-
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.
My argument was not that knife crime increases with the banning of guns, my sole point was that you should see if banning guns does indeed reduce killings. It is illogical to rely on shootings only. I made no argument that banning guns increases stabbings.
To put it another way, banning .45 caliber handguns will likely reduce shootings by .45 caliber handguns, but won't likely reduce the overall shooting rate. Therefore, I can't say my ban works unless fewer people are being killed.
Last edited:
D
doulos
Guest
And here we have another example of the anti gun folks hypocrisy.
"Jerome Hauer, a top aide to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, appears to have regularly carried a firearm to work in violation of state law............. Officials at the meeting said “that three Swedish emergency managers in the delegation were rattled when the gun’s laser tracked across one of their heads before Hauer found the map of New York, at which he wanted to point,” according to the Times Union.............State law, however, explicitly bans state workers from bringing guns to the workplace, which Hauer apparently did frequently. Reporters began asking questions about Hauer’s habit of carrying his gun to work, only to be stonewalled by the Cuomo administration
Read the entire article HERE
Why do people feel they are exempt from the laws they promote? Could it be that the hypocritical liberals who are trying to destroy our 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] amendment rights are doing so in an effort to disarm this country are doing so to pave the way for a tyrannical government?
"Jerome Hauer, a top aide to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, appears to have regularly carried a firearm to work in violation of state law............. Officials at the meeting said “that three Swedish emergency managers in the delegation were rattled when the gun’s laser tracked across one of their heads before Hauer found the map of New York, at which he wanted to point,” according to the Times Union.............State law, however, explicitly bans state workers from bringing guns to the workplace, which Hauer apparently did frequently. Reporters began asking questions about Hauer’s habit of carrying his gun to work, only to be stonewalled by the Cuomo administration
Read the entire article HERE
Why do people feel they are exempt from the laws they promote? Could it be that the hypocritical liberals who are trying to destroy our 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] amendment rights are doing so in an effort to disarm this country are doing so to pave the way for a tyrannical government?
And thank you liberals for that. We wouldn't have been able to see those figures if it weren't for your help in tying the hands of law-abiding citizens so they can't defend themselves against criminals who carry guns illegally onto school grounds and past gun-buster signs. Hell owes you a great debt of gratitude for all the people you've sent there.
The drive behind banning guns is one of suspicion and mistrust in the common man and therefore an attempt to control that man, thereby breeding hatred in all common men for their government.
Machiavelli said:
The problem is not with common men but with criminals. And if you want to take the weapons away from those who obey you, then those who do not obey you will continue to possess those weapons and hurt and kill those who obey you. This is the problem in America right now.
Last edited:
For a start, I'm from the UK, I don't vote, I can't vote in America, I live in Northern Ireland, and I haven't 'helped' anyone to be unable to defend themselves against people who carry guns into school grounds. People can't carry guns anywhere over here, much less school grounds. We don't have the issue of people going into schools and blasting their classmates to smithereens anymore. It just doesn't happen. Not after Dunblane.
That's likely because guns are illegal.
Your last line boggles my mind. I feel pity for you.
That last sentence (as well as most of that post) wasn't directed at or targeting you, Jhana, but at those in America who believe in limiting the access to firearms for law-abiding citizens and the deaths of many believers and unbelievers in America's public schools that have resulted. We all know where the believers go after death, and we all know where the unbelievers go. The above was just my attempt to put that into perspective.
We all don't know anything, since the afterlife is purely speculation. If believers go to hell, then you should be unsure whether you go there or not, since you're a believer, thus where you go is uncertain.
However, a holy man wouldn't run around with a gun, the same way Jesus wouldn't run around with a sword. That's my take.
K
kennethcadwell
Guest
Our Lord Jesus would not run around with a gun or sword, but He also tells us we have a right to defend ourselves. That is why He told his disciples to put away there swords in the Garden for they were not using it in defense but of anger. They came to arrest Jesus to fulfill prophecy, not to start a battle.
Right, but even towards enemies, was the saying not 'love your enemies, do good to those who mistreat you, pray for those who persecute you'.
Don't you think that denotes non-violence?
Jesus wouldn't run around with a sword, because he can walk on water. Ordinary men like David, however, were commanded by God to take up the sword and defend God's chosen People. I think we both believe in saving lives. We just have different ways to go about it. The preferable option is to run away. But if that doesn't work then I'd choose my life or the life of a family member over that of a murderer. And maybe your way suits your country for the time being. But I'm a little concerned when a powerful, warring nation starts taking an interest in disarming its citizens at the cost of freedom and lives.
Notice that the above mentions both freedom and security while supporting the right (not of the official military but of a citizen military - the militia) to own weapons (not just firearms but arms). I think if you're going to defend yourself and others the freedom to have the means to do so really helps. The above realizes that the life of a nation comes from its people and the people should therefore have the freedom to secure their interests.
