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 once read of a Pacific Island whose people had little more than yams to eat. Medical exams revealed them to be malnourished.
Here in the US of A, something in our diet facilitates the growth of a violence hormone.
More seriously, about health care and beggars. The more you read of the USA's founders, the more certain you can be that they intended these and similar outcomes. Alexander Hamilton said he wanted the "rich and well born" to govern. Among James Madison's writings is this jewel: he wanted the government to protect "the opulent minority from the majority".
A Committee on Style wrote our Constitution's final draft and one history said a man who liked ambiguity chaired the committee. He prevailed. He might have intended to provide for lawyers.
Alexander Hamilton said he wanted the "rich and well born" to govern. Among James Madison's writings is this jewel: he wanted the government to protect "the opulent minority from the majority".
A very British idea—that only landowners could be trusted with governing as they had natural interests to preserve along with the education to know how to govern. Pure democracy was equated with mob rule.
This seems strange to us now, but it was the rule throughout most of history and continued to be the case in Britain up through World War I. Barbara Tuchmann begins her book "The Proud Tower" with a recital of the ranks and qualifications of the Salisbury cabinet of 1895. All were peers and held extensive land. It is only in modern times in the United States that an impoverished background has been considered advantageous in politics. At present it seems that lack of education is also helpful in getting elected.
A love letter from the Chigago Tribune mentions our low gun crime.
The Chicago Tribune has written a love letter to Canada, suggesting that we have taken that city by storm.
Land of the north, Chicago is calling to you. Calling your sesame bagels, smoked meat and Tim Hortons double-doubles. Calling your low rates of gun crime, and universal health care. Calling your oil, especially your oil. We hope some of that Canadian good fortune rubs off on our city.
I doubt if a city newspaper in Texas would see us in the same light.
Fact-checking the NRA's Wayne LaPierre (by Politi-Fact, a project of the St. Petersburg, Florida, Times):
"After a quiet period following the shootings in Newtown, Conn., the National Rifle Association has been making a case for armed guards at schools and other measures rather than restrictions on guns.
"We've fact-checked many claims about gun control -- you can find them on our guns subject page -- and this week checked three that Wayne LaPierre, the group's executive vice president, made in an op-ed in the Daily Caller:
"To make the case that major cities were unsafe, LaPierre made a claim we've checked many times, that Phoenix "is already one of the kidnapping capitals of the world." We rated that False.
"He said President Barack Obama " flagrantly defies the 2006 federal law ordering the construction of a secure border fence along the entire Mexican border." We rated that Mostly False.
"LaPierre claimed that after Hurricane Sandy, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg "refused to allow the National Guard into the city to restore civil order because Guardsmen carry guns!" That earned a Mostly False."
(I'm one of the NRA members who say LaPierre isn't speaking for us.)
Couldn't resist including this perceived deport-able offense for a fellow Canadian - funny bit called Cold Dead Hands
Still thinking of this discussion a couple of years later. My solution in a letter to the editor discussing our upcoming provincial election.
The average citizen does not need assault weapons. If you argue that the constitution gives you a right to have them, you might as well be argueing that you have a right to own an atomic bomb. I'm a former gun enthusiast, but more needs to be done here because of America's gun violence. Why is it not done? Votes. The man running for office who wants to curb guns and gun violence will not get the votes. That's plain and simple.
I do see headlines that I agree with. The most recent from St. Louis, Mo. involves an apparent home invasion. The 17 year old daughter had went outside for something to apparently end up being used as a shield by 2 armed men who forced her back inside. The homeowners had guns. The end result was that one of the invaders was killed at the scene, and the other one is in the hospital now. This situation could have went wrong, but I applaud this homeowner. He had every right to shoot them and defend his family and property.
Even so, gun attitudes in America has changed. Back when JFK was murdered a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald emerged in which he was holding weapons and a left wing newspaper. This fact alone almost sealed his guilt at the time. Today such things are commonplace, only the politics has changed. Right wing gun nuts are everywhere. Everything has gotten out of hand.
There's lots of atheist emoting on gun control.
If anyone finds any atheist reasoning, please post it.
Am I in some sort of weird dream. How can this even be an issue in any civilized country?
Russell, in the gun control debate, who uses reason?
It's fear versus fear.
Actually, there should be the whole range of attitudes towards gun control as religious or non-religious beliefs are non-sequitur to gun control.
Personally I used to enjoy shooting, both single shot and semi-automatic, though in the army cadets I loved being a machine gunner, but I see no use for such weapons within civilian settings.
I also don't see any reason for carrying personal firearms.
Perhaps in some jobs and societies such personal protection may be deemed necessary.
But it all boils down to a rational consideration of circumstances.
Though I'm against the form of in their faces public display of gun ownership that is occurring in the U.S.
Where people are being confronted by weapon carrying gun enthusiasts in public places.
In that case I think such gun owners come from scraping the bottom of the rational intelligence barrel.
Such idiotic enthusiasts really should have their guns taken from them and only let them masturbate over pictures of guns, but should never be allowed to handle real weapons.
I applaud Bill Maher's commentary on this topic:
There should be a rationality test for personal gun ownership and a high rationality bar that owners must leap over in order to be approved for gun ownership, otherwise, expect more stupidity and accidents from unintelligent gun handling and ownership.