Why Atheists Need Guns

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Fellow Unbelievers,

If ever there was a reason to keep and bear arms, it is Jackleg Pastors and flocks of sheeple like this who want to be self-appointed executioners for God and their “Holy” Bible:

Texas Pastor Condemns City’s Pride Celebration And Calls For Execution Of Gay People In Horrific Council Speech
https://www.comicsands.com/arlington-texas-christian-pastor-pride-2657419554.html

• This topic was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Correcting the link

[—Participant]

So, in a crowded event where you often can’t see very far, when the sound of gunfire goes off and you now have an environment filled with confusion and a bunch of people in fight or flight mode with guns out and pointed, this is going to lead to fewer injuries and fatalities?

I won’t argue there would never be a hypothetical where the good citizen with a gun thwarts the villain, but there also exist hypotheticals where things are just made more difficult all around by an increase in firearms and the risk of death and injury goes up. And I have to say ‘hypothetical’ because it is difficult to account for all the variables at play for such acts of extremism.

There are times in life where you have to consider how you want to bring yourself into the world around you: what sort of person do you want to be? To me, resorting to firearms for daily security is cowardice. It’s an escalation that promotes a sort of gun culture I don’t want to live in because a) I think it creates more of a liability than it provides in security, and b) I think it takes us further away from the sort of society that looks at addressing root issues favouring a mindset of violent reflex or even retribution.

I understand some people see me as vulnerable or naïve, but to me the willingness to fight and die for my community is not something done by flying overseas to shoot people dead (as the rhetoric we use for our armed forces goes). It’s something done by living my life openly knowing hostility toward me exists while abandoning the mentality of fear and ‘I’m going to get you before you get me’. The odds of me dying for this at pride or just living my life as someone visibly queer are pretty low. The odds that a firearm would save me from that fate are lower. I’m gonna play the odds for what I believe in.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Autumn with a reasonable POV.

Don’t cha agree, Enco?

[jakelafortParticipant]

More gun violence and at a hospital. That is a great target. Room to room. sitting ducks.

Was just chatting with an atheist in rural TN. Poor fucker. Outstanding racism and religiosity and guns. Also a belief in civil war propaganda. Says everyone has guns there. God and guns go together like peanut butter and marshmallow. Throw in ignorance. Oh i must be from New England with that pairing.

In other news Gun Runner progeny are not exhibiting a fondness for lawn. And that is a bit surprising considering Gun Runner is out of Candy Ride. Go figure.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Autumn,

For one thing, I never said “I’m going to get you before you get me,” nor would I ever. The rational, ethical, and libertarian stance is: Start no fights, but be ready to finish them.

Now, were the Jews who took up arms against Nazism as Partizan fighters, as inmates of The Łódź Ghetto in Warsaw and the Sobibor death camp “cowards”?

And was Medgar Evers and The Freedom Riders registering people to vote “cowards” for packing heat?

Was Martin Luther King, Jr. a “coward” for merely applying for a permit to own a gun, which racist authorities turned down?

Are the Pink Pistols “cowards” for encouraging LGBTQ+ people to own guns and learn shooting and gun safety?

Is every Ukrainian “cowards” for bearing now privately-held arms–some 19th Century antiques–against Putin and the Putineers? (Zelenskyy better not dare try a recall when this is all over or he’s no better than Putin!)

Hang on there’s more to come…

• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spelling

[—Participant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Autumn, For one thing, I never said “I’m going to get you before you get me,” nor would I ever.

I didn’t say you did.

The rational, ethical, and libertarian stance is: Start no fights, but be ready to finish them.

The problem is firearms are a potentially (or even likely) fatal escalation. The potential for excessive force is high especially with stand your ground legislation and castle doctrine.