My country (NI) isn't disarming its citizens at the cost of lives. Through disarming its citizens, it has reduced casualties, to a considerable degree.
I strongly disagree with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan (if that's what you are pointing out as being the war of this 'warring nation) as having ever been justified, thus I strongly believe that any consequences of such war are things that are simply cause and effect, and that America and the UK will have to deal with.
The US committed the most heinous international crime in invading Iraq and Afghanistan, by the laws of the Geneva convention, which my great-grandfather fought for in WW2. WW2 was a monstrosity, and these people fought for something worth fighting for. However, the UK entered this war, backing the US, and have contributed to this international crime, fighting a war with drones, jets, rockets, missiles and other weapons, against an unseen enemy of no particular nationality. A war in which more than 80% of the casualties are farmers and villagers, women and children.
If, however, you are referring to the 'Troubles', as what makes this country a 'warring nation', then I would like to inform you that they are officially over.
The point of the matter is, yes, the law affords you the right to freedom, and to a gun, and to the means to kill, should you wish to, but as followers of Jesus, if we are to truly emulate him, then we would not strike our enemies.
In saying that, I would find it morally conflicting not to protect my innocent child. I have empathy for the perceived need for guns in this respect. But I can tell you, that since the banning of guns, few, very few people here have needed such a means of defense.
Generally, people who enter your home won't be there to murder your children, only to steal your laptop and TV. Of course, there are exceptions, and I see the value in the point you make.
I suppose it is a matter of personal decisions. Personally, I feel that banning guns here has done far more good than harm.
Last edited:
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
And finally words. Now you can go to prison in the UK for nothing more than a one-liner joke that someone considers offensive. George Orwell.
The statistics for social media usage in the UK is very low compared to most other countries simply because the police come and conduct extensive interrogations for speech "crimes" and will put you in jail and fine you giving you a life long criminal record for nothing more than a Nelson Mandela joke.
Neil Phillips quizzed for 8 HOURS by police after Nelson Mandela Twitter jokes | Mail Online
I can only imagine what the liberal fascists have up their sleeve next. Thought crimes might be next. You can go to prison for thinking of something they don't want you to perhaps.
The statistics for social media usage in the UK is very low compared to most other countries simply because the police come and conduct extensive interrogations for speech "crimes" and will put you in jail and fine you giving you a life long criminal record for nothing more than a Nelson Mandela joke.
Neil Phillips quizzed for 8 HOURS by police after Nelson Mandela Twitter jokes | Mail Online
I can only imagine what the liberal fascists have up their sleeve next. Thought crimes might be next. You can go to prison for thinking of something they don't want you to perhaps.
K
kennethcadwell
Guest
Yes it does denote non-violence as the way we are suppose to live our lives, but He knows also that is not what ever one on earth believes in. So we are to show kindness to them, but if they threaten our lives we have the right to defend ourselves. That being said if some one throws you down on the ground and starts to beat the crap out of you would you not try to stop them ?
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
California finally woke up a little: Court overturns restrictions on concealed guns in much of California - latimes.com
Sorry about that last point of confusion. The powerful, warring nation I was speaking of was the United States. Americans are tired of war. But its politicians aren't. They just want to keep sending us overseas and sacrificing our lives for pointless wars. It's disgusting. We like to think that the world is civilized now. But the reality of it is that so much still pivots on the barrel of a gun. Our hope is that guns will be a deterrent on the national scale in the same way that nuclear weapons are on an international scale. No one in their right mind ever wants to use a weapon. But it's comforting to know it's there when you need it as a last resort. So in light of these comments I'd like to reiterate my point:
TheAristocat said:
A controlled population is easy to recruit by the droves and bend to your will to send against "enemy" nations. But if it is not disarmed then you must do it slowly and piece-by-piece, during which time Americans can act to stop the encroaching hand of the political elite who abuse their power.
Last edited:
K
kennethcadwell
Guest
Weapons have been around for ages, even the bible speaks of the Word of God as weapon against evil. Just cause you believe people should have the right to carry a gun does not mean you live by the gun. Or as bible put it back in that time Jesus said, " If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword." I for one think people should be able to carry, but i live for God.
K
kennethcadwell
Guest
Jesus did not fight back then cause scripture had to be fulfilled, but read revelations and you will see that He does fight back against Satan then to cast him and all evil into the lake of fire..
Another generalization of the entire world based on one incident. Can you say 'sensationalist'?
I've seen people writing things far worse than that, actually, people saying them on live TV, who haven't been interrogated. Perhaps you've never heard of 'Frankie Boyle'?
This is an instance of one over-zealous policeman, not an instance of an entire nation disallowing freedom of speech.
Before now, you stated that it was tyranny to disallow someone their moral freedoms not to condone illicit or immoral behavior. Wouldn't a complaint about an immoral joke on the topic of a man's death factor into the list of things that constitute a person's moral freedoms in your eyes?
Last edited: