University of Colorado allows students to carry guns

[uscitizen]

Over 100 people die per day from car accidents
Over 40,000 people die per year from car accidents

Car Crashes Kill 40,000 in U.S. Every Year | Fox News

Over 31,000 people die per year from shootings

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence : Gun Violence

So why aren't Saigon, Mr. Grumpy, and Jillian calling for automobiles to