiation, I proposed an alternative that in moments crumbled the block. Later, I learned what I had done; named an alternative that was unpalatable to those who were blocking. (Not the cliched "made an offer they couldn't refuse")