I know we're all different thinkers, but I'm just curious if there is a consensus view among atheists regarding firearms?

Views: 592

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


no, the first person to rob is whoever comes down the street when no one else is looking.!! Unless you walk around all the time with your gun in your hand., the aggressor always has the advantage. the scenario is simple; I shoot you  without saying anything at all, no "stick um up" or give

me your money"  i then take your money AND the extra gun you wont be needing any more!!

More guns are not the answer

Willful ignorance is not a strong position for debate.  Explain Park's situation then?  He's still alive, his would be muggers/robbers are still alive.  Why the anomaly?

folks, think about it, , the escalation that you have proposed, i.e.  everyone armed  will result in exactly this scenario. of course there will be anomlys, where the robber is overpowered , and probably some would be robbers will change their minds, but I am telling you the hard core /  or marginal mental cases will escalate too!.

more guns are not the answer

more guns are not the answer


I challenge you to find anyone in this thread who claims that it IS the answer.

LET ME MAKE IT SIMPLE, very few people will engage hand to hand ,  the hand gun allows anyone who get the drop on you to have their way.

the had gun is unique because most other hand weapons require close interaction and some level of strength and skill. if you come at me with a stick, knife,etc. i can engage you and or run away,  if you are 2 feet from me pointing a glock with a big clip at me there is nothing i can do.

talk to any combat trainer if you dont believe me.

I think we are being played by the arms industry. A mentality of fear and violence makes them richer by the day. The NRA is full of members who have been convinced those of us "non-members" are out to take their guns and freedom away from them. I live in an area of enormous poverty and some people hunt to eat. Even as a vegetarian I would defend their right to do so.

But I will not defend anyone's right to carry a gun to use on others for any reason other than the protection of life and castle. That is why we have trained police officers and enforcement agencies. That is why we are a nation of laws. 

We supposedly learned that lesson back in the 1800s. Lots of innocent people were killed and maimed  when everyone carried a gun and it was acceptable to use violence to settle disputes.

So, no, I don't think we have consensus here:O)


Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

Latest Activity

Carniverous Marsupial commented on Carniverous Marsupial's blog post Catholic Spit
7 minutes ago
jay H commented on Gregory Phillip Dearth's blog post Morality: Subjective vs Objective - but does it MATTER?
2 hours ago
Loren Miller posted a status
"Meeting this morning was kicked off by the mayor of Madison, who in words at the very least supports the FFRF! Very, very welcome!"
2 hours ago
James Smith commented on Evilgenius20's video
3 hours ago
James Smith commented on James Smith's video
3 hours ago
James Smith posted a video

Becoming Free

How the bible set me free.
3 hours ago
Rock posted photos
3 hours ago
Randall Smith replied to Loren Miller's discussion bending truth, or "We Can All Be Manipulated" (TheraminTrees) in the group Hang With Friends
3 hours ago

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service