|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Mar 21, 2019 4:41:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Lone Wanderer on Mar 21, 2019 17:33:49 GMT
Do you think USA would be safer if the gov banned all guns/weapons?
In my opinion, Even if they ban all weapons, crime or tragic incidents would happen. Remove knife/gun from a dangerous person and he tries to find new weapons. Knife can kill people, knife can save people's life. To decrease crime rate, I think governments should spend their resources on kids and raising them as quality persons with stable mentality, responsibility, and social skills.
|
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Mar 21, 2019 20:06:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Mar 21, 2019 20:25:23 GMT
Do you think USA would be safer if the gov banned all guns/weapons? In my opinion, Even if they ban all weapons, crime or tragic incidents would happen. Remove knife/gun from a dangerous person and he tries to find new weapons. Knife can kill people, knife can save people's life. To decrease crime rate, I think governments should spend their resources on kids and raising them as quality persons with stable mentality, responsibility, and social skills. I don’t believe it is a good idea to let the government raise our children. |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Mar 21, 2019 20:48:56 GMT
This isn't about voting since we have no issues about voting. The issue is to keep Muslims safe among others. It could have even been a mosque you go to. Sad world. |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Mar 21, 2019 20:52:23 GMT
Do you think USA would be safer if the gov banned all guns/weapons? Absolutely. If I'd ever get involved in politics it would be for this only. More jails and more strict terms on those who can't live among people. Some people even get a free get out of jail card and others like in Seattle (if you saw the news article posted my DKtrav88) the law enforcement just looks away and doesn't stop crime at all which doesn't help. But the kids part is good, I agree. |
|
PISTON1246
Full Member
Posts: 361 
Likes: 90
Ethnicity: I HAVE ANCESTORS OF DIFFERENT SKIN COLOR AND EYE COLOR AND I MET SOME OF THEM WHILE THEY WERE STILL LIVING
Politics: REGISTERED VOTER
Religion: ISLAM
|
Post by PISTON1246 on Mar 21, 2019 21:05:00 GMT
I THINK THE SHOOTING COULD HAVE STOPPED SOONER AND FEWER PEOPLE WOULD HAVE DIED IF THERE WAS SOME ARMED PEOPLE WHO SHOT AND KILLED THE ATTACKER AFTER HE STARTED THE ATTACK.
I THINK PEOPLE HAVE A GOD GIVEN RIGHT FROM ALLAH TO BE ARMED.
PEOPLE ALSO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY THAT COMES WITH BEING ARMED.
SOMEONE WHO IS RICH HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO CARE FOR THOSE WHO ARE POOR.
SOMEONE WHO IS ARMED HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO DEFEND THE INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ARMED.
|
|
Sonny
Full Member
Posts: 248
Likes: 84
Ancestry: European
Religion: Christian
|
Post by Sonny on Mar 21, 2019 21:25:39 GMT
The best solution is for all parties involved is for the Muslims to go back to their own countries. That way the Muslims can feel safe practicing Shariah law in their own countries and non Muslim nations are free of terrorism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Mar 21, 2019 21:46:35 GMT
I THINK THE SHOOTING COULD HAVE STOPPED SOONER AND FEWER PEOPLE WOULD HAVE DIED IF THERE WAS SOME ARMED PEOPLE WHO SHOT AND KILLED THE ATTACKER AFTER HE STARTED THE ATTACK. I THINK PEOPLE HAVE A GOD GIVEN RIGHT FROM ALLAH TO BE ARMED. PEOPLE ALSO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY THAT COMES WITH BEING ARMED. SOMEONE WHO IS RICH HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO CARE FOR THOSE WHO ARE POOR. SOMEONE WHO IS ARMED HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO DEFEND THE INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ARMED. Unfortunately God does not allow the manslayer to die without His direct permission. So there cannot be an armed person killing any manslayer because God is in charge of what happens to him. Numbers 35:11-12 Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares. And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the manslayer die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment. |
|
PISTON1246
Full Member
Posts: 361
Likes: 90
Ethnicity: I HAVE ANCESTORS OF DIFFERENT SKIN COLOR AND EYE COLOR AND I MET SOME OF THEM WHILE THEY WERE STILL LIVING
Politics: REGISTERED VOTER
Religion: ISLAM
|
Post by PISTON1246 on Mar 21, 2019 22:21:05 GMT
