Homosexuals Vs Muslims, Requiem

[SoS]

Say that to "Bat shit crazy paranoid" guy named Noah and his ark with a bunch of couple animal back in the Genesis flood. Maybe a big bad flood are just a myth.

 

Thanks for replying anyway, I've never get in any kind of argument like this.

I was just joking. But yeah, Noah and the flood is a myth.

 

It's the standard response to say that someone who believes the government would erode our rights is paranoid. The fringe of the NRA side make it too easy by talking about how they're going to be put on cattle cars and sent to FEMA detention centers. Suggesting armed conflict with the government isn't the best way to promote your cause to the center.

[WISD0MTREE]

It's the standard response to say that someone who believes the government would erode our rights is paranoid. The fringe of the NRA side make it too easy by talking about how they're going to be put on cattle cars and sent to FEMA detention centers. Suggesting armed conflict with the government isn't the best way to promote your cause to the center.

Paranoid? 3rd time posting this ITT. 5th time on all of PaW's forums. 

 

Just so we are clear, you are talking about the same government that banned personal possession of more than 5 ounces of gold, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

Just like everything else, I posted this earlier ITT

 

I don't believe in the NWO conspiracies or stuff like that, like most gun owners. (Unless you think over half of America believes in it.) However, an armed uprising today would likely be able to remove the government. (This taken from another PaW thread)

 

Let's assume that 10% of all armed Americans revolt. Realistically, I think it would be a shit ton more, but 10% is a nice, even, generous number. That gives us 

1.5 million military personnel (They could most likely smuggle some shit off of base. Also, most military personnel tend to not be anti-gun pacifists from California, so this would likely be higher.) 

13.5 million militia members (including ex-military and combat veterans) 

About 3.5 million homes that could be used as safe houses

Assuming that everyone gave $750 a year (which would be more, since "muh old white male republicans"), then that would be about $11,250,000,000 a year (about the size of Spain's spending; way more than Saudi Arabia and North Korea)

Assuming that 1 in 5 vehicles (of the militia members, obviously) would be used for militia purposes, there would be about 2.4 million vehicles

At least 15 million guns, but tons of people have collections (could be anywhere up to 90,000,000 and non-militant gun owners could have "tragic boating accidents" and "not hand guns to militia members")

We would have aircraft (I can't find any FAA numbers. Almost all of their links are 404ing for me. I saw someplace that said there were about 100,000 private A/C in the USA, but it wasn't credible. If it was, then that would be around 10,000 aircraft. ) 

Assuming that there are 250 rounds per weapon, then that could be anywhere from 15 billion to 90 billion rounds 

To add to that, jets can't enforce curfews, anti-protest laws, etc. in urban areas. Jets can't kick doors to take up guns. You need police or troops to do that. Lots of police won't risk their life to pick up weapons on $50,000 a year. In addition, foreign nations could give SAM launchers or MANPADS to shoot down planes. Or we could, you know, blow up their fuel tanks on the ground, destroy vital infrastructure that keeps them connected, or kill their pilots. 

 

We, as a nation, are sitting on a castle of cards. There are tons of internal problems that could have a ripple effect. How many of us could survive without PaW? 4chan? Tumblr? Reddit? The dark net? TV? If something dramatic were to happen to the power grid, the cities would be in complete anarchy. That is an additional front for the NG/military/police. Plus, the US government could use sites or TV stations for propaganda. Losing power would mean losing a valuable propaganda machine. Prison-breaks? Imagine a small number of prisoners taking this chance to be free. We do have a pretty decent number of prisoners. Farms? Cities son't produce as much food as rural areas. Guess who supports gun control? Mostly cities. I'm NOT saying that the government loyal side would starve, but their price of food would probably skyrocket. The government's logistics would also be a big problem. Many of the states with natural boundaries are red states. Think about the Mississippi River, the Rocky Mountains, the Missouri River, etc. It would be hard to get supplies across to, let's say, Denver if the supply trucks had a limited number of routes that were armed with rebels. Outside influences? Wouldn't countries that hate the good old USA aid the militias with training and weapons? Wouldn't terrorists love the police to be in anarchy to carry out terroristy-things? 

 

tl;dr: The US government would be absolutely !@#$ed over by any armed uprising. 

[Mutsuo Toi]

I was just joking. But yeah, Noah and the flood is a myth.

