Happy Atheist Forum

Hello Happy Atheists and other forum contributors (both unhappy and theist)

Recently the gun control debate has been back in the news with talk about assault weapon bans, concealed carry hand guns and large capacity magazines. I've been thinking about guns a lot lately and what the second amendment means to me personally - and what it doesn't mean.

Before I share my own opinions I was hoping I could see where some of you stand.

Civilians don't need guns.

Quote from: "Bill Maher"If you love guns, just admit it's like a vice. It's like alcohol, or drugs, or sex addiction, or gambling... It's just a vice, it's not good for you or anybody else, you just like it.

I think we should be allowed to own and carry concealed guns in public, but with regulations and restrictions, of course. What we have now is probably fine.

Don't we already have a topic on this?

I've read the Second Amendment more times than I think I've read the other Amendments combined. I've done research into it's creation, the intent of those who wrote it and subsequent court rulings explaining it further. I've discussed it with people who think guns ownership should be mandatory and people who think there should be a national ban.

At the very end of the day, though, I always arrive at one inescapable idea: power. Guns, at their very core, aren't about a well regulated militia standing against government tyranny or defending your home from a psychopath or playing out some Indiana Jones fantasy at a gun range or shooting terrorists, guns exist as a physical manifestation of power over other people. For the powerless, there can be no greater tool than a gun. The problem, however, is that the gun is power not earned, but bought for a surprisingly low price. There's no spending of years honing one's personality, skills, and status, thus understanding the responsibilities that come with power. There's a $500 price tag and a waiting period, then you're presented with the ultimate power of taking life. You move your finger half an inch and you can end someone's existence. It's both terrifying and horrifying.

I may very well be the most mature, peaceful person I know. Forgive that sounding pompous or boastful, but it's true. I wouldn't trust myself with a gun. I wouldn't trust myself to not react rashly at the sign of a break-in or some other scenario I can't even begin to dream up which requires my using a gun. If I can't trust myself with that kind of power, how in the world am I to trust anyone else?

My stance on gun control is about ensuring that there is a reduction in guns in existence. Anything which slows the production of guns and ammunition or takes guns and ammunition that already exist and destroys them has my full support. I'm fine with there being a balance of power between whomever, criminals and citizens or whatever, but only so long as there is scaling back. I want everything physically possible done to uninvent guns and see them removed from everything but history books.

I think it should be a state issue. If strict gun control works for you - then hey - go for it.

Me, I like to go deer huntin'. Might be the only perk to living in the bible belt.

When it comes to most social issues I tend to take the more progressive or liberal view point. When it comes to gun ownership I find that I'm more moderate.

I believe that the majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens that use their firearms for legal means. Many people enjoy shooting sports and plenty enjoy going out for a legal hunt. I personally do not have a problem with any law abiding gun owner. I know that in Texas you can not purchase a firearm if you have a felony conviction, have a mental illness, or have any misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. There are regulations as to where you can take your firearm and where they can be fired. I don't think there's any reason to take firearms away from people that have always behaved within the law.

I think that we should do everything we can to keep guns away from criminals while not infringing on my ability to own a gun for legal means. I personally have never hunted but I very much enjoy an afternoon of skeet with my friends.

Quote from: "Will"I've read the Second Amendment more times than I think I've read the other Amendments combined. I've done research into it's creation, the intent of those who wrote it and subsequent court rulings explaining it further. I've discussed it with people who think guns ownership should be mandatory and people who think there should be a national ban.

I know a lot of people that hold the view that the constitution is perfect. That because gun ownership is in the constitution they have a god given right to own whatever firearm they want - be it a heavy machine gun or flamethrower. I simply can't see how society is served by a man with a flamethrower sitting in his closet. I know the same thing can be said for any other gun as well - the fact is there are firearms that have obvious sporting uses and there are firearms designed specifically for taking life far more quickly than what's needed in any reasonable self defense situation. That sort of weapon should be reserved for our armed forces (and mostly is in the United States)
The US Constitution is meant to serve our society and if parts of it no longer have a modern society's best interest in mind it should certainly be changed.

Quote from: "Will"You move your finger half an inch and you can end someone's existence. It's both terrifying and horrifying.

I agree. The idea of such a small action having such dire consequences is terrifying. But this is the modern world. Guns are certainly not alone in that category. You're much more likely to die in an automobile accident than by a bullet yet most wouldn't advocate walking everywhere. Guns are here, and will always be here. I don't see a solution that keeps guns away from criminals 100% of the time, and I personally know of an individual who's life may have been saved due to her possession of a firearm.

Quote from: "Will"I wouldn't trust myself with a gun. I wouldn't trust myself to not react rashly at the sign of a break-in or some other scenario I can't even begin to dream up which requires my using a gun. If I can't trust myself with that kind of power, how in the world am I to trust anyone else?

If you don't trust yourself with a gun or have thought about such scenarios and don't know what you believe the right course of action to be then you certainly shouldn't own a gun. The general idea is that you've thought about the most general scenarios you can ahead of time so that you're not in a life or death situation trying to weigh your life against someone else's. Ultimately the individual that decides to keep a firearm for home defense has to know very clearly under which conditions they believe shooting to protect their life or another's is justified. It's a very serious decision to keep a gun for home defense and it shouldn't be taken lightly. Responsible gun ownership isn't something that people are innately born with. It has to be taught, learned, and practiced- however I believe that most gun owners are of the responsible variety and are more common than many people who haven't ever been around guns may believe.


I personally think the current legislation (I'm mostly only familiar with Federal and Texas law) is ok. I don't think there should be any loosening of current restrictions - on the contrary there are certain regulations I wish were added. Mostly I'm not a fan of the fact that Texas doesn't regulate private transactions of firearms. Basically if I sell a weapon to a felon with out knowledge that the purchaser is a felon I have no responsibility. Texas sees the felon purchasing the weapon from me as the law breaker and I personally can feign ignorance and that's ok. I wish an FFL (Federal Firearms Licensed individual) would have to be used to transfer a gun between any individuals ( that way a background check would be required as well.) This would make it much harder for criminals to get guns in Texas, and it wouldn't really affect legal gun owners save perhaps a minor inconvenience (which would be well worth it imo)

Quote from: "Cecilie"Don't we already have a topic on this?

If you're referring to this (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6573&p=97855&hilit=second+amendment#p97855) it seemed more a discussion about a recent tragic event in Arizona than a general discussion of current gun control legislation. If you're speaking of a different thread please post the link as your post was rather unhelpful without one.

Military, police, licensed hunters and sports shooters can have guns. Librarians and plumbers..? Let them do without.

Quote from: "BadPoison"

Quote from: "Cecilie"Don't we already have a topic on this?

If you're referring to this (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6573&p=97855&hilit=second+amendment#p97855) it seemed more a discussion about a recent tragic event in Arizona than a general discussion of current gun control legislation. If you're speaking of a different thread please post the link as your post was rather unhelpful without one.

No, it wasn't that one. This (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5147&hilit=gun+) is the one i meant.

Quote from: "Cecilie"No, it wasn't that one. This (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5147&hilit=gun+) is the one i meant.

The last post was made in July and it's a thread which took place before the recent event that put gun control back in US news. Thanks for the link though, I'll take a look regardless  

Quote from: "Asmodean"Military, police, licensed hunters and sports shooters can have guns. Librarians and plumbers..? Let them do without.

So you're saying we should keep guns away from any civillian unless they decide that they're a "sport shooter?" All of a sudden anyone with any criminal intent will be a "sport shooter" and anyone that otherwise kept a gun for protection has to lie and say they use it for "sport."

On another note, most people that haven't been around firearms much are scared of them. The fact is there's nothing to fear from a firearm by itself. Modern firearms have strict tolerances and only in the rarest circumstances would they "go off" unless someone intends for them to. Even in those rarest occurences the cause can usually be traced back to a mistake by the operator or a gunsmith. The old adage is guns don't kill people, people do.
It takes someone with intent to murder to murder. Once an individual makes a conscious decision to murder they would probably do it regardless of the ease. If society takes guns away they'll either find a way to get a gun illegally or use another weapon. I don't think most murders happen due to the convenience of a trigger pull - these are bad people that will cause serious harm to you regardless.

Quote from: "BadPoison"

Quote from: "Asmodean"Military, police, licensed hunters and sports shooters can have guns. Librarians and plumbers..? Let them do without.

So you're saying we should keep guns away from any civillian unless they decide that they're a "sport shooter?" All of a sudden anyone with any criminal intent will be a "sport shooter" and anyone that otherwise kept a gun for protection has to lie and say they use it for "sport."

Bold text applies until the period. A very limited number of licenses would do to keep the riff-raff away, and such a license would have to have some granting rules.

QuoteIt takes someone with intent to murder to murder. Once an individual makes a conscious decision to murder they would probably do it regardless of the ease. If society takes guns away they'll either find a way to get a gun illegally or use another weapon. I don't think most murders happen due to the convenience of a trigger pull - these are bad people that will cause serious harm to you regardless.