Now, were the Jews who took up arms against Nazism as Partizan fighters, as inmates of The Łódź Ghetto in Warsaw and the Sobibor death camp “cowards”? And was Medgar Evers and The Freedom Riders registering people to vote “cowards” for packing heat? Was Martin Luther King, Jr. a “coward” for merely applying for a permit to own a gun, which racist authorities turned down? Are the Pink Pistols “cowards” for encouraging LGBTQ+ people to own guns and learn shooting and gun safety? Is every Ukrainian “cowards” for bearing now privately-held arms–some 19th Century antiques–against Putin and the Putineers? (Zelenskyy better not dare try a recall when this is all over or he’s no better than Putin!) Hang on there’s more to come…

What I said was “To me, resorting to firearms for daily security is cowardice.” And before we go ham on pulling together every single case where firearms were used in resistance against oppressive regimes, or cases where firearms were not actually used for daily security, the context of the conversation was the extent to which this is applicable to us. If you think I’m in a situation comparable to Jews in Nazi Occupied Europe or Ukrainians during this Russian occupation, you are off your fucking nut.

What other people feel is right for themselves is their call to make until we start navigating the thorny issue of public interest versus individual liberties (and no, I’m not asking for another sophomoric ejaculation on Libertarian values nor free market blah blah blah). What you made was an appeal for ‘fellow Unbelievers’ to bear arms, and as someone in that demographic, I am telling you what is applicable to me and my circumstances in contrast with the picture you paint. I am telling you why I would consider it cowardice for me given the case presented. Yes, that would extend to others implicitly, and maybe I would consider the decision to bear arms for daily self-defence cowardly for a fair few of the Pink Pistols.

At some point people need to take a step back from this fucking nonsense of presenting firearms as a solution to the harms present in society. It’s fear-based culture, and it’s not a solution. Someone has to take that step. That’s my conviction so I’ll be the one to do it. That’s why your fear-mongering call to arms sounds so chickenshit to me.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Is every Ukrainian “cowards” for bearing now privately-held arms–some 19th Century antiques–against Putin and the Putineers?

My friend in the Ukraine killed his first Russian this week with an M27 that was only unboxed 10 days ago. He texted me “No, the first one was easy”.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Autumn,

In any situation, whether indoors or outdoors at a parade, the first priority in a shooting event would be to get yourself and others to a place of safety, the “Avoid” part of “Avoid, Deny, Defend.” Outdoors, this could be done by crouching behind cars, trees, big rocks, large concrete posts, buildings, etc.

After that comes “Denying” access of the attacker to victims. Outdoors, that could mean running zig-zag between barriers to make it harder for the shooter to get a bead on a target, “going grey” by not looking like an intended target, shedding or inverting clothes to something inconspicuous, and above all, putting barriers or distance between you and the shooter.

And if all else fails and you have no other choice, you “Defend.” You fight ruthlessly and dirty with anything on hand, not just a firearm, but bricks, a laptop, a cane, a pair of scissors, a tire iron, anything on hand. Fight until the attacker is down and the threat is ended permanently!

If you have a firearm, you treat every firearm as if loaded, keep your weapon down or up with the finger off the trigger until ready to fire. When firing, always be aware of what is around and behind your target, then aim for center mass of the body and keep firing until the attacker is down and dead. Never point a gun at anything or anyone you don’t intend to lay to waste and destroy utterly.

When law enforcement arrives, lay down anything in your hands, raise your open hands, and answer all questions honestly, while also being aware of your rights under Miranda v. Arizona.

And while you have every right to assess and take your own risks with your safety, you have no right to make that assessment and risk decision for others who may not have your level of personal safety. That decision is theirs and theirs alone.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spelling
• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spelling again

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Autumn,

The problem is firearms are a potentially (or even likely) fatal escalation. The potential for excessive force is high especially with stand your ground legislation and castle doctrine.

If the “fatal escalation” is against someone who would plunder, kidnap, enslave, rape, or murder you, then that “fatal escalation” is totally justified. If “fatal escalation” is undesired, thugs can always reverse the premise in the negative and don’t.