 

It's the standard response to say that someone who believes the government would erode our rights is paranoid. The fringe of the NRA side make it too easy by talking about how they're going to be put on cattle cars and sent to FEMA detention centers. Suggesting armed conflict with the government isn't the best way to promote your cause to the center.

 

  I don't care about myth or not, but the people have a right to be paranoid. What do you wanted to be expect when everyday around a world is a whole complexity of madness? You said gun control will help but back in Paris ISIS commit terrorism where there is no single gun were used (You already heard the news right?, Even PnW made a goddamned ceremony about it!). How the hell you could that is won't be happened? When there's a school shooting kid armed to teeth trying to get his !@#$ing high score what are you going to do? Use a stick? Negotiate him? or you just gonna lie to your children that nothing bad will happen.

 

 Let just say that myth is our lesson and we gonna learn it no matter how it was real or not, because the "Global flood" is already happening in the news, your phone, your computer screen, even a forum you wasting just like us looking at it.

[Moreau]

Homosexuality is a sin yes.

However if one has committed such a disgusting act he must repent.

If he is caught by four trustworthy people he will either be executed or receive 100 lashes depending on his martial status and may only get married to another sexual offender.

In Islam one does not confess to the people but rather he repents to Allah

 

No lashes for Sodomites: They are to be executed regardless of martial status and 4 witness are not needed if they confess to their crime.

 

If nobody knows about their crime then they don't need to come forward to be executed but repent & never do it again. If caught they will surely be put to death.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Moreau III

[Peter Quill]

Since when did General Discussion turn into General Debate?

[WISD0MTREE]

Since when did General Discussion turn into General Debate?

Since people put blatantly wrong posts in the discussion area. 

[Aisha Greyjoy]

 

...

Let's assume that 10% of all armed Americans revolt. 

...

 

Passively supporting someone who supports terror groups is uncalled for, mate. 

 

Isn't there like a whole right-wing movement devoted to the notion that 3% will resist?

 

And I don't want to kill someone because they type stuff I disagree with on the internet.  Do you really feel differently?  If so, its possible that we hold different opinions about the importance of the 1st amendment as well as the 6th commandment.

[WISD0MTREE]

Isn't there like a whole right-wing movement devoted to the notion that 3% will resist?

 

And I don't want to kill someone because they type stuff I disagree with on the internet.  Do you really feel differently?  If so, its possible that we hold different opinions about the importance of the 1st amendment as well as the 6th commandment.

No idea what you are talking about. Even if you found some numbers, I'm sure that lots of people say that they won't revolt because they would like to fly.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLA_Unit_61398

It depends on what you type. There is no one size fits all approach. If you disagreed with me, then we would just disagree. If you want to travel to the region where a terror group exists that you have openly supported, then that's something else. I don't want to go to London and kill him, but if he is going to a terror organization who kills thousands of people, then I wouldn't miss him. I really don't mind him saying he is Islamic or supports ISIS because most people who say that just feel like outcasts. See people who like the USSR or Rhodesia nowadays. They probably wouldn't like to have actually lived there, but they like their culture better than where they live. Hell, I just moved from TX to NC and I feel like a fish out of water. Everyone here wants to go to Bojangles and they wear pastel colored pants from some whale company. (EDIT: I mean their logo is a whale.) I say I hate it here and I hate most people here, but I don't want to go to a foreign country to fight against the people here. 

 

As for the 6th, see Luke 22. Jesus said: “But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one.†(At the Last Supper) Christ himself told his apostle when they went out to witness for him to arm themselves lest they be at the mercy of those who would harm them. As I said before, I don't want to kill him in London, but killing him when he is a member of a group killing Christians, Jews, and other Muslim sects would be defense. 

[SoS]

He's just an ignorant kid, so let's just not talk about killing him under any circumstances.

[WISD0MTREE]

He's just an ignorant kid, so let's just not talk about killing him under any circumstances.

under any circumstances.

If I was in London and saw him shitposting on PaW in a bus with a bomb vest on, then... Well, probably not in London because it would be a hate crime even when he had a bomb vest.

[SoS]

Well, at least he's banned from guns there

[WISD0MTREE]

Well, at least he's banned from guns there

Like how you were banned from talking during class in school?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3644847/Woman-MP-Jo-Cox-stabbed-shot-twice-man-makeshift-gun.html

Earlier TODAY, by the way.

 

British MP shot.

Edited June 16, 2016 by WISD0MTREE

[SoS]

The numbers show the rule works there, so I don't see the wisdom in citing the exception.

[WISD0MTREE]

The numbers show the rule works there, so I don't see the wisdom in citing the exception.

Those are such great numbers you just posted. I'll have to take a while to look at them. /sarcasm

 

Here, let me get the ball rolling. Sources in each pic. 

 

 

And actually that MP that was shot was a Labor Party member. Orwell was an Independent Labor Party member before it merged with the current Labor Party. Have a nice quote from him. 

[SoS]

Gun deaths in UK were 0.23/100k compared to 10.56/100k in US in 2011.

[Mutsuo Toi]

Gun deaths in UK were 0.23/100k compared to 10.56/100k in US in 2011. (Sources????)

 

[WISD0MTREE]

Gun deaths in UK were 0.23/100k compared to 10.56/100k in US in 2011.

Nice sources. Although, that's not the whole picture. Not only will criminals find other ways to murder people, guns also deter criminals from committing crimes. 

 

According to the United Nations, the U.K. is 4th in the world in total crimes per capita, whereas the U.S. is only 22nd. Source

 

European nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. For example, Russia, where only 3 in 100 people own a gun, has a murder rate of about 20 people per 100,000, whereas Finland, where 39 in 100 own guns, has a murder rate of only 2 per 100,000. Source

 

Despite having a very high rate of private gun ownership, Switzerland has very little gun violence. Swiss gun homicides stood at 0.2389 per 100,000 residents in 2010 despite the fact that they are third in the world in terms of numbers of firearms owned by private individuals. This figure is among the lowest in the world. It has less to do with the availability of the guns and more to do with the culture and values of the people using them. Source

 

Some places in the U.S. have even stricter gun regulations than Europe. Take New Jersey, for example. In New Jersey, you need to submit a form for a FID (Firearms Identification Card). To do this you have to answer a bunch of questions, supply three references, specify as to where you work, your home address and phone number. There is also a form called "consent to mental health check." This is a check to ensure have never been on any psychiatric drugs. The local police in your township will call your boss, as well as two people for references (form sts-033). Roughly 80% of townships require an interview with a police officer. The police officer is there to judge you and will deny you at that stage. If they trust you, you have to give fingerprints. They run three state as well as federal background checks. If you are able to pass you can now purchase a BB gun, muzzle-loader long arm, approved shotguns and rifles. Yes, that’s right you need a FID for a Red Ryder BB gun in New Jersey. Now, there hasn't been a single town in New Jersey where the FID has been approved in less than three months for 20 or so years (Source). So if you want a BB gun rifle the general wait is 6-8 months, even though it is explicitly stated in NJ law it can not take more than 30 days. Now say you want a handgun. It is the same exact process over again, and you can apply for three at a time. However, there is a one firearm per month law in NJ, and NJ is notorious for letting people who apply for pistols stamps know they have them late. In New Jersey hunting with a rifle is illegal. Sling-shots are prohibited weapons. When you have a firearm in NJ you can transport it to up to four places, your work, the range, your home, the gun shop, and where you are “known to hunt.†Any deviation is a minimum of 5 years in jail. These are stricter laws than are found in Switzerland and Germany.

 

Really, in the end, it comes down to this. 

Do you want to emulate a country where the only legal form of self-defense is a rape whistle? https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm

Do you want to emulate a country where you have to be 18 to buy kitchen knives? https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BytBNt7_gHw4Q1NxcW5BREM3ekU/view?usp=sharing

[SoS]

Obviously, you have access to the same stats I do.

 

Crime rates and gun violence rates are apples and oranges. You cited cultural differences yourself, so you can't claim any kind of causation. Japan has the absolute strictest gun regulations. And they have easily the lowest gun death rates in the world (2-3 per year). And, from your own sorce above, among the lowest crime rates in the developed world.

 

How many attempted rapes do you suppose are thwarted by armed women? That would be an interesting stat. The best I can find is that someone with an agenda imagines there are 1.2 million rapes per year and further imagine that 3600 rapes are never attempted due to the would be (not rapist) fearing that the woman may be armed. All dreamed up numbers. Factual numbers are that women who own guns are 3x more likely to be murdered. And, most rapes are commited by someone they know, in such a manner that the victim probably wouldn't use a gun against. But, that and the whole thing is speculation.

Edited June 17, 2016 by SoS

[WISD0MTREE]

Obviously, you have access to the same stats I do.

 

Crime rates and gun violence rates are apples and oranges. You cited cultural differences yourself, so you can't claim any kind of causation. Japan has the absolute strictest gun regulations. And they have easily the lowest gun death rates in the world (2-3 per year). And, from your own sorce above, among the lowest crime rates in the developed world.

 

How many attempted rapes do you suppose are thwarted by armed women? That would be an interesting stat. The best I can find is that someone with an agenda imagines there are 1.2 million rapes per year and further imagine that 3600 rapes are never attempted due to the would be (not rapist) fearing that the woman may be armed. All dreamed up numbers. Factual numbers are that women who own guns are 3x more likely to be murdered. And, most rapes are commited by someone they know, in such a manner that the victim probably wouldn't use a gun against. But, that and the whole thing is speculation.

Yes I do. And I am posting them here for easy access, while you aren't even saying where you are pulling any numbers from. Hell, you aren't even pulling numbers. 

 

Which one showed that it had one of the lowest crime rates? I must have missed that one. Please copy/paste it or tell me which number. 

And for the crime rate, guns can act as a deterrence. I have my M1A with a bayonet sitting next to me right now, in my home, in a state with a Castle Doctrine. Knowing that, would you break in? 

 

Regardless of how far you think humans have evolved or how enlightened/non-violent we have become compared to our ancestors from thousands of years ago, human beings operate on two very different, but basic modes:

1. by reason

2. by force.

If someone wants something which belongs to you and they try giving you a list of reasons why they deserve it or why you should give it to them, you have a choice of saying yes or no.

If someone wants something which belongs to you and they want to take it by force, the only way you that you can say “no†is through force. You cannot use reason to deal with force. You cannot use reason to persuade an irrational person. If they are armed and you are not, then you are at a severe disadvantage. However, if you are armed too, you have a chance to stop them.

If an assailant is a 200+ pound male trying to rape or kill a 100 pound female, being armed gives the female a way to equalize the disparity in the level of force being used against her. Guns are the great equalizer. One could argue that gun rights is a women’s rights and safety issue given the frequency of how often women are raped in the US (the statistic is one woman raped every 2 minutes according to the CDC). I have a cousin and I would want her to be able to protect themselves against rape and murder by a large male assailant. She is in college now and went to a private school growing up. In the last year, she was shocked that people actually did drugs, drank alcohol, etc. She even tried to take a babysitting job off of Craigslist. 

Bottom line, is here's what most people don't understand. You can use reason to deal with reason. Force always trumps reason. Reason never trumps force, ever. 

[SoS]

The first link you posted

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000

 

Japan was in there too and they have like no guns and low crime rates and nearly zero gun homocides.

[Mutsuo Toi]

The first link you posted

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000

 

Japan was in there too and they have like no guns and low crime rates and nearly zero gun homocides.

 

I wish I could talk about racial crimes in here but no.... I can't allow myself to talk like this culturally enriched forum..

[WISD0MTREE]

The first link you posted

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000

 

Japan was in there too and they have like no guns and low crime rates and nearly zero gun homocides.

It doesn't matter how someone is killed. If I stab you or if I shoot you and you die, then you are dead. 

 

Go check out Japan and South Korea’s suicide rates. They are astronomically higher than ours. No guns needed. If you'd like to exclude Asians, fine. Go look at the U.K. Their suicide rate is 50% higher than ours. Through this same logic, guns won't affect 60% of gun related deaths in the US. 

[SoS]

Yeah but, the topic is gun violence. And, gun homocides account for more homicides in the US than all other methods combined.

 

Source: Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for the United States, 1997, 2007 and 2008; Crime in the United States 2011, 2012.

[WISD0MTREE]

Yeah but, the topic is gun violence.

 

And, gun homocides account for more homicides in the US than all other methods combined.

 

Source: Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for the United States, 1997, 2007 and 2008; Crime in the United States 2011, 2012.

No. The topic is gun control. That would be like saying "The topic is building a wall between Mexico stopping illegal immigrants" and not discussing the political side (ie. Mexico hating us). 

 

Which makes sense because you can get guns here easier than other places. Britain banned guns from practical use and their homicide rate didn't go down. Their firearm homicide rate went up, despite an increase in police officers. 

 

 

 

Same for Ireland and Jamaica. 

 

 

And after DC and Chicago implemented more restrictions on guns, guess what? 

 

 

Source: http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

[Aisha Greyjoy]

Gun control?  I thought we were talking about which special interest group liberals prioritize?  Gay muslims or gays of an undetermined religion?