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.
I think we might, hopefully, be seeing the beginning of a shift in American culture wherein we grapple with yet another social illness, and our civilized nature, over time, again wins out.
I’m thinking about how we eventually got tired of smokers blowing smoke in our faces, how first there were “smoke free zones” established in public places, and eventually, when the political will reached the tipping point, it resulted in the legislation we have today. We now see the smokers huddled outside, banned and ostracized from the majority of the non smoking public. I am of the notion that it will take a while, but gun toters will be similarly banned from ordinary civilized life in America.
Sure, you can still buy cigarettes, but you can’t smoke them anywhere you wish. Eventually there will be fewer and fewer smokers as smoking increasingly becomes a stigma that is simply socially unacceptable. And so it will be with guns. As we apply to malls, theaters, stadiums and other civil venues, LaPierre’s advocacy of keeping gun carriers out of our schools, gunners will become like the most severely addicted cigarette smokers among us . . . social pariahs, they and their stench unwelcome anywhere. The number of the gun addicted will plummet, and “concealed carry” will become a silly issue of our dark past. There is no other direction for social evolution to take, dystopian gun fantasies not withstanding. Social evolution happens, whether you like it or not. All the guns in the world won’t prevent it.
If we did reach that tipping point on December 14th, I don’t expect to see us accomplish the ultimate, logical outcome in my lifetime. (I’m a pretty old geezer). Then again, I never expected living long enough to see racism decline to such an extent that America would elect a person of color as our President.
We will, in the future, see society elevated out of the sewer of violence and obsessive weaponry, the gun toters and the arsenal accumulators become dinosaurs of the past, and American “exceptionalism” will no longer be measured by body counts, but by the life values we Americans share through our common human decency.
Yikes, all bold, that's hard on the eyes.
Nothwithstanding, your over bolding, and my non gun ownership, I view a gunless world as dystopian. I see peoples who are serfs to their governments, with absolutely no means to do anything about it. In Canada, we're not even allowed to gather freely in public places any more.
A gunless society is 1984, it is Equilibrium, it is Handmaid's Tale, it is Farenheit 451, all wrapped into one. Our democracies are a joke, and when the government starts closing in on you for doing things that should be legal in democratic societies. à
I'd take a free violent society over a Big Brother safe society any day. Big Brother societies are built slowly, like slowly boiling a frog, many Canadians do not notice when our freedoms disappear. We Canadians no longer live in a true democracy... remember that when you make laws which uselessly suppress freedom.
"Evolution" is not the appropriate word in this conversation. Evolution should never equate Big Brother.
That's the way I see it also, and so far the arguments for getting rid of our guns are not convincing to me.
If the US became enough of a dictatorship that the people revolted, causing the government to send soldiers to quell the rebellion, I think the soldiers would be greatly outnumbered, thus overriding their superior weapons advantage.
I also think many of the soldiers would be on the side of the people and many of the rest would probably feel sorry for those they were killing and stop after a time.
Idaho - I think your last sentence "I also think many of the soldiers would be on the side of the people" is essentially why there should be less guns in society. We don't need guns to defend ourselves from a dictatorship because of the attitude of the people is essential in whether there is a dictatorship or there is not one.
If the push comes from another country - you have the army for defense. If the push comes from within, soldiers and policemen who have grown up with the ideals of liberty would not allow a minority to dictate to the majority.
The only problem would be if the majority in the country decided to dictate to a minority. For example all religious people decided that atheists should be stripped of all their rights. If everyone carried assault rifles and atheists used theirs to win back rights, they would be outgunned. If only the army carried guns and atheists tried to fight back - they would also be outgunned.
Liberty, education and freedoms are the values that should move a society forward. If the people buy into those ideas (and they basically do in the U.S), you don't have to arm them with assault rifles. Your neighbor the cop or the marine won't stand for a takeover by a dictator.
Russell, you make some good points and I'm considering them, as I have with all posts here that weren't dogmatic or used name calling.
If I eventually decide you're right, that still leaves me with the desire to be able to defend myself against individuals or groups that attack me, especially those that break into my home. That's one thing that will take much more convincing to get me to change my mind.
I apologize for the “all bold”. My eyesight is not so good, and it helps me see. Normally sites do not recognize my choice of “text style”, and default to their own font, but I have found that A/N does not.
Again, I apologize, and do not intend to post in “all bold”. I will make an effort to see that it does not happen again.
That being said, I think "evolution" is a perfectly appropriate word, as civilization evolves just as organisms have and will continue to evolve.
I do not share your jaundiced view of government, nor do I share your (or Idaho Spud's) paranoia about the future. (as there are simply no "arguments for getting rid of our guns" being made)
“I'd take a free violent society over a Big Brother safe society any day.” is a perfect example of a false choice.
Your personal freedoms do not transcend the common good. In reality it is the common good that protects and enhances your individual freedoms.
The gun argument in the U.S. is a result of the impression that the freedom of unrestricted access to weapons has turned against the common good.
I can’t speak for Canada, but here in the U.S. the Constitution is a document that allows the continuing balancing act between personal freedoms and the common good to occur, and for us to argue about it.