I noticed in one of Reg’s article on Chinese dissenters in U.S. universities being harassed by Red China operatives, one of the dissenters evoked Georgia Castle Doctrine against one of Emperor Xi’s minions. If Castle Doctrine makes thugs from the world’s largest Totalitarian power take pause, it’s got to be good against lesser thugs too.

Canada has one such thug who got a slap-on-the-wrist from the system for her terrorist acts and now she has upped her delusions of grandeur:

QAnon leader who claims she is Queen of Canada declares herself leader of the world
Ariana Baio
https://www.indy100.com/politics/qanon-leader-romana-didulo

If Canadians recognized an unequivocal right to keep and bear arms, this “Queen’s” jurisdiction would extend no further than her home and anyone dumb enough to marry her.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by  TheEncogitationer.

[UnseenParticipant]

jakelafort wrote:

More gun violence and at a hospital. That is a great target. Room to room. sitting ducks. Was just chatting with an atheist in rural TN. Poor fucker. Outstanding racism and religiosity and guns. Also a belief in civil war propaganda. Says everyone has guns there. God and guns go together like peanut butter and marshmallow. Throw in ignorance. Oh i must be from New England with that pairing. In other news Gun Runner progeny are not exhibiting a fondness for lawn. And that is a bit surprising considering Gun Runner is out of Candy Ride. Go figure.

Because of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, we have this proliferation of guns and gun crime, and the tendency of concerned or frightened people to get a gun for protecting themselves or their home. That interpretation was based on an original intent kind of interpretation. So, the original intent of a bunch of slave owners in a world that’s far different from the one we have today takes precedence over common sense. In 1776, it wasn’t possible to buy a gun that could kill 60 people in mere minutes (Las Vegas, 2017).

It may be true that Americans are a different breed from the “sheeple” in Europe, New Zealand, Australia, and elsewhere where they’ve made getting a gun much harder and gun crimes, especially mass killings, are far less common.

If there’s any country in the world with people who are similar to Americans, it’s Australia, but Australia’s gun death rate is 25 times lower that of the United States. Why? Gun control instituted after a mass shooting. So don’t tell us gun control doesn’t work.

It can be argued that America is a unique case. But isn’t every country unique?

It can also be argued that America’s gun crime goes back to some unique social conditions related to the after effects of slavery on the Black family and on poverty which affects whites as well as the racial minorities, and which is where the bulk of criminals come from. However, this is something America brought on itself, because while America is rich enough to largely fix those things with social services, America would rather spend money on its war machine. Also, it should be noted that folks like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos, taxed more aggressively, could help, with plenty of billions left over for them to play with.

We don’t need guns, we need rational gun laws and rational administration of the country’s wealth. We can send $40 billion to Ukraine and give the military $715 billion (this year—and that doesn’t count the well-known butsecret “black budget”). Meanwhile, supermarket shelves are free of baby formula and there’s little or no money to fix the country’s ailing and backward infrastructure.

Guns are a problem we could have avoided but now, somehow, have to fix. And not with more guns.

[jakelafortParticipant]

That was nicely stated Unseen.

And i don’t even think the Supreme Court got the original intent correctly. Back in law school i had that issue in an advanced Con Law class. Whether the Supreme Court nailed it or not is not the issue. As you’ve indited, “So, the original intent of a bunch of slave owners in a world that’s far different from the one we have today takes precedence over common sense. In 1776, it wasn’t possible to buy a gun that could kill 60 people in mere minutes (Las Vegas, 2017). We are talking about an era in which the cognoscenti did not even know about evolution, had no clue that technology would produce an entirely different world, and guys who were supposed to be enlightened had slaves and considered Blacks subhuman.

Ideologues just kill us.

Enco writes: And while you have every right to assess and take your own risks with your safety, you have no right to make that assessment and risk decision for others who may not have your level of personal safety. That decision is theirs and theirs alone.