...So let them find another way then. A gun is a weapon made for one purpose: to kill. Just like a sword or a hand grenade. Let civilians who do not hunt or shoot for sports have their kitchen knives. They do not need firearms.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "BadPoison"

Quote from: "Asmodean"Military, police, licensed hunters and sports shooters can have guns. Librarians and plumbers..? Let them do without.

So you're saying we should keep guns away from any civillian unless they decide that they're a "sport shooter?" All of a sudden anyone with any criminal intent will be a "sport shooter" and anyone that otherwise kept a gun for protection has to lie and say they use it for "sport."

Bold text applies until the period. A very limited number of licenses would do to keep the riff-raff away, and such a license would have to have some granting rules.

I think what you're describing is pretty similar to what we have now except instead of having rules to have a license there are rules to legal gun ownership. You may wish those rules to be more strict than they already are and as I've previously stated I would agree in some cases.

Quote...So let them find another way then. A gun is a weapon made for one purpose: to kill. Just like a sword or a hand grenade. Let civilians who do not hunt or shoot for sports have their kitchen knives. They do not need firearms.

And here we disagree. A gun is only a weapon when it is used as a weapon. A sword only becomes a killing instrument when it is used as such. The same definition applies to any number of other objects: base ball bats, cars, and as you've pointed out, kitchen knives. A gun or kitchen knife is only as dangerous as the malicious intent or negligence of the person wielding it. The rest of the time these objects serve other purposes.

You're correct that we don't need firearms. We also don't need kitchen knives.

I'm curious as to how you would change current legislation. It seems like you recognize that there are peaceful civillians that use firearms for benign activities and you seem to be ok with them doing so. What sort of current rules would you think would be good to change or add?

Quote from: "BadPoison"I think what you're describing is pretty similar to what we have now except instead of having rules to have a license there are rules to legal gun ownership. You may wish those rules to be more strict than they already are and as I've previously stated I would agree in some cases.

...Forgot to look at your location before replying. Typical

QuoteAnd here we disagree. A gun is only a weapon when it is used as a weapon. A sword only becomes a killing instrument when it is used as such.

Swords and guns are/were invented and produced for killing or decoration. Decorative swords are not sharp and, while still relatively potent as weapons, that is not their purpose. A combat sword IS a weapon of war, as is a gun. That is why it was created and that is/was how it served for centuries. A kitchen knife is a work tool, created as a work tool and intended to be one. It may be used as a weapon, but is not.

QuoteThe same definition applies to any number of other objects: base ball bats, cars, and as you've pointed out, kitchen knives. A gun or kitchen knife is only as dangerous as the malicious intent or negligence of the person wielding it. The rest of the time these objects serve other purposes.

No. You are operating from a mirror definition to my own. By the definition I apply, a car is NOT a weapon, but can be used as such. A handgun IS a weapon (and is relatively hard to use as a tool... Except as a hammer, maybe. Or bottle opener)

QuoteYou're correct that we don't need firearms. We also don't need kitchen knives.

No. A kitchen knife is not a weapon though and, as such, I see no reason to prohibit its use by civilians, even if they sometimes use it as one.

QuoteI'm curious as to how you would change current legislation. It seems like you recognize that there are peaceful civillians that use firearms for benign activities and you seem to be ok with them doing so. What sort of current rules would you think would be good to change or add?

Clean mental health and criminal record and an active membership in a shooting club or team or whatever it is they call it would be primary requirements for sports shooting. Active membership means you get your ass to at least one competition a year and do some honest sports (unless, of course, your doctor is nice enough to write you a note). Such a license would give one access to a weapon of the type and caliber used in that particular branch of competition shooting. For instance, a .22 rifle, but would not allow ownership of weapons of other types and calibers.

Licensed hunters would have to pass several exams and would be able to buy shotguns and rifles with maximum magazine capacity of, say, five shots. No automatics. No pistols.

Guns and ammunition would have to be sold by licensed vendors and only the guns of the types used by hunters or sportsmen would have to be available with coresponding ammo types.

There is much more to it, but I would rather not write a book on it here in this thread.

I'm curious about gun ownership and crime. What do the studies show?

I did a search, and I found this site (http://www.largo.org), which holds two studies:

http://www.largo.org/klecksum.html (http://www.largo.org/klecksum.html)
http://www.largo.org/Lott.html (http://www.largo.org/Lott.html)

What you choose to make of them is up to you.

I think there was a study that stated that if you keep a gun in your house then the people who live in the house are much more likely to be harmed in a gun incident.
It actually makes sense to me. Very hard to be harmed in a gun incident if there are no guns.

For the most part I feel people aren't emotionally stable enough to be carrying guns around. People often do bad things when they are angry and bullets travel a long distance, easy for bystanders to get hit.

I don't even really see much need for hobbyists to gave guns, there are so many other sports or hobbies.
I feel Cops and military should have guns and thats about it.

The less there are in circulation, the less likely the crims will have them. Normal citizens should not be getting into gun fights with crims.

Occasionally there's a legal gun owner that perpetrates a gun crime.  The vast majority of gun crimes are people who have a gun illegally.  The vast majority of national media about gun crimes goes to the crimes that involve legal gun owners.  It's not really a fair basis through which to base on opinion.  Fact is, we already have laws.  It's already illegal for a felon to own a firearm, and for a kid in a gang to buy one without the appropriate background check.  There was a study in Kansas City not too long ago.  In most sections of town, the police went about their business as usual.  In the most violent section of town, they focused only on enforcing the gun laws.  That section of town saw a huge decrease in crime.  Gun control advocates said this was proof that we need stricter gun laws.  The flaw in that argument was that there wasn't a new law passed, just a focus on enforcement.

Cops spend way too much time going after marijuana users/dealers, parking violations, and chasing down offenders of other stupid laws.  Put the focus on enforcement of existing laws, and we'll be on our way.  Once that has had a chance to work, then we'll be in a better position to know which new gun laws would be the most effective.  As it is now, there are proposals for a wide variety of gun laws, without any idea which ones will work.  More focused legislation would be more effective, taking it one step at a time.

Personally, I would never get a gun for self defense or home protection.  I have met just one person who actually benefited from having a gun for home protection, and he lived in a very high drug/immigration traffic area of Tuscon.  It made sense for him.  Most of the time, unless you answer the door with a gun in your hand, and have it dangerously loaded at your side while you sleep, the gun won't be accessible in a situation like that.  I do love guns, however, for target shooting.  I love them in the same way I love a bow and arrow, and I would never try to carry a bow and arrow in public.  I don't shoot living things, just paper targets.  It wouldn't end my world to not be able to do that anymore, but I do enjoy it.  If they take that right away from me, I'll live, especially if they legalize weed to go with it.    I just want them to do it intelligently, not firing blindly, so to speak.

Quote from: "fester30"Most of the time, unless you answer the door with a gun in your hand, and have it dangerously loaded at your side while you sleep, the gun won't be accessible in a situation like that.  

We keep a gun loaded 24/7 very close to our bed where we sleep. It's there if we ever need it. We don't have any children and if we ever did I would reevaluate my decision to keep it there. Is that particular gun dangerous on its own? Absolutely not. The safeties on my modern firearm prevent it from going off accidentally. I could throw it across the room and it will not fire (I don't recommend anyone do this.) It will only shoot if the firing block safety is disengaged and the double action trigger is fully pressed (which disables a second safety.)

Are we safer because of this? Hopefully it will never make a difference, but like wearing a seat belt I will be glad to have it if the situation in which it's designed for ever were to occur.

I suggest that guns and exsplosives and all forms of modern weaponry be banned, gathered up, and then destroyed completely, and then everyone at the age of 13 be given a sword, and bows and arrows. And that's it. You want to fight a fucking war, you look the poor bastard you want to kill in the eye.

Violence, killing our own kind, is ultimately pointless. I hope we as a race evolve past it some day. It's a possibility. A dream, but a possibility.

Quote from: "BadPoison"

Quote from: "fester30"Most of the time, unless you answer the door with a gun in your hand, and have it dangerously loaded at your side while you sleep, the gun won't be accessible in a situation like that.  

We keep a gun loaded 24/7 very close to our bed where we sleep. It's there if we ever need it. We don't have any children and if we ever did I would reevaluate my decision to keep it there. Is that particular gun dangerous on its own? Absolutely not. The safeties on my modern firearm prevent it from going off accidentally. I could throw it across the room and it will not fire (I don't recommend anyone do this.) It will only shoot if the firing block safety is disengaged and the double action trigger is fully pressed (which disables a second safety.)

Are we safer because of this? Hopefully it will never make a difference, but like wearing a seat belt I will be glad to have it if the situation in which it's designed for ever were to occur.

Beretta 9?  The safety block is the reason I kinda like those.  Other than that, though, I'd rather have a 1911 for myself and a Walther P22 for the wife (small hands).  When I said dangerously close to the bed, I wasn't considering the question of those without children.  Also, if I had a Beretta and no children, I wouldn't even keep the safety on during the night because of the double action and safety block.

As I said, I'm not a proponent of stricter gun laws.  However, they also wouldn't bother me.  Sort of like Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann getting struck by lightning.  ehh.