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.
And one would note no one has come forth and said "he is my patient and he was under treatment." Or "he was my family member and he had thus-and-such."
Slinging around the mentally-ill argument with no evidence of it is dangerous to the mentally-ill, the most assaulted group of people in the USA. More than blacks. More than gays. More than children.
Yes, blame the guns. The experiment has been run. In the civilised world, where gun restrictions are much greater, the murder rate is much lower. Do all murders end? No. Have they been significantly reduced? Yes.
Beyond comparing culturally different countries, and irrelevant numbers, the thing to look at as atheists, is long term graphs of trends. Trend charts simply fail to demonstrate that anti-gun have any significant effect. Shouldn't atheists be concerned with statistically numbers and not ideological opinions? Yes armed people kill, No anti-gun laws are not effective. As countries, we're different, because we're culturally different.
Here's a graph showing TRENDS in homicides, demonstrating that since 1990, they're falling faster in USA than Canada, yet our changes in laws is not the cause. This is the only type of graph that is valid, comparative trends over time.
There are problems with your graph and comparisons between the United States and Canada.
1) Homicide is a general term that includes both firearm homicides and non-fire homicides. Your graph seems to deal with all homicides and not just firearm homicides.
2) In the U.S. firearm homicides account for about 2/3 of all homicides while in Canada, they account for roughly 1/3. Consequently comparing total homicide rates for the two countries gives a false impression.
3) The firearm homicide rate in Canada is about 1/5 th of the rate in the United States.
You've not presented a valid comparison at all, but chosen one that you think favorable to your argument.
Sorry to repeat myself... Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn... about HOW they die, I care about how many die in total, and how many are maimed in total. I hate cherry picking, and insisting on counting only gun homicides is cherry picking.
The gun homicide rate in Canada has always been lower than in the USA, no laws have changed that. My argument is not about whether guns are cool or not but whether making laws to remove then are effective. I hate guns, but I don't let my personal sentiments get in the way of numbers and rationality.
After going through the list of school shootings, I have come up with a solution to the problem. Let's prohibit men from owning, buying, or selling guns. Female mass murderers are awfully rare . . . .
The ancient Israelites are to blame. They decided that when life got shitty (as it often did with wars against the Philistines, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, etc.), it was because the bad apples among them had turned away from Yahweh, so the nation deserved punishment. Sheer genius, really; it gave the priests control over people's behavior.
Anyone want to put Ray Comfort in charge? He's just a hop, skip, and a jump from Kirk Cameron.
http://www.goddiscussion.com/105364/dr-james-dobson-joins-ranks-of-... With video link on Dobson's comments, and the claim his mother was killed. I do note I am having trouble finding another reference for it. I cannot find an obituary for Myrtle Dobson (mother of Dr. James).
I don't think you should shoot someone over a microwave.
There was a case in Texas a year or two ago when a citizen called the police because burglars were in his neighbor's house. He said he had a shotgun and offered to "take them out." The police dispatcher told him repeatedly and firmly not to take action, but to stay in his house. When the burglars came out, he went outside and shot one of them, while the other got away. A grand jury refused to indict him.
To me, this is similar to recent cases in which the police have shot down fleeing suspects who pose no threat. Judge, jury, executioner.
I say there are better ways to protect yourself.
I agree with you, Craigart 14. Shotgun Slade isn't going to get a job with the PD, so he should have done what he was told and just get a good description and directions that they went, etc.
I don't always agree with cops however. Recently a friend of mine was driving around at 2 AM. The local cops stopped him, questioned him, and made him go home. They said he had no business being out at that time. The proper way to handle this is to have put all the information in a dated notpad that the officer should carry daily and let him go. PD doesn't supply you with one but all good cops should carry one.
Hey, I don't always agree with cops, either. But when a police dispatcher tells you not to start a gunfight . . . .
Yes it is the guns. High capacity magazines and military-style weapons only have a purpose of killing large quantities of human beings rapidly.
On the Bath School issue, I grew up only a few miles north of Bath.
The fellow in question shot his wife, burned his farm, stacked legal explosives purchased in several hardware stores in the school and blew it up (half of it anyway as the timer failed on the other half), in a tax protest.
Immediately afterward, the explosive in question (used by farmers nationwide) was pulled off the market by the governent. The same arguments arose (we need the explosives, there is too much available to effectively control, &c). Guess what? It worked, that method of mass murder is no longer available for anyone to buy from a hardware store.
Anyone who really needs explosives can get a permit and buy them. Regulating those explosives did not put a halt on agriculture.
When the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was blown up, the government banned large purchases of fertiliser without a permit. The same arguments went up.
Not surprisingly, agriculture has not suffered.
When the government cracked down on drunken driving, the same arguments went up. Drunks used to kill about as many people as guns every year. But after a generation of indoctrination, drunken driving is now socially seen as unacceptable. Do drunks still kill people? Yes. Do they kill as many? Only about a third.
When the government instituted seat belt laws, the same arguments came up (can't enforce it, no one will do it, &c). The point was to reduce the number of deaths and horrific injuries in accidents.
After about a generation, the death rate came down, while additional safety features went into cars. Did they end deaths by auto accident? No. Did they substantially reduce them? Yes.
The argument of "It's too hard so we shouldn't try" is a cop-out. Good thing science doesn't work that way. Religion, on the other hand does, and the NRA is awfully like a religion, worshipping an ancient unchanging text handed down from on high.
Moreover, we do not know the fellow was "crazy." (My mother, a psychologist, points out that crazy is a technical term for use by professionals only.) We do not know his motivations; no psychiatrist or physician has come forth and said "he was my patient and a loon he was."
But atheists in particular should be avoiding the idea "he was crazy" without evidence, as atheists in the USA are familiar with stigma.
The mentally ill are eleven times more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than non-ill (according to the Department of Justice). Latest information indicates one-fourth of severely mentally ill have been victims in the last year.
Painting the mentally ill with the brush of "that guy must have been crazy" with no evidence perpetrates stigma.
If most of the adults in that school had been carrying a gun, and knew how to use it effectively, would there have been anywhere near as many children killed? I don't think so.
If those that want to kill large numbers of people knew there were no gun-free-zones, would that drastically reduce their activities? I think so.
It appears to me that the mass killings are usually in gun-free-zones. Schools, universities, and malls. The nutters know where they will find the least opposition to their plans. So, why not get rid of gun-free-zones?
My idea would be to phase-in plans to eventually have all adults in schools well-trained and carrying.