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

Here's my 2 cents.  When people ask me why I carry a gun at all times, my standard response is "Because a cop is too heavy."  If I'm in a situation like being robbed, I'm not going to take a chance on a cop who's minutes away in a situation that will be over in mere seconds.  Especially where I live.  The cops are spread so thin that you will be waiting a while.  Shit's too crazy nowadays, and I'd rather have one and not need it than to need it and not have it.  And you gotta love the lifetime permits.  Regardless of the laws, criminals will always have guns, bar none.


And don't think Uncle Scam won't take them either.  They already did in New Orleans during Katrina.  It sure was nice of the gubmint to leave all those homeowners defenseless against looters.

Come on Phister, if the brady campaign had their way, that criminal would only have a 10 round clip while you wouldn't have a gun at all on your person, and when they tried to rob you you'd be duty bound to retreat, and he'd only have 10 bullets to try and shoot you with as you were fleeing, until he reloaded the next magazine in 1 to 2 seconds, putting you about 10 to 20 more feet away calling 911 for police assistance who aren't duty bound to protect you (see Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278). 


You don't think you really need a firearm to protect yourself do you?  ;-)



Well the stats unfortunately demonstrate that armed shop keepers, within same neighbourhoods, have a higher fatality rate, than unarmed shopkeepers. The social explanation is that escalation increases risk of death. So the question begs, if your defending yourself with a "gun" increases your likelihood of dying, is it really worth that extra sense of perceived power?

I don't look at it as having power, more of a sense of security.  It's not something that I get belligerent about, but it at least gives me a fighting chance.  If you just want to let someone rob you, then that's your choice.  I'm going to protect myself and people I care about.  You think the cops will do any good trying to find him?  They can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground.


But you bypassed the point... if it increases your risk of death, why bother? I am honestly curious

If I die trying to protect myself or my property from a violent crime then so be it. Why is it ok to tell me I can't have a firearm because I have a higher statistic of dieing due to having that firearm?  Is your assertion is that because I have a higher chance of dieing by having a firearm, which I realize is true, means that I shouldn't be allowed to have it?  If so, why does this not apply to life in general?  We should certainly get rid of motorcycles then.  They are nothing but death machines compared to cars.  Same with smoking, let's make it illegal.  Of course I don't really believe those last two, but it's not a stretch with the logic you are proposing.  Who are you to tell people what risks they can or can't take?  Better yet, who are you to tell government to use force to tell others what risks they can and can't take?


If someone is willing to take the extra risk of firearm ownership, then why should we stop them?  

Where did she say that guns should be illegal?
She didn't.  I saw where the logical progression of the argument could have been headed.
This certainly raises an interesting question.  Should store owners and residents be obligated to inform those in potential danger that they possess firearms on themselves or the premises?  Most homes aren't bulletproof by any stretch of the imagination, nor are places of business.  So should customers, passersby, and neighbors be made aware of the danger they're placed in?

Like I said, I was simply wanting to understand how you explain taking the extra risk. I don't have any official stand on 'gun' control, it's one of those rare issues where I don't believe me! hehe :)


But lets ponder on additional question, your putting your life at stake by 'gun' ownership... one who smokes cigarettes trades the risk to life for a sense of enjoyment, as does a motorcyclist, so it's at its essence hedonism in exchange for risk. Now if you're dead, you didn't achieve protection, so what exactly is it that you're exchanging death for, it's not hedonism that for sure...

Who says I don't enjoy going to the range for target practice?  That being said, I exchange the opportunity of being able to defend myself.  That's all you get is the opportunity.  To quote No Country For Old Men, "Point bein', even in the contest between man and steer the issue is not certain."  Without that opportunity, I'm at the sole "mercy" of the person using violence to do whatever it is that they are doing to me.  I also make myself less of a target for violent crime.  The best people to rob I imagine would be the ones you know that don't have guns. 

Two convenience store operators (or fathers) on same street, side by side, have robbery

-one that defended with gun is dead, and robbed, and family fatherless

-one that did not escalate is robbed, alive, and still a father.


For your family, which one do you chose?


Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service