Be sure to vote, I am curious where most atheists stand on this issue.

Views: 3005

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


I guess all those who so very wrongly believe the founders meant the arms were only for the "militia" do not understand the function a COMMA.

OR what the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." means.

HOW VERY SAD!

Anyone who has a clue knows:

A, Crimes take seconds to commit and it takes police at least minutes to get to you AFTER they have been informed they are needed.

B. In natural disasters, not only can the Police be OVER WHEMED by calls and not get to you for hours or days, they MAY NOT even be able to get to you.

C. In riots, like the ones we had in LA in around 1966 or 1967, the police and the National Guard were busy trying to not get shot and we had to protect ourselves.

D. Guns are used over a MILLION times a year to PREVENT crimes from happening. And many times the guns are not only never fired, they are not even pointed toward the bad guys.

On seperate occasions, both myself and a former girl friend have stopped crimes by showing the bad guys we
were armed. In her case, they left by climbing out of the window they had used to come into her home. In my case, they decided attempting to force me off the road and out of my car was not a good idea, so they sped away.

So all of you who don't like guns, don't own them!

Only do NOT tell me I can not have them as they only way anyone would get mine is after I am dead. And do not come crying to me for protection when one or more bad gusy are kicking your butt and/or raping your wife, or daughter or girl friend or your mother.

In fact, you should go read the ARMED CITIZEN and Get a Clue! (you can see it on the net)

D. Guns are used over a MILLION times a year to PREVENT crimes from happening. And many times the guns are not only never fired, they are not even pointed toward the bad guys.

source?

Is a source actually necessary to believe that? I wonder how many times a year criminals keep themselves in check SIMPLY because the officer confronting them has a gun....

Also, I'd be less likely to break into someone's house if I knew they had a gun. I think most would feel the same way.

Yes, a source is necessary.  Empirical claims should be supported with empirical evidence. If people are going to attach numbers to things, they should provide the source of those numbers or the basis for the projection.  I'd rather not take it on faith.

Also, I'd be less likely to break into someone's house if I knew they had a gun. I think most would feel the same way.

Most people wouldn't break into a person's house one way or the other, as far as I know.  It becomes a question of whether or not firearms ownership typically does or does not act as a deterrent to those that would perpetrate these crimes.  My answer at the moment is, I don't know.  I'm not sure how that could really be demonstrated satisfactorily apart from comparing available crime statistics across regions with differing firearms policies or possession rates, but it seems like there are too many complications for that to really be satisfying.

Just because most people have no interest in breaking into houses doesn't mean it's uncommon. Of course, some places are worse than others...but still. Having a gun around hurts absolutely nothing.

Again...guns are not responsible for hurting anyone. People are responsible for hurting people...whether it be by gun or other means.

I never said breaking and entering was uncommon.  My point is, the way most people would feel is probably irrelevant as they lack motivation to commit the deed one way or the other.  What does it really mean to be deterred from something you weren't going to do anyway?  Very little.

The people I know who have been robbed, have been robbed while they weren't home.  Now not only is a gun ineffective in that scenario, but it's also at risk of theft itself, in which case, having the gun did cause harm; it put one more firearm in the hands of a criminal.

This is not to say that firearm possession never acts as a deterrent or helps stop home intruders.  It's just that it's not clear what the overall impact is on the balance.

Again...guns are not responsible for hurting anyone. People are responsible for hurting people...whether it be by gun or other means.

This is a pointless statement.  Who said that guns hurt people all on their own?

"...one more firearm in the hands of a criminal". Well, to this I say there are far more decent people with guns than criminals, and for this reason I feel safe.

Guns are cheap and easy to obtain...legal or illegal. This issue has always boggled my mind as to why it's even worth discussing, Makes about as much sense as the war on drugs.

And no one stated specifically that guns kill people on their own...however, this is how people tend to act.

Presently, guns are cheap and easy to obtain illegally because they are plentifully produced legally.  The current issue is legally produced firearms.  

Even in Canada, where handgun possession is severely restricted, people don't start illegally producing firearms as they do cocaine, meth, heroin (etc.); they smuggle them in from the United States, where the laws are much more lax and handguns are legally produced and traded in considerable numbers.

And yet, a functional firearm isn't THAT difficult to produce in a home workshop. If guns became unavailable to the underworld, an underworld industry would develop, either making firearms or illegally bringing them in. (But hey, that import industry already exists, doesn't it?)

Evidence based on Canadians is apples vs oranges. If you consider two cities with very similar demographics, one in the US and one in Canada, the one in the US will have more gun crime. (I remember part of Bowling for Columbine making such a comparison.)

The difference has nothing to do with the availability of guns and everything to do with the difference between Canadians and Americans. Canadian gun violence isn't kept in check by restrictive legislation. It's just that Canadians are different from Americans, as any Canadian will be happy to tell you.

And yet, a functional firearm isn't THAT difficult to produce in a home workshop. If guns became unavailable to the underworld, an underworld industry would develop, either making firearms or illegally bringing them in. (But hey, that import industry already exists, doesn't it?)

The efficiency would decrease, the costs would increase, and the prevalence of illegal handguns would most likely drop over time.

Evidence based on Canadians is apples vs oranges. If you consider two cities with very similar demographics, one in the US and one in Canada, the one in the US will have more gun crime. (I remember part of Bowling for Columbine making such a comparison.)

I'm not comparing anything.  I'm citing an existing model.

Canadian gun violence isn't kept in check by restrictive legislation. It's just that Canadians are different from Americans, as any Canadian will be happy to tell you.

Canadian violence is possibly not kept in check by restrictive handgun legislation, but I'm very hard-pressed to agree that gun violence is not.

Also, Canadians are happy to say a lot of things that aren't true. I find this line of reasoning that Canadians are different from Americans too vague to give consideration.  Which Canadian differences are you talking about?  Lower wealth disparity?  Lower population densities in our major metros?  The way we use the word 'toque'.

As one of the people who would not break into someone's house, I used to think it would be a good idea to let the neighborhood know we were armed (with a sign or decal), until it was pointed out to me that it might be more likely to make someone break in for the purpose of STEALING the gun instead of deterring them from breaking in at all.

Exactly, and isn't it humorous that most of the people who want to limit guns to prevent crime want to limit gun ownership. Most crimes are done with guns the criminals don't technically own. They are guns that were stolen and/or bought through illicit channels.

RSS

Blog Posts

coexist

Posted by aubrey knows nothing * on October 23, 2014 at 9:25pm 1 Comment

A Life-Changing Confrontation

Posted by Belle Rose on October 23, 2014 at 2:55am 7 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service