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

Views: 2997

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

In which hands to paperweights kill? Criminals or normal citizens? Should therefore citizens be allowed to carry paperweights?

We could go on for a while, going through every actual and potential implement that could be used for killing someone.

As a practical issue though, one can hardly dismiss that guns make it very easy to kill, and that is what they are intended for. Paperweights not so much. However, the cynic in me morbidly appreciates any implement that kills a decent number of people somewhere I'm not.

Though please keep them inside the asylum and ensure that anything intercontinental stays banned for private ownership.

Rat poison in a punch bowl is even easier than using a gun. The problem isn't the means, it's the will to kill.

And how many people die from rat poison in a punch bowl annually? 

The leading weapon for committing murder is guns. Therefore the issue at hand is guns if the aim is to prevent murder and other types of violence. You don't get the same effect with regulating rat poison, though if it becomes an issue you may wish to look into whether the regulation of it is sufficient.

Isn't the liberal justification for any regulation that it must be to prevent harm?

Are you just playing at being dense? Obviously, if Plan A doesn't work, it's on to Plan B. It's not like, "Gee, I'd like to kill a lot of people, but I can't get a gun, so I guess I won't."

Did you miss the entire Boston Marathon bombing? They did more damage with bombs than with their guns.

Some things I do not have to play.

There is a strong correlation between the number of guns in a society and overall homicide rate. It is a lot harder, both physically and psychologically, to kill someone with a knife or anything other than a gun. While a regulation on guns wouldn't stop someone premeditated to murder, it would make it more difficult, and it would certainly reduce unpremeditated murders. 

The Boston bombers may have been more successful with their bomb, though it doesn't mediate the fact that a hundred times more people have been killed and injured by guns in the days since. And I do believe bombs are illegal.

Unseen, that is a most interesting thought.

In grocery stores, managers once got rid of rats with a mixture of corn meal and plaster of paris. Rats went for the corn meal and the moisture in their tummies caused the plaster to harden.

There is a strong correlation between the number of guns in a society and overall homicide rate. It is a lot harder, both physically and psychologically, to kill someone with a knife or anything other than a gun. While a regulation on guns wouldn't stop someone premeditated to murder, it would make it more difficult, and it would certainly reduce unpremeditated murders. 

Unpremeditated murders, if done by gunshot, are typically done using handguns or shotguns, which will never be banned. Slightly built Jodi Arias may have shot her boyfriend, but she stabbed him about 30 times first and slit his throat. All it takes to kill someone with something other than a gun is to do it unexpectedly.

The Boston bombers may have been more successful with their bomb, though it doesn't mediate the fact that a hundred times more people have been killed and injured by guns in the days since. And I do believe bombs are illegal.

I can argue that were guns unavailable people who want to kill a lot of people in an impersonal way would be using poison or bombs. Plan B. People who kill others one-on-one out of passion can still go the fireplace poker route. 

You can invoke all the people who've been killed by guns since the Boston Marathon massacre, but I'll invoke Arlington Cemetary and all the soldiers who have given their lives to preserve  the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.

"Unpremeditated murders, if done by gunshot, are typically done using handguns or shotguns, which will never be banned."

Two things. I didn't say guns should be banned - though I personally wouldn't mind that it's just not in the cards - but rather regulated rather tightly. Also, you completely missed what I was writing. The fact is that overall homocide rates tend to decline when gun ownership rates are lower/regulation is tighter. Thus, not everyone who would be killed by a gun would be killed by other means if no gun was available.

"I can argue that were guns unavailable people who want to kill a lot of people in an impersonal way would be using poison or bombs. Plan B."

You can argue it, but can you prove it?

"I'll invoke Arlington Cemetary and all the soldiers who have given their lives to preserve  the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment."

I hardly see the relevance of this invocation, nor do I believe too many of those buried there died to preserve your constitution, unless every battle the US fights is indeed somehow to preserve it. It's perhaps more apt to say they are there to defend your right to Jingoism, which I believe is not actually in your constitution.

@Arcus

"Unpremeditated murders, if done by gunshot, are typically done using handguns or shotguns, which will never be banned."

Two things. I didn't say guns should be banned - though I personally wouldn't mind that it's just not in the cards - but rather regulated rather tightly. Also, you completely missed what I was writing. The fact is that overall homocide rates tend to decline when gun ownership rates are lower/regulation is tighter. Thus, not everyone who would be killed by a gun would be killed by other means if no gun was available.

But restricting guns tends to restrict them among the law abiding citizens far more than among the lawbreaking segment of society. One has only to look at the tight control of addictive drugs to see how well that would work. Law abiding citizens tend to respect the law (after all, that's what abiding by the law means!), for those who flout the law, the drugs are virtually freely available. Sure, fewer guns would mean fewer accidental discharges, a few crime of passion shootings, and some suicides, though many of the crimes of passion and suicides would simply become deaths by other means. The best argument, thus, is for eliminating the tragic accidental discharges which are frequently done by children who find and play with guns, but is strictly limiting guns to save for a few accidental discharges worth banning guns entirely? And don't give me the "if it saves one life" argument. If we put a stop to everything that might save one life, we'd all soon tire of that overused argument.

"I can argue that were guns unavailable people who want to kill a lot of people in an impersonal way would be using poison or bombs. Plan B."

You can argue it, but can you prove it?

I'll leave it to use to disprove it, since it seems commonsensical.

"I'll invoke Arlington Cemetary and all the soldiers who have given their lives to preserve the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment."

I hardly see the relevance of this invocation, nor do I believe too many of those buried there died to preserve your constitution, unless every battle the US fights is indeed somehow to preserve it. It's perhaps more apt to say they are there to defend your right to Jingoism, which I believe is not actually in your constitution.

I'd ask you to offer that disdainful sort of commentary at the next Veterans of Foreign Wars convention if you believe it so sincerely.

I'd like a license for a fish, maybe we should license metal pipes, pressure cookers and anything else that might be used to kill. It's the person who is motivated to kill with what ever is at hand to do it, and depending on how depraved and clever they are. Humans are fragile, it doesn't take much. Guns make it easy, but getting away with it is not.

If you were in front of an audience and you said if everyone had a gun, would anyone use it? Not too many would even dream of actually hurting someone with one.

Should normal citizens be allowed to carry paperweights or should the hands of criminals be severed?

RSS

Blog Posts

What do you do with the anger?

Posted by dataguy on September 20, 2014 at 5:12pm 3 Comments

Aftermath

Posted by Belle Rose on September 20, 2014 at 2:42am 6 Comments

Ads

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