I THINK THE SHOOTING COULD HAVE STOPPED SOONER AND FEWER PEOPLE WOULD HAVE DIED IF THERE WAS SOME ARMED PEOPLE WHO SHOT AND KILLED THE ATTACKER AFTER HE STARTED THE ATTACK. I THINK PEOPLE HAVE A GOD GIVEN RIGHT FROM ALLAH TO BE ARMED. PEOPLE ALSO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY THAT COMES WITH BEING ARMED. SOMEONE WHO IS RICH HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO CARE FOR THOSE WHO ARE POOR. SOMEONE WHO IS ARMED HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO DEFEND THE INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT ARMED. Unfortunately God does not allow the manslayer to die without His direct permission. So there cannot be an armed person killing any manslayer because God is in charge of what happens to him. Numbers 35:11-12 Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares. And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the manslayer die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment. THAT MUST BE THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE. THAT AND THE GENEVA BIBLE WHICH IS HISTORICALLY SUPPOSED TO HAVE COME BEFORE IT IS IN THE OLD ENGLISH FORMAT WITH THE WORD "YE" IN THERE. I DO NOT THINK YOU ARE QUOTING THE GENEVA CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG. WHEN THEY SAID THE WORD "UNAWARES" IN THE SENTENCE AND VERSE YOU PUT UP IT MEANS THAT THE MANSLAYER SLAYED UNKNOWINGLY AND UNINTENTIONALLY. I READ ABOUT THE CITY OF REFUGE IN THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE AND NOT THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE. I READ THE WHOLE LAW REGARDING THAT AND NOT JUST TWO VERSES AND IT SAYS THAT THE AVENGER OF BLOOD HAS THE RIGHT TO KILL THE ONE WHO IS TO FLEE TO THE CITY OF REFUGE IF THAT AVENGER OF BLOOD FINDS THE ONE WHO KILLED OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF REFUGE. THE CITY OF REFUGE WAS ONLY FOR PEOPLE WHO KILLED UNINTENTIONALLY AND ON ACCIDENT. I DO NOT KNOW IF YOU UNDERSTAND HOW TO OPERATE A GUN AND HOW IT WORKS BUT YOU ARE MISTAKEN IF YOU THINK SOMEONE PULLED THE TRIGGER AT THINK THEY WERE ABLE TO KILL MORE THAN 20 PEOPLE WITHOUT KNOWING HOW TO STOP PULLING THE TRIGGER AND AVOID KILLING PEOPLE. THERE IS A VERY LOW PROBABILITY OF SOMEONE BEING ABLE TO KILL 20 PEOPLE OR MORE ON THE SAME DAY BY A DISCHARGE THAT WAS NOT INTENTIONALLY AIMED AT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE STRUCK WITH THE BULLETS COMING OUT OF THE BARREL. ONE PERSON DYING FROM AN ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE SOUNDS MORE BELIEVABLE TO ME. THE PERSON WHO HAD THE GUN NEEDS TO TELL WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE GUN IF THEIR DEFENSE IS THAT THEY DID IT ON ACCIDENT. IF SOMEONE HAS KILLED INTENTIONALLY AND WITHOUT A LEGAL RIGHT TO DO SO (WHEN WE SAY LEGAL IN A RELIGIOUS SENSE THAT INCLUDES WHAT GOD SAYS IS LEGAL), THEN THEY HAVE COMMITTED A MURDER AND THEY ARE A MURDERER. IF YOU READ THE WHOLE FIRST FIVE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT WHICH IS THE TORAH AND REMEMBER WHAT THEY SAY THEN YOU KNOW GOD MADE IT A LAW AND STATUTE THAT A MURDERER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH FOR THAT TYPE OF CRIME. NO LIFE TIME SENTENCE IN PRISON OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN BEING PUT TO DEATH. DO YOU BELIEVE THE LAW IN THE TORAH SECTION OF THE BIBLE COMES FROM GOD? DIRECTLY FROM GOD? WOULD YOU ARGUE AGAINST WHAT HIS LAW SAYS? EDIT READ VERSE 26 AND 27 OF THAT SAME CHAPTER 35. |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Mar 21, 2019 23:40:05 GMT
Unfortunately God does not allow the manslayer to die without His direct permission. So there cannot be an armed person killing any manslayer because God is in charge of what happens to him. Numbers 35:11-12 Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares. And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the manslayer die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment. THAT MUST BE THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE. THAT AND THE GENEVA BIBLE WHICH IS HISTORICALLY SUPPOSED TO HAVE COME BEFORE IT IS IN THE OLD ENGLISH FORMAT WITH THE WORD "YE" IN THERE. I DO NOT THINK YOU ARE QUOTING THE GENEVA CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG. WHEN THEY SAID THE WORD "UNAWARES" IN THE SENTENCE AND VERSE YOU PUT UP IT MEANS THAT THE MANSLAYER SLAYED UNKNOWINGLY AND UNINTENTIONALLY. I READ ABOUT THE CITY OF REFUGE IN THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE AND NOT THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE. I READ THE WHOLE LAW REGARDING THAT AND NOT JUST TWO VERSES AND IT SAYS THAT THE AVENGER OF BLOOD HAS THE RIGHT TO KILL THE ONE WHO IS TO FLEE TO THE CITY OF REFUGE IF THAT AVENGER OF BLOOD FINDS THE ONE WHO KILLED OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF REFUGE. THE CITY OF REFUGE WAS ONLY FOR