University of Colorado allows students to carry guns

[P@triot]

Rottweiler -

I do not like in the UK, and am not English.

Let me explain here:

To compare the relaive merit of various gun laws, we have to look at how those gun laws in different countries to see how they work.

For instance - the US has 246 times more gun-related homocides than the UK.

That proves that the UK has more effective gun laws than the US does.

If you want to compare auto deaths in the same context to test the effectiveness of US road laws we can do that to.

No sensible person is ever going to test the use of US laws by comparing the US with itself - and the only reason you wish to do so is because you know the statistics prove you wrong.

You know it, I know it.

I thought this was about HUMAN LIFE?!?! Oh, I'm sorry, does HUMAN LIFE prove your irrational ideology WRONG?

The ONLY thing that matters is 10,000 more people die every year from automobiles than guns. Sad that you find those human lives worthless.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Huh? Are you serious? All this will do is make it more likely there will be another mass shooting!

Because there are already so many mass shootings where concealed carry is common.
:doh:

 

[Saigon]

I was comparing auto deaths in the US to gun deaths in the US. And how do you explain 10,000 more auto deaths in the US than gun deaths in the US with so many laws for automobiles?!?!?

Ok, fair enough.

I don't really get why anyone would want to compare cars with guns, but I'll humour you.

Do you have statistics on the number of cars in the US compared to the number of guns?

Also, can you explain why you think this is relevent to the discussion about gun laws?

 

[P@triot]

No they don't stupid.

Yes, they do, and the link has been provided.

When you are prepared to admit that, we can move on.

And yes, the efficiency of the engine does relate to the safety of the vehicle, which is why they are called Vehicle SAFETY inspections in many states.

LMAO! You are so desperate now, you're trying to claim that environmental check equate to saving lives from automobile deaths!!! LMAO!

Furthermore, even if you were right, that further proves how stupid you are because that's yet another "sensible" law that ends with 10,000 more people dead from auto's than from guns.

You lost. Get over it. I have owned you in this debate. There is nothing worse than a sore loser. Human lives are a lot more important than international ratios (unless you are an irrational anti-gun nut like Saigon).

 

[M14 Shooter]

No they don't stupid.

Yes, they do, and the link has been provided.

When you are prepared to admit that, we can move on.

And yes, the efficiency of the engine does relate to the safety of the vehicle, which is why they are called Vehicle SAFETY inspections in many states.

LMAO! You are so desperate now, you're trying to claim that environmental check equate to saving lives from automobile deaths!!! LMAO!

Furthermore, even if you were right, that further proves how stupid you are because that's yet another "sensible" law that ends with 10,000 more people dead from auto's than from guns.

You lost. Get over it. I have owned you in this debate. There is nothing worse than a sore loser. Human lives are a lot more important than international ratios (unless you are an irrational anti-gun nut like Saigon).

Have you figured out yet that Saigon is nothing more than a mindless partisan bogot?
Don't feed the trolls - they're wrong on purpose.

 

[P@triot]

I was comparing auto deaths in the US to gun deaths in the US. And how do you explain 10,000 more auto deaths in the US than gun deaths in the US with so many laws for automobiles?!?!?

Ok, fair enough.

I don't really get why anyone would want to compare cars with guns, but I'll humour you.

Do you have statistics on the number of cars in the US compared to the number of guns?

Because obviously if there are 20% more cars than guns, we might expect 20% more deaths, right?

Yes, but it doesn't matter. Again, you're focused on ratio's. I'm focused on HUMAN LIFE.

You're focuse on ratio's because you don't have a leg to stand on in this issue. You are crying about people dying from guns, but a LOT MORE people are dying from auto's

 

[Saigon]

I thought this was about HUMAN LIFE?!?! Oh, I'm sorry, does HUMAN LIFE prove your irrational ideology WRONG?

You see what I mean about sensible discussion being impossible?

Again:

The US has 246 times more gun-related homocides than the UK.

If 12,000 people die of gun-related homocides in the US and a few hundred die in the UK - that is about human life.

Please acknowledge this point.

 

[Saigon]

Rottweiler -

I'm focused on HUMAN LIFE.

Then why do you defend a system which cost 12,000 US lives per year?

 

[Full-Auto]

I thought this was about HUMAN LIFE?!?! Oh, I'm sorry, does HUMAN LIFE prove your irrational ideology WRONG?

You see what I mean about sensible discussion being impossible?

Again:

The US has 246 times more gun-related homocides than the UK.

If 12,000 people die of gun-related homocides in the US and a few hundred die in the UK - that is about human life.

Please acknowledge this point.

Why is your concern about senseless deaths confined to firearms?

It isnt the weapon that has taken the most human life.

 

[P@triot]

Ok, fair enough.

I don't really get why anyone would want to compare cars with guns, but I'll humour you.

Do you have statistics on the number of cars in the US compared to the number of guns?

Because obviously if there are 20% more cars than guns, we might expect 20% more deaths, right?

So by your own admission, your "international ratio context" argument is bullshit! Because, obviously, if the US has 20% more people, and 70% more gun ownership, we might expect 84% more deaths from guns, right?

This is why irrational, emotional women cannot debate. Because they use emotions instead of reason to discuss.

 

[P@triot]

Rottweiler -

I'm focused on HUMAN LIFE.

Then why do you defend a system which cost 12,000 US lives per year?

Why do YOU feed a system which costs 40,000 US lives per year?!?!?

Do you see how stupid you are now?!?!?

Can you do simple math? 40,000 vs 12,000.... mmmm????

 

[Saigon]

Rottweiler -

I think the entire analogy of cars is a diversion from getting away from discussing gun statistics.

Again - why do you support gun laws which cost 12,000 US lives a year, when sensible gun laws would reduce that by around 50 - 75%?

That is the topic of this thread, and the one thing you seem to want to avoid discussing. Your entire argument here seems to be that gun laws which could save 10,000 lives a year should not be discussed because people also die in car accidents....which is about as childish and disingenuous position as I can imagine.

Why not discuss gun laws?

So by your own admission, your "international ratio context" argument is bullshit!

No, it's essrntial to this debate, but I realise that you either could not understand it or could not discuss it. I don't know which. Again these are PER CAPITA statistics. If you do not know what that means, ask and I'll explain.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Rottweiler -

I'm focused on HUMAN LIFE.

Then why do you defend a system which cost 12,000 US lives per year?

How many people died unarmed under Hitlers system?

 

[P@triot]

Rottweiler -

I think the entire analogy of cars is a diversion from getting away from discussing gun statistics.

Again - why do you support gun laws which cost 12,000 US lives a year, when sensible gun laws would reduce that by around 50 - 75%?

That is the topic of this thread, and the one thing you seem to want to avoid discussing. Your entire argument here seems to be that gun laws which could save 10,000 lives a year should not be discussed because people also die in car accidents....which is about as childish and disingenuous position as I can imagine.

Why not discuss gun laws?

I think we see the problem here. You don't even know what the dicussion was about and your facts are a mess.

• First of all, gun LAWS don't cause any deaths. Criminals do
  
  
• Second, there are 31,000+ deaths per year as a result of fireams in the US, not 12,000. So once again we see a foreigner with no clue as to what goes on in the United States
  
  
• Third, you started the entire discussion by talking about banning guns. You've only recently switched your argument to "sensible gun laws" after I destroyed you in this debate.
  
  
• Fourth, part of that initial discussion was about the value of human lives over ideology. The fact is, more human lives are lost by automobiles than guns. THAT was the discussion - lives over ideology. Who is the one being "disingenious" here?!?
  
  
• Fifth, the only statistics that matter (I will say it again since you seem to struggle to keep up with what I say: THE ONLY STATISTICS THAT MATTER) is that crime rates for everything (assault, rape, homicide, robbery, etc.) goes way down where conceal carry and other pro-gun laws are in place, and crime rates are way up where guns are banned (such as schools, colleges, NY, Aurora, CO., etc.). There is nothing you can say that will cause us to give a fuck about England. We care about the US - and the official F.B.I. statistics prove that crime plummets where citizens are allowed to carry guns.
  
  
• Sixth, thos F.B.I. statistics proves that your irrational anti-gun stance is wrong.
  
  
• Seventh, and finally, if you cared about lives over ideology (where this entire conversation started), then you would be FAR more concerned about automobiles and their laws than guns. The fact that you don't, just shows that you don't care about human lives and your entire ideology is an irrational phobia over an inanimate object.

No, it's essrntial to this debate, but I realise that you either could not understand it or could not discuss it. I don't know which. Again these are PER CAPITA statistics. If you do not know what that means, ask and I'll explain.

First of all, "per capita" doesn't mean nearly as much as gun ownership. If we have a 1:1 "per capita", but 90% of American's own guns and 1% of Britain's do, are you going to get an accurate account?

Furthermore, and much more importantly, they don't apply because England is a drastically different nation than the United States. Just like Iraq is a drastically different nation from Australia. That's why you so desperately need to point to other nations in your anti-gun agenda.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Rottweiler -

I think the entire analogy of cars is a diversion from getting away from discussing gun statistics.

Again - why do you support gun laws which cost 12,000 US lives a year, when sensible gun laws would reduce that by around 50 - 75%?

That is the topic of this thread, and the one thing you seem to want to avoid discussing. Your entire argument here seems to be that gun laws which could save 10,000 lives a year should not be discussed because people also die in car accidents....which is about as childish and disingenuous position as I can imagine.

Why not discuss gun laws?

I think we see the problem here. You don't even know what the dicussion was about and your facts are a mess.

• First of all, gun LAWS don't cause any deaths. Criminals do
  
  
• Second, there are 31,000+ deaths per year as a result of fireams in the US, not 12,000. So once again we see a foreigner with no clue as to what goes on in the United States
  
  
• Third, you started the entire discussion by talking about banning guns. You've only recently switched your argument to "sensible gun laws" after I destroyed you in this debate.
  
  
• Fourth, part of that initial discussion was about the value of human lives over ideology. The fact is, more human lives are lost by automobiles than guns. THAT was the discussion - lives over ideology. Who is the one being "disingenious" here?!?
  
  
• Fifth, the only statistics that matter (I will say it again since you seem to struggle to keep up with what I say: THE ONLY STATISTICS THAT MATTER) is that crime rates for everything (assault, rape, homicide, robbery, etc.) goes way down where conceal carry and other pro-gun laws are in place, and crime rates are way up where guns are banned (such as schools, colleges, NY, Aurora, CO., etc.). There is nothing you can say that will cause us to give a fuck about England. We care about the US - and the official F.B.I. statistics prove that crime plummets where citizens are allowed to carry guns.
  
  
• Sixth, thos F.B.I. statistics proves that your irrational anti-gun stance is wrong.
  
  
• Seventh, and finally, if you cared about lives over ideology (where this entire conversation started), then you would be FAR more concerned about automobiles and their laws than guns. The fact that you don't, just shows that you don't care about human lives and your entire ideology is an irrational phobia over an inanimate object.

No, it's essrntial to this debate, but I realise that you either could not understand it or could not discuss it. I don't know which. Again these are PER CAPITA statistics. If you do not know what that means, ask and I'll explain.

First of all, "per capita" doesn't mean nearly as much as gun ownership. If we have a 1:1 "per capita", but 90% of American's own guns and 1% of Britain's do, are you going to get an accurate account?

Furthermore, and much more importantly, they don't apply because England is a drastically different nation than the United States. Just like Iraq is a drastically different nation from Australia. That's why you so desperately need to point to other nations in your anti-gun agenda.

He knows this but will do his normal ignore and redirect.

