Change Your Gun Laws, America
- Thread starter Angela53510
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
C
I was watching the news the other day and a little boy was on the couch with the family cat and somebody fired a gun into the living room window and hit the cat leaving the boy unharmed. They said if it wasn't for the cat the boy would not be here so now the little boy and cat are alive and well so I suppose it's true that cats do have nine lives.
Was the cat wearing a bulletproof vest? I hear its trendy to do so these days?
All seriousness, Im glad the boy and cat were not harmed.
Just as long as the parents keep them away from sugar all should be well.
Apparently everyday sugar, (the stuff you can pick up at Walmart with a license ) slaughters millions a year?
All seriousness, Im glad the boy and cat were not harmed.
Just as long as the parents keep them away from sugar all should be well.
Apparently everyday sugar, (the stuff you can pick up at Walmart with a license ) slaughters millions a year?
A
I used to work in a factory across the street from the heroin dealers in Philly. It got to the point that there were shots fired every other week. I worked in the downstairs office, but my office co-workers mostly worked in the upstairs office. Six office workers. We two women were the only ones not carrying. But since everyone else knew guns, they were the ones telling the cops how many shots were fired from which type of guns. The record was nine shots fired. Two from a 9 mm. And 7 from a 38. (I did count nine bangbangs. That's all I knew. Well, that and we lived through it.) Fortunately, when the shooting started everyone was down in my office. When they went up to their office, three bullet holes in the ceiling. No one was hurt -- inside or outside. (They found all the bullets. We had nicks in the brick of the factory outside too, but no one is stupid enough to go out and look. No blood.) The cops never found the guns, but they checked the sewer across the street and pulled out a sawed-off shotgun.
A few years ago, there was a gun fight in a school yard right after grade school let out. Two rival drug dealers and their buddies. My memory is fading, but there were either 97 or 104 shots fired. Two people were hit -- a student and a crossing guard. One got shot in the heel. The other got shot in the calf.
My thinking is good thing drug dealers never learn how to shoot a gun or someone might get killed. There would be so many more murders in the US if the thugs were competent!
A few years ago, there was a gun fight in a school yard right after grade school let out. Two rival drug dealers and their buddies. My memory is fading, but there were either 97 or 104 shots fired. Two people were hit -- a student and a crossing guard. One got shot in the heel. The other got shot in the calf.
My thinking is good thing drug dealers never learn how to shoot a gun or someone might get killed. There would be so many more murders in the US if the thugs were competent!
D
I don't personally own any guns and have no desire to. I probably wouldn't shoot somebody even in self defense, but this definitely. If you want to try to inspire people for voluntary disarment thats fine, but making it mandatory is the most violence inducing thing that you could possibly do to the entire population. The right to bear arms is a founding principle of this country, there is no way to take them away without a civil war. It is illegal to Illegalize them. Even if a bill was passed, half of the cops would be with the general population on this. Who is going to go door to door to confiscate them? Anyone you send to do that job is more likely to get shot than any other job in the world. At least one out of ten households will be an ambush point in the majority of states.
Not to mention, plenty of people have been stockpiling for the ocassion. Anytime a new press release comes out or the president even hints about gun control, people run up to the stores and buy "EVERYTHING". We have had more than one ammunition shortage so bad that even cops couldn't find any ammo, in a few cases citizens had to lend it to them. It isn't a small part of the population you would be dealing with. Its a very very large percentage. So if your talking about mandatory disarming of the population, you are knowingly or unknowingly calling for a civil war over it because that is the only way it could possibly happen.
Not to mention, plenty of people have been stockpiling for the ocassion. Anytime a new press release comes out or the president even hints about gun control, people run up to the stores and buy "EVERYTHING". We have had more than one ammunition shortage so bad that even cops couldn't find any ammo, in a few cases citizens had to lend it to them. It isn't a small part of the population you would be dealing with. Its a very very large percentage. So if your talking about mandatory disarming of the population, you are knowingly or unknowingly calling for a civil war over it because that is the only way it could possibly happen.
A
The left-wing socialist agenda is the primary driver for crime. Their polices largely destroyed the nuclear family in the U.S. and the accompanying biblically based morality the nation once enjoyed.
