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

Views: 3705

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.

Assuming most guns are exceptionally valuable.

I'm willing to bet most Americans with guns have TV's that cost more.

I don't see someone breaking into a house with the intention of stealing a gun as being all that common.

Not necessarily common, but for the people who can't get them legally it's one of the only options they have.

Or they can just buy them illegally. I's not hard. Again, I use drugs as an example. Most people don't purchase pot legally, Guns are super easy to get. And like drugs, they can be as cheap or as expensive as one wants them to be.

Of course a source is necessary. If you expect us to accept something as true without supporting evidence, you might as well claim that an omniscient, omnipotent deity commanded that people own guns.

Claims of fact require evidence to support those claims.

How many people do you know, personally, have died from being shot? How many people do you know have been shot at, period? War doesn't count.

Guns and god are two totally different things. I'm not telling anyone to accept something as proof...just sometimes the obvious is good enough. I'm not screwing around with someone that has a gun....most people wouldn't. Assuming the opposite is about as absurd as assuming god exists (since we're going to compare apples to oranges).

I feel that as human beings we have a right to arm and defend ourselves against any outside aggressors, be they enemies from other nations, or enemies from within our own borders. That said, I can't see any logical reason for a civilian to own a bazooka, or a Vulcan gun, or even an AK-47. I believe firmly in removing threats entirely. If someone comes at me with the intent to do me harm I will ensure that they never do so again.

I'd like to elaborate a bit. For starters, I do not think that the mentally handicapped, or those convicted of violent, alcohol, or drug related crimes should be allowed to own handguns, or shotguns, or even rifles. I am firmly against any and all attempts to outright ban firearms, because such a ban only matters to people who obey the law. Those who claim the ban would remove all guns from the nation are naive. Those who believe violent crimes and death will decrease are even more naive. When you want someone dead, you will find a way to kill them, and it's not that hard. If you ban guns, where does it stop? Do you ban knives because people kill each other with knives? What if we start clubbing each other with Baseball bats?

I find the argument of "Guns kill people" to be a pathetic one. It's the response of someone who is trying to force the responsibility out of their own hands, or out of the hands of those who commit Gun Crimes. It's like saying "The gun made me kill that guy, I didn't have a choice! The gun was there, I HAD to use it." Guns are inanimate objects. They have no will, no sentience, no thoughts whatsoever. When someone is killed with a gun, it is because the one holding the gun pulled the trigger.

As far as gun crime goes, most of the anti-gun people propose laws that would only be obeyed, for the most part, by law-abiding citizens. Laws that would only have the effect of concentrating firearms in the hands of the people we would most like not to have them.

Why otherwise bright people—who recognize the failure of the prohibition on alcohol and the way it propped up criminal enterprise in the 1930's—believe that a prohibition on firearms will have a different result is very puzzling to me. Can anybody help me understand this?

A neurotic believes that persisting in behavior that has a history of failure will somehow magically work the next time. Why should a prohibition on guns work any better than the prohibitions on alcohol or drugs?

Laws that would only have the effect of concentrating firearms in the hands of the people we would most like not to have them.

What concerns me, too, is that guns would be concentrated in the hands of those with money and connections, as luxury items. Right now, it is legal to own certain fully-automatic weapons ("machine guns") and things like suppressors ("silencers"); all that is required is a special tax paid to the ATF for each item, on top of the price of the gun (normally in the tens of thousands) and the obligatory background check. Even if gun control measures are passed, I'd bet that most "banned" items will always be legal in some form to those with enough money. It would be a shame if the general public were priced out of the self-defense market.

I didn't read all the responses, but I think it's a ridiculous and severely outdated amendment. The way I read it is regular Joes should be allowed to carry weapons in case there's a need for a militia to help defend the country. I'm sorry but if ever the state of the world was in such dire straights that the biggest army in the world needed to recruit militia, I think nukes would put the problems to rest long before the draft ever happened.

my 2¢


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service