 

[tjvh]

occasional mandatory safety checks for all firearms? Are you advocating authorities entering our homes checking for compliance... Wow, that would be a snub of a bit more than the second amendment.
compulsory psychiatric evaluation for all gun owners? Evaluations conducted by whom... People that might have issues with gun ownership?
a compulsory "drivers license" for gun owners? Seeing as driving is not a Right, and it requires people to pay for that privilege I would suspect that your requirement would be Unconstitutional seeing as it clearly would be akin to something like a Poll Tax.

1) Do inspectors visit your home to inspect your car?

No, they don't. Please try and think things through before you post them, eh?

2) Psyche evaluations will become standard in the EU within 5 years, I believe, and will be conducted by police psychiatrists trained to conduct the 30 minute interviews.

Supports of gun owners right should absolutely support this - and in fact should be demanding it themselves. How many gangsters do you think will pass?!

3) If you pay for a drivers license, you can pay for a gun license.

1) Where would we haul all our firearms to get them inspected... A School gymnasium?
2) We don't live in the EU.
3) Guns are protected under a Constitutional Amendment... Cars are not.

 

[uscitizen]

Birth is the root cause of death.
Why do people keep having children knowing they will just die?

Actually, birth is not the "root cause" at all. Something will kill each of us some day, and not one autopsy and/or death certificate will cite "birth" as the cause.

Something kills you - and it is not birth. Age, heart attack, automobile accident, etc. But not birth.

See, unlike you irrational anti-gun nuts, I can verbalize exactly why an argument is "stupid". Your side just falsely claims that when they've been defeated in the debate and have no where left to go with their "argument".

All who are born will die.
All who are not born will not die.

 

[P@triot]

Birth is the root cause of death.
Why do people keep having children knowing they will just die?

Actually, birth is not the "root cause" at all. Something will kill each of us some day, and not one autopsy and/or death certificate will cite "birth" as the cause.

Something kills you - and it is not birth. Age, heart attack, automobile accident, etc. But not birth.

See, unlike you irrational anti-gun nuts, I can verbalize exactly why an argument is "stupid". Your side just falsely claims that when they've been defeated in the debate and have no where left to go with their "argument".

All who are born will die.
All who are not born will not die.

But it is not the cause of death. Never in the history of offical documentation has a death been attributed to "birth". Sorry, it's just a fact. I know you thought you were on to something clever there, but it falls short. Birth does not cause death.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, birth is not the "root cause" at all. Something will kill each of us some day, and not one autopsy and/or death certificate will cite "birth" as the cause.

Something kills you - and it is not birth. Age, heart attack, automobile accident, etc. But not birth.

See, unlike you irrational anti-gun nuts, I can verbalize exactly why an argument is "stupid". Your side just falsely claims that when they've been defeated in the debate and have no where left to go with their "argument".

All who are born will die.
All who are not born will not die.

But it is not the cause of death. Never in the history of offical documentation has a death been attributed to "birth". Sorry, it's just a fact. I know you thought you were on to something clever there, but it falls short. Birth does not cause death.

Aw, don't burst his bubble - its not very often he does something remotely clever.

Life is a precondition to death, not a cause.

 

[tjvh]

Rottweiler -

I think the entire analogy of cars is a diversion from getting away from discussing gun statistics.

Again - why do you support gun laws which cost 12,000 US lives a year, when sensible gun laws would reduce that by around 50 - 75%?

That is the topic of this thread, and the one thing you seem to want to avoid discussing. Your entire argument here seems to be that gun laws which could save 10,000 lives a year should not be discussed because people also die in car accidents....which is about as childish and disingenuous position as I can imagine.

Why not discuss gun laws?

So by your own admission, your "international ratio context" argument is bullshit!

No, it's essrntial to this debate, but I realise that you either could not understand it or could not discuss it. I don't know which. Again these are PER CAPITA statistics. If you do not know what that means, ask and I'll explain.

Gun Laws only control Law abiding citizens... Nobody has ever gotten killed by a Law abiding citizen... End of story.