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

Views: 611

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

There's a simple solution to deer and car accidents: build fences and wildlife bridges. It'd save money in the long run unless you're planning on completely eliminating the wildlife in the area, which I don't need to say is a bad idea if you care about maintaining a human-supporting environment.
Build fences along entire stretches of highway?
Sure - how much would it cost versus the cost of car repairs, hospital visits, deaths, etc. over a 5-year period?
Probably a lot more.

We have enough trouble fencing off Mexico.
And again - how much do we spend on deer-related accidents every year? What about every five years?

You don't have to fence every single highway in the entire country, just the ones that are high speed, regularly driven on and cross deer migration areas.
My Louisiana cousins don't actually hunt - they harvest. The deer are so numerous they could easily out strip the carrying capacity of their environment if regular culling did not occur. What some people don't realise is that if there is an area that will support 800 deer over a growing season and there are a 1000 deer it doesn't mean 20% of the herds will starve - it means the herds will run out of food in 80% of the time and almost all will starve. Deer don't do well as planners.
In the "natural" environment, complete with predators, things are not all sweetness and light. The same thing occurs as wolves and bears are also shitty planners. Predator/Prey cycles don't nicely overlap and mass die offs occur periodically because the carrying capacity was inadequate. So, from the deer's POV it doesn't mean much - except perhaps the difference between a quick death and a long lingering one through starvation.
This really doesn't have much to do with the 2nd Amendment.
I hate it too Susan, but you are right. I have seen so many starving and diseased deer in the Mountains here in TN, plus they do wander out onto the highway and get plowed. I hate to see anything die, and I am a total animal lover. But I think you are absolutely right. It can be more humane to shoot rather than watch them starve. I still wanna cry when I see one strapped to the hood of a truck though....
The problem IS THE NRA. The industry lobbyist have pushed the laws to the point that it is almost impossible for local law inforcement to get gun sales records electronically combined with background check records for every purchase. That would let them look for dealers that are selling large numbers of weapons to a few individuals on a regular basis. This would allow them to track the black market dealers that sell them on the streets of Detroit and Juarez.
That might work for future gun sales but what is circulating out in the black market is probably almost impossible to track down. I can only imagine how many guns are floating out there on the black market since the 50's.
Guns used by criminals don't stay on the streets long. They get confiscated or thrown in a river in relatively short time. Without a constant stream the supply would dry up in a few years.

Without the NRA we could keep guns out of the hands of most garden variety criminals.
I believe it's another choice that shouldn't be dictated by someone else's morality or idea of what is good for everybody. If you are truly a pro choice person, I think that should include all choices. I personally own a pistol, and have it LOCKED in a gun safe, that needs my fingerprints to open, so I know it's safe. I'm a single mom, and I live with my 13 year old son. I like to feel I have something other than foul language to protect myself with. I know it's not for everyone, but I feel better having it, and feel safe about it because I'm sure it's locked safely away.
I see nothing wrong with owning a gun or a pistol. Law abiding citizens don't do bad things with guns, so laws restricting them, only restrict those that obey the law in the first place. If you were a criminal, which house would you break into? The one that you know doesn't have a pistol because they are illegal, or just across the city limit where you don't know if someone has a pistol or not?
I say a big Rottweiler or Pit Bull would be a better deterrent, but not everyone can have a big dog :(
My opinion, is that it's a choice, but if you are going to own a gun, you should be responsible for it, and if you aren't, I feel there should be consequences. We make people responsible for cars, right?
I'm no fan of gun violence for sure, but I'm also no fan of dictating or legislating morality. Just because bad people do bad things with guns, doesn't mean all of us should do without guns. I don't think that's the answer. It would just be nice if we could evolve to a point where violence was a bad memory though, and guns were things people collected as historical items......
Sadly, though, people can't "take responsibility" once somebody's gun is stolen and a person is dead (or something). It's a little late for responsibility at that point. And what are you going to do? Force gun owners to be registered and make them submit to random inspections by the police to make sure that the guns are locked up safe and sound? If you can't enforce a law requiring gun owners to be responsible, the law is useless.

When you ask which home you'd break into, you make a good point - which is why guns have to be eliminated entirely. The U.K., for example, has virtually no gun violence, at least partially because they're just not accessible. U.S. gun laws fail primarily because they're not consistent and are barely enforced when laws ARE present.

I don't think the comparison to cars is apt, either - the main problem isn't people who are educated and trained, it's the guns that are stolen from them. If it's in a locker, and no one, not even your children can get into it except for you, that may not be a problem - but can you realistically defend yourself against an invader if it's locked up? Or, more to the point, would you be safer with a gun in a locker against an armed assailant than you would be with a taser or pepper spray against an unarmed one?

Finally, this isn't "legislating morality", whatever that means, at least not any more than any other law.


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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service