PEOPLE WHO KILLED UNINTENTIONALLY AND ON ACCIDENT. I DO NOT KNOW IF YOU UNDERSTAND HOW TO OPERATE A GUN AND HOW IT WORKS BUT YOU ARE MISTAKEN IF YOU THINK SOMEONE PULLED THE TRIGGER AT THINK THEY WERE ABLE TO KILL MORE THAN 20 PEOPLE WITHOUT KNOWING HOW TO STOP PULLING THE TRIGGER AND AVOID KILLING PEOPLE. THERE IS A VERY LOW PROBABILITY OF SOMEONE BEING ABLE TO KILL 20 PEOPLE OR MORE ON THE SAME DAY BY A DISCHARGE THAT WAS NOT INTENTIONALLY AIMED AT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE STRUCK WITH THE BULLETS COMING OUT OF THE BARREL. ONE PERSON DYING FROM AN ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE SOUNDS MORE BELIEVABLE TO ME. THE PERSON WHO HAD THE GUN NEEDS TO TELL WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE GUN IF THEIR DEFENSE IS THAT THEY DID IT ON ACCIDENT. IF SOMEONE HAS KILLED INTENTIONALLY AND WITHOUT A LEGAL RIGHT TO DO SO (WHEN WE SAY LEGAL IN A RELIGIOUS SENSE THAT INCLUDES WHAT GOD SAYS IS LEGAL), THEN THEY HAVE COMMITTED A MURDER AND THEY ARE A MURDERER. IF YOU READ THE WHOLE FIRST FIVE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT WHICH IS THE TORAH AND REMEMBER WHAT THEY SAY THEN YOU KNOW GOD MADE IT A LAW AND STATUTE THAT A MURDERER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH FOR THAT TYPE OF CRIME. NO LIFE TIME SENTENCE IN PRISON OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN BEING PUT TO DEATH. DO YOU BELIEVE THE LAW IN THE TORAH SECTION OF THE BIBLE COMES FROM GOD? DIRECTLY FROM GOD? WOULD YOU ARGUE AGAINST WHAT HIS LAW SAYS? EDIT READ VERSE 26 AND 27 OF THAT SAME CHAPTER 35. Yeah, you can't kill them unless God allows it as I mentioned. And in that same chapter He sometimes allowed it. But overall this verse below stays that God is the one avenging for us so we can't without permission. Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people. Deuteronomy:32:43 |
|
|
|
Post by Lone Wanderer on Mar 22, 2019 4:02:12 GMT
Do you think USA would be safer if the gov banned all guns/weapons? In my opinion, Even if they ban all weapons, crime or tragic incidents would happen. Remove knife/gun from a dangerous person and he tries to find new weapons. Knife can kill people, knife can save people's life. To decrease crime rate, I think governments should spend their resources on kids and raising them as quality persons with stable mentality, responsibility, and social skills. I don’t believe it is a good idea to let the government raise our children. You misunderstood my point. I don't mean governments should fully control kids. Obviously parents play their major role here. But a good educational system is necessary for building a healthy society, and it should be one of the main concerns of governments. |
|
|
|
Post by AmericanCharm on Mar 22, 2019 4:22:19 GMT
New Zealanders are not allowed to use firearms for self defense and it's been that way for a very long time. So it’s not really a big deal like it would be in the USA.
I will mention almost all tyrannical governments started by disarming its populace. New Zealand is arresting teenagers for sharing a video and threatening them with 14 years of prison. You arent allowed to think or speak a certain way in these kinds of countries. Is it a coincidence that the countries with poor gun rights have no freedom of speech? The United States is not like your commie countries. It was built for the people not for those in power. That power balance has shifted drastically since the 1700s but we have stayed far better off than these cucked lands.
Crime has been drastically declining in the United States and the places with highest crime rates also have strictest gun laws.
Australia had a gun by back but they really handed firearms in because firearms which were about to become illegal were bought by the government. That was just to make it constitutional, since their constitution requires that any property seized from a person must be compensated.
According to the Australian government’s own statistics, a number of serious crimes peaked in the years after the ban.
Manslaughter, assault, kidnapping, armed robbery, and unarmed robbery all saw peaks in the years following the ban, and most remain near or above pre-ban rates. This is because the criminals didn’t turn in their weapons while the law abiding gun owners did.
Australias murder rate dropped from a rate of 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1994 to 1.1 per 100,000 in 2012. But it’s the only serious crime that saw a consistent decline post-ban and it the murder rate was already headed on decline previously. On top of the Australia had an economic boom in that time do to their mining boom. So it’s safe to this this minor change in murders had nothing to do with firearms.
For example the Port Arthur shooter committed 10% of all the homicides in Australia in 1996. A few mobsters or gangsters shoot each other and the homicide rate goes up 5-10% for a year or two, a few criminals get locked up before they can shoot people up and it drops 5-10%.
If we take a look at America’s decrease in violent crime this is an even more accurate scale to measure. According to data from the U.S. Justice Department, violent crime fell nearly 72 percent between 1993 and 2011. This actually happened as guns were being manufactured and purchased at an ever-increasing rate.
So although you may have slightly fewer firearm-related deaths when you disarm law-abiding civilians, violent crime increases, because there is now NO deterrence to criminals. Even a criminal with a knife can rob, rape and murder someone who is unarmed. On top of that you are disarming the populace from protecting themselves from threats both foreign and domestic.
Anit-gun people are frankly airheads. They think with feels over reals which is why so many of the people who advocate for such idiocy are females many of whom are brainwashed by biased liberal education systems.
|
|
PISTON1246
Full Member
Posts: 361
Likes: 90
Ethnicity: I HAVE ANCESTORS OF DIFFERENT SKIN COLOR AND EYE COLOR AND I MET SOME OF THEM WHILE THEY WERE STILL LIVING
Politics: REGISTERED VOTER
Religion: ISLAM
|
Post by PISTON1246 on Mar 22, 2019 22:32:39 GMT
New Zealanders are not allowed to use firearms for self defense and it's been that way for a very long time. So it’s not really a big deal like it would be in the USA. I will mention almost all tyrannical governments started by disarming its populace. New Zealand is arresting teenagers for sharing a video and threatening them with 14 years of prison. You arent allowed to think or speak a certain way in these kinds of countries. Is it a coincidence that the countries with poor gun rights have no freedom of speech? The United States is not like your commie countries. It was built for the people not for those in power. That power balance has shifted drastically since the 1700s but we have stayed far better off than these cucked lands. Crime has been drastically declining in the United States and the places with highest crime rates also have strictest gun laws. Australia had a gun by back but they really handed firearms in because firearms which were about to become illegal were bought by the government. That was just to make it constitutional, since their constitution requires that any property seized from a person must be compensated. According to the Australian government’s own statistics, a number of serious crimes peaked in the years after the ban. Manslaughter, assault, kidnapping, armed robbery, and unarmed robbery all saw peaks in the years following the ban, and most remain near or above pre-ban rates. This is because the criminals didn’t turn in their weapons while the law abiding gun owners did. Australias murder rate dropped from a rate of 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1994 to 1.1 per 100,000 in 2012. But it’s the only serious crime that saw a consistent decline post-ban and it the murder rate was already headed on decline previously. On top of the Australia had an economic boom in that time do to their mining boom. So it’s safe to this this minor change in murders had nothing to do with firearms. For example the Port Arthur shooter committed 10% of all the homicides in Australia in 1996. A few mobsters or gangsters shoot each other and the homicide rate goes up 5-10% for a year or two, a few criminals get locked up before they can shoot people up and it drops 5-10%. If we take a look at America’s decrease in violent crime this is an even more accurate scale to measure. According to data from the U.S. Justice Department, violent crime fell nearly 72 percent between 1993 and 2011. This actually happened as guns were being manufactured and purchased at an ever-increasing rate. So although you may have slightly fewer firearm-related deaths when you disarm law-abiding civilians, violent crime increases, because there is now NO deterrence to criminals. Even a criminal with a knife can rob, rape and murder someone who is unarmed. On top of that you are disarming the populace from protecting themselves from threats both foreign and domestic. Anit-gun people are frankly airheads. They think with feels over reals which is why so many of the people who advocate for such idiocy are females many of whom are brainwashed by biased liberal education systems. SOME PEOPLE ARE NOT VERY MORAL IN THEIR DECISION MAKING I BELIEVE. I THINK SOME DECREASE IN EXTREME POVERTY HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH SOME PEOPLE DECIDING NOT TO COMMIT ROBBERY FOR EXAMPLE. BEING POOR IS NO EXCUSE FOR STEALING AND USING THE THREAT OF VIOLENCE TO GET WHAT YOU WANT IN CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR MAY BE AN OPTION THAT SOME PEOPLE HAVE CHOSEN FOR THEMSELVES IN TIMES WHEN THEY ARE OR HAVE BECOME POOR. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WOULD RATHER MURDER AND ROB FOR MONEY THAN TO ASK FOR VOLUNTARY MONEY OR HELP WHICH IS NOT A BAD THING TO DO IN ITSELF ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU DO NEED HELP. WE WILL SEE WHAT BECOMES OF OUR SOCIETIES WHICH HAVE MOVED AWAY FROM THE REMEMBRANCE OF ALLAH WHO IS GOD THAT HAS CREATED GOOD RELIGION SUCH AS ISLAM TO GUIDE THE HUMAN POPULATION. |
|