For Enco it is all about the individual and the fallout from the individual’s exercise of immutable and platonic idealized rights is either less important or nonexistent. Unfortunately the active members of this site who are thinkers are not remotely representative of our species.

[—Participant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Autumn,

The problem is firearms are a potentially (or even likely) fatal escalation. The potential for excessive force is high especially with stand your ground legislation and castle doctrine.

If the “fatal escalation” is against someone who would plunder, kidnap, enslave, rape, or murder you, then that “fatal escalation” is totally justified. If “fatal escalation” is undesired, thugs can always reverse the premise in the negative and don’t.

You have a very limited perspective on home invasion, don’t you?

Canada has one such thug who got a slap-on-the-wrist from the system for her terrorist acts and now she has upped her delusions of grandeur: QAnon leader who claims she is Queen of Canada declares herself leader of the world Ariana Baio https://www.indy100.com/politics/qanon-leader-romana-didulo If Canadians recognized an unequivocal right to keep and bear arms, this “Queen’s” jurisdiction would extend no further than her home and anyone dumb enough to marry her.

She has zero jurisdiction in Canada, but hey, why not just let her words compete on the free marketplace of ideas you tyrant?

[UnseenParticipant]

Enco lives  in a world where The Worst Case Scenario seems to be the most likely scenario. Some bad (and worse, presumbably black) dudes enter your home, not just to take your jewelry and 60″ TV, but to f*ck the dead bodies of every woman, child, and maybe even man living there.

The scenario where the gun is used against another member of the household in a moment of anger, or where a child finds it and it discharges fatally, or is used in a moment of deep depression for a possibly preventable suicide.

Enco seems to be a classic paranoid personality. Maybe even to a degree that in a Minority Report world would see criminals locked up before he might commit a murder and maybe even  locked up without due process.*

* This seems to be what many conservatives want as they complain about weak law enforcement that leaves the streets teeming with hardened criminals rampaging through the streets.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

* This seems to be what many conservatives want as they complain about weak law enforcement that leaves the streets teeming with hardened criminals rampaging through the streets.

I was in the U.S. when the 2016 election campaign was in full swing and ‘many people were saying’ that crime was one of their major concerns. This was in a very affluent area of Atlanta and I got into a conversation with some neighbors, one of who had a Trump MAGA board on his lawn. I think they initially engaged me in conversation to check out who the stranger was (but maybe not). Once I told them I was visiting with relations in the estate they seemed happier.

Crime became the sole topic of the conversation. It turned out none of them had any direct experience of any crimes in the area. Apparently, someone tried to break in through a basement door but fled once the alarm sounded. That was 5 years earlier! Yet they all seemed very intense when talking about crime.

What none of them could grasp was that crime was practically non-existent in any of their daily lives. They never gave it much consideration because they never had to. Only when elections came around did they think about it because no campaign fails to talk about ‘the crime epidemic’.  In reality my temporary neighbors were made to feel afraid by the fear of crime itself and not by any actual experience of it.  It always seems to be the conservatives that get voters tilting at these windmills. I took my leave of them and went on to have ‘a blessed day’.

Of course conservative politicians are no different anywhere else. It just plays into the mindset that thinks about the moral degradation of society by the godless. No wonder there is crime! What do you expect when they have taken Jesus out of the classroom!

[—Participant]

One of the things that sold me on Elizabeth May (former leader of the federal Green Party in Canada) came from a leadership debate prior to an election. A question was posed about response to crime rates and down the line politicians talked about how they would respond to the rising threat until it got to May who basically called out the question. Crime rates had largely dropped across the board, especially violent crimes. But no one else wanted to say that. because they knew it wouldn’t go over well because it invalidates the feelings of the fearful and xenophobic.

And I say ‘xenophobic’ because there is this attitude that crime comes from the outside. But when it comes to violent crime, the assailant is statistically as likely if not more likely to be someone you know already. But this idea of rallying against foreign threat is potent and motivating.

[Author]

Posts