Tell me this, what dystopian novels/essays have you read, and do you find their outcomes to be desirable? Do you really think 1984 or Equilibrium are desirable lifestyles????? There is practically no difference between N.American democracies and "1984". The Equilibrium version is under way... the percentage of permanently medicated humans is nearing 30% in some areas and will soon reach a majority of society.
So no, I do not have 'paranoia' about the future... I have dislike of the present directions of politics in N.America, present... And no, the good of all is not always better than individuality. And I'm saying this as a leftist!!! Much (not all) of the proposed anti-gun legislation favour power structures/institutions over people. Western society has nearly erased the individual in order to satisfy the resource consistency needs of our oligarchy.
Remember that we are apes, we are not ants, we are not sardines, we are not bees, nor are we meerkats. Though we're a sociable species, we are NOT biologically EVOLVED to live in these over-crowded, no individuality environments. Our biological engines know not how to handle this ridiculous lifestyle we have chosen.
Your world view will eventually lead us to a bubble wrapped life, the only danger in that type of society is severe depression (which is already started, depression is becoming the number one healthcare cost in Western societies).
Bubble wrapped, in the name of survival at all costs. That's not living. No thank you. Life is not precious. We live we die, the point is, if there is one, to make the best of the time in between.
Our democracy is a joke, well if you don't see it you simply have not been looking at any numbers for the past 30 years in North America anyway, generally, and the last decade specifically, very visible with the squashing of demonstrations. You realise the reason you see less demonstrating in N.America is because our law and order shuts them down before they get anywhere. Agents provocateurs have been denounced in all major events, having been used as law enforcement excuses to bring in the heavy hand.
As for defending against government, indeed, drones flying up camels' asses are a great demonstration of how minute the power of guns are in society. Death by gun on innocents is rare, sufficiently rare, for it not to bother me. But if it really came down to our drones used by our military on us... and we're real close to that when you look at the technology now used to squash people here, at least having a gun you could possibly stop the person controlling the drone. It's better than nothing.
Dystopian novels are a favourite genre of mine, dystopias in print are generally the result of powerless and medicated civilians. There are a couple of exceptions of course, but I'm speaking generally. Many events in human history have also evidenced that the easiest way to overthrow a people is to de-weapon them. It's really no secret. Not just physical weapons, organisational tools also. For example in France and Italy, coffee was originally prohibited because it got the masses riled up and talking politics and threatening to overthrow power. I am in favour of any tool that can be used to overthrow power, it is the only way that the government does not become a dictatorship owned by money... but we're already on our way there. Democracy was developed in restricted groups of people of similar cultures. Democracy is not adapted to rule giant masses of heterogeneous humans. Then it just becomes domination of a majority over various minorities, and occasionally, the rule of minorities over disenfranchised people.
Matthew, the term "our democracy" is a lie.
The truth? Our oligarchy, a nation ruled by a few.
If the few, the Congress especially, were our best, America would be an aristocracy. They are not our best.
America is a democracy only on the days we vote for those who will become our oligarchs.
I hate violence and long for a peaceful society, where I don't need alarms, locks, fences or guns. But I'm not giving up my guns until it becomes clear that there is no more chance of this country becoming a dictatorship. History is replete with examples of those that want to control others, and I don't see it changing much so far. It does appear that things are changing for the better, but I don't expect a peaceful society for a long time.
The statistically proven to reduce social violence is to reduce economic disparity and improve infant education.
Yet, we're obsessed with knee-jerk political reactions to small events. Yes. This most recent shooting is but a small event and should not affect the our thinking in the larger picture. Guns are really irrelevant to the conversation on violence. That raped lady in India was not at the end of a gun, most people who die violently do not do so because of guns.
As a lefty, I am more and more depressed at the crying liberal attitude I see. The trouble with the crying liberal methodology is it's constantly about applying little teensy bandages to fix non relevant problems, while we let the real big time criminals get away with all sorts of crimes. Reducing clip size and banning certain uglier looking guns is a useless endeavour.
It's social paradigm shift that is needed, and this paradigm shift should be much more evident in a growing atheist crowd. Unfortunately, people cling to Christian values, even when deleting God ideas.
The only way to achieve a peaceful society is dictatorship and cultural homogeneity. Look at history books, take a good look at history books, all the "safe" periods in various countries (safe for the majority, but lethal for the few/several shit disturbers) point to that.
The grand ole dream of "PEACE on Earth" is a 20th century delusion. It is impossible to achieve at a grand or polite scale.
I didn't say "homicide" I said "violently". Violently is anything that is not natural. Even dying of emphysema is violent, try it, I have relatives who died that way, and it was a daily physical violence. I am un-preoccupied by homicide rates, and much more preoccupied by quality of life, while we're alive. Once someone is dead there's no pain, they cease to exist, so I don't have much issue with it, now if it's done slowly and painfully, that concerns me more, so given the choice, I'd prefer a crazy person with a gun than with a knife.
Now if we, as a society, are really concerned with reducing deaths, we should focus our energy on where it will really make a difference and stop wasting our time with trivialities. To me, guns are trivialities. There is much worse in society.
Caucasians are just less in jail because they receive better treatment from the legal system, that is an entirely other debate. Also us whities have learned that corporate crimes pays much higher dividends, sufficient to stave off the law in a vast majority of cases. Now that's the way to go.