Instead of assessing repenting for what they did to society via the application of their misguided ideology into policy and reforming their position, they just want to disarm the remaining law abiding moral population so only immoral lawless criminals and their organizations have them and drive forward.
Stupid people often follow stupidity with more stupidity. And that's what the "progressives" are doing.
Instead of assessing repenting for what they did to society via the application of their misguided ideology into policy and reforming their position, they just want to disarm the remaining law abiding moral population so only immoral lawless criminals and their organizations have them and drive forward.
Stupid people often follow stupidity with more stupidity. And that's what the "progressives" are doing.
V
Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn captured the heart of the issue with #BlackLivesMatter and all those other damn fool "social activists" following a November 6 Fire and Police Commission meeting during which he learned of a homicide with a five-year-old girl as the victim. Watch the faces of the two black female reporters on the left.
[video=youtube;T7MAO7McNKE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7MAO7McNKE[/video]
[video=youtube;T7MAO7McNKE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7MAO7McNKE[/video]
Let's compare the US and UK's violent crime. And we'll start by defining what violent crime means, legally, in each country.
The UK: “Violent crime contains a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Around a half of violent incidents identified by both BCS and police statistics involve no injury to the victim.” - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116417/hosb1011.pdf
The US: “In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.” - https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime
So, as you can see, the UK count crimes in which the victim is not harmed, as violent crime (things like pushing, shoving, slapping, etc). In fact, I have personally known a man who was convicted of assault, for knocking off a man's hat. As the statistics show, around half of people who are victims of "violent crime" in the UK, are not injured in any way. In America, such crimes usually come more under harassment, not violent crime.
So, if we apply the US definition of "violent crime" to the UK, we can safely half the number of violent crimes in the UK, seeing as half of violent crimes in the UK cause no injury to the victims.
The UK has roughly 900,000 incidents of violent crime per year, give or take, under the UK definition of "violent crime". If the US definition were applied, this number would be cut roughly in half. That's 450,000 incidents of violent crime under the US definition. While the US has, under its own definition, roughly 1,200,000 incidents of violent crime.
The US has a population of 318 million, which means that there is one incident of violent crime (under the US definition) for every 265 people. While the UK has a population of 64 million, which means that there is one incident of violent crime (under the US definition) for every 142 people.
If the US definition of violent crime were applied to the UK, the UK would have almost 50% less violent crime than the US.
As for the specific crimes (and we're going back now to using the relative definitions of the crimes in each country):
Robbery:
In the UK, there are 76,000 instances of robbery, while in the US, there are 360,000 instances. Relative to population sizes, you are just as likely to suffer robbery in the US, as in the UK.
Burglary:
In the UK, there are 260,000 burglaries, while in the US, there are 2.2 million. Relative to population sizes, you are 1.5 times more likely to suffer robbery in the US.
Murder:
In the UK, there are 640 murders, while in the US, there are 14,500 murders. Reative to population sizes, you are 4 times more likely to suffer murder in the US than the UK.
Knife crime:
In the UK, there are 33,000 knife crimes, while there are 750,000 knife crimes in the US. Relative to population sizes, you are 1.2 times as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK, than in the US.
Fatal shootings:
In the UK, there are 50 fatal shootings. In the US, there are 9,800 fatal shootings. relative to population, you are 35 times more likely to be shot dead in the US, than the UK.
Rape:
In the UK, there are 14,600 cases of rape. In the US, there are 83,500 cases of rape. You are very slightly more likely to be raped in the US, than the UK (not counting prison statistics. Male rape isn't really a thing in the UK. Prisoners often stab or beat male rapists in the UK, so it doesn't happen very often).
Grevious bodily harm and aggravated assault:
UK: 19,500. US: 750,000. Relative to population, you are 7 times as likely to be a victim of these crimes in the US.
Vehicle theft:
UK: 99,000. US: 715,000. You're slightly more likely to have your car stolen in the US.
So to summarize (and remember this is all proportional to population):
Robbery: Equally likely in either country.
Burglary: 1.5 times more likely in the US.
Murder: 4 times more likely in the US.
Knife crime: 1.2 times more likely in the UK.
Fatal shootings: 35 times more likely in the US.
Rape: Slightly more likely in the US.
GBH and aggravated assault:7 times more likely in the US.
Vehicle theft: Slightly more likely in the US.
Clearly violent crime is worse in the US, considerably so.
Let me finish by pointing out something else. If you take the total number of murders in the UK, and the total number of fatal shootings in the US, and compare them relative to population sizes: You are 3 times more likely to be shot dead in the US, than you are to be murdered by any means whatsoever in the UK.
The UK: “Violent crime contains a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Around a half of violent incidents identified by both BCS and police statistics involve no injury to the victim.” - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116417/hosb1011.pdf
The US: “In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.” - https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime
So, as you can see, the UK count crimes in which the victim is not harmed, as violent crime (things like pushing, shoving, slapping, etc). In fact, I have personally known a man who was convicted of assault, for knocking off a man's hat. As the statistics show, around half of people who are victims of "violent crime" in the UK, are not injured in any way. In America, such crimes usually come more under harassment, not violent crime.
So, if we apply the US definition of "violent crime" to the UK, we can safely half the number of violent crimes in the UK, seeing as half of violent crimes in the UK cause no injury to the victims.
The UK has roughly 900,000 incidents of violent crime per year, give or take, under the UK definition of "violent crime". If the US definition were applied, this number would be cut roughly in half. That's 450,000 incidents of violent crime under the US definition. While the US has, under its own definition, roughly 1,200,000 incidents of violent crime.
The US has a population of 318 million, which means that there is one incident of violent crime (under the US definition) for every 265 people. While the UK has a population of 64 million, which means that there is one incident of violent crime (under the US definition) for every 142 people.
If the US definition of violent crime were applied to the UK, the UK would have almost 50% less violent crime than the US.
As for the specific crimes (and we're going back now to using the relative definitions of the crimes in each country):
Robbery:
In the UK, there are 76,000 instances of robbery, while in the US, there are 360,000 instances. Relative to population sizes, you are just as likely to suffer robbery in the US, as in the UK.
Burglary:
In the UK, there are 260,000 burglaries, while in the US, there are 2.2 million. Relative to population sizes, you are 1.5 times more likely to suffer robbery in the US.
Murder:
In the UK, there are 640 murders, while in the US, there are 14,500 murders. Reative to population sizes, you are 4 times more likely to suffer murder in the US than the UK.
Knife crime:
In the UK, there are 33,000 knife crimes, while there are 750,000 knife crimes in the US. Relative to population sizes, you are 1.2 times as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK, than in the US.
Fatal shootings:
In the UK, there are 50 fatal shootings. In the US, there are 9,800 fatal shootings. relative to population, you are 35 times more likely to be shot dead in the US, than the UK.
Rape:
In the UK, there are 14,600 cases of rape. In the US, there are 83,500 cases of rape. You are very slightly more likely to be raped in the US, than the UK (not counting prison statistics. Male rape isn't really a thing in the UK. Prisoners often stab or beat male rapists in the UK, so it doesn't happen very often).
Grevious bodily harm and aggravated assault:
UK: 19,500. US: 750,000. Relative to population, you are 7 times as likely to be a victim of these crimes in the US.
Vehicle theft:
UK: 99,000. US: 715,000. You're slightly more likely to have your car stolen in the US.
So to summarize (and remember this is all proportional to population):
Robbery: Equally likely in either country.
Burglary: 1.5 times more likely in the US.
Murder: 4 times more likely in the US.
Knife crime: 1.2 times more likely in the UK.
Fatal shootings: 35 times more likely in the US.
Rape: Slightly more likely in the US.
GBH and aggravated assault:7 times more likely in the US.
Vehicle theft: Slightly more likely in the US.
Clearly violent crime is worse in the US, considerably so.
Let me finish by pointing out something else. If you take the total number of murders in the UK, and the total number of fatal shootings in the US, and compare them relative to population sizes: You are 3 times more likely to be shot dead in the US, than you are to be murdered by any means whatsoever in the UK.
If this is the case, then why do most convicted criminals in the US identify as Christians? If you look at the general population, and calculate the percentage of atheists, opposed to the percentage of Christians, then compare that with the percentage of the prison population who are atheist and Christian respectively, Christians are more than a hundred times more likely to be in prison than atheists are, yet atheists, as far as political identifcation goes, are far more likely to be socialists/left wing, than Christians are.
How does that fit into your "Christian values mean less crime/socialist, left wing, atheist ideals mean more crime" theory?
How does that fit into your "Christian values mean less crime/socialist, left wing, atheist ideals mean more crime" theory?
Last edited:
M
Most folks in the USA do come from a Christian family background...In a muslim country you might find the same things...in a buddist ..the same thing...so what point do you think that makes? And do you think it only normal that a person in trouble would want to identify themselves with a religion that has forgiveness as its main tenant?
I would remind you that the most murderous group ever on the face of this planet was a small atheist group called communism.
I would remind you that the most murderous group ever on the face of this planet was a small atheist group called communism.
Last edited by a moderator:
Most Americans are Christians, so most prisoners are Christians. That makes sense, obviously. My point is, it's hardly fair of anybody to say that atheism/socialist political views mean people are more likely to be criminal. If atheist values are make people more criminal, and Christian values make people less criminal (as AgeOfKnowledge says) then you'd expect that a society that is 75% Christian, and 1% atheist, would have a prison population with more than 1% atheists, and with less than 75% Christians. But that's not the case. 78% of the prison population identify as Christian, while only 0.01% identify as atheist.
As for communism, well, yes, Stalin and Lenin murdered millions under their Stalinist and Leninist regimes, but that doesn't automatically mean that people who are left wing or atheist are more criminal or murderous than those who are right wing. Murder crosses all political and religious boundaries. Every type of person (whether Leninist, Stalinist, atheist, Jew, Christian, left wing, right wing) is susceptible to violence or malice or anger.
There are staunchly non-violent, pacifist atheist socialists, and there are staunchly violent right wing Christians.
Look at some of the largest atrocities and wars in human history:
The Holocaust. the World Wars, pseudo-Communist Russia, the Amalekite/Midionite genocides, the Congo genocides, the Chinese genocides (of which there are many) Guam-Vietnam-Laos, the Iraq-Iran war, the genocides of the Persian Empire, the Crusades, the Native American genocide, the Hindu Kush massacre, the various Iranian, Afghan, Iraqi, Syrian, African, Indian (whatever) genocides that have happened throughout history, the current Third World financial situation.
These are committed directly indirectly, by proxy, by war, by decree (all kinds of motives) at the hands of Confucians, Communists, Christians, Feudalists, Jews, Muslims, secularists, Churches, Monarchies, common citizens, businessmen, politicians, revultionaries, whatever.
There is no uniting religious or political consensus among all these perpetrators. But there is a common factor; the will to kill, and people of every religious, political or social background or opinion, can have it.
As for communism, well, yes, Stalin and Lenin murdered millions under their Stalinist and Leninist regimes, but that doesn't automatically mean that people who are left wing or atheist are more criminal or murderous than those who are right wing. Murder crosses all political and religious boundaries. Every type of person (whether Leninist, Stalinist, atheist, Jew, Christian, left wing, right wing) is susceptible to violence or malice or anger.
There are staunchly non-violent, pacifist atheist socialists, and there are staunchly violent right wing Christians.
Look at some of the largest atrocities and wars in human history:
The Holocaust. the World Wars, pseudo-Communist Russia, the Amalekite/Midionite genocides, the Congo genocides, the Chinese genocides (of which there are many) Guam-Vietnam-Laos, the Iraq-Iran war, the genocides of the Persian Empire, the Crusades, the Native American genocide, the Hindu Kush massacre, the various Iranian, Afghan, Iraqi, Syrian, African, Indian (whatever) genocides that have happened throughout history, the current Third World financial situation.
These are committed directly indirectly, by proxy, by war, by decree (all kinds of motives) at the hands of Confucians, Communists, Christians, Feudalists, Jews, Muslims, secularists, Churches, Monarchies, common citizens, businessmen, politicians, revultionaries, whatever.
There is no uniting religious or political consensus among all these perpetrators. But there is a common factor; the will to kill, and people of every religious, political or social background or opinion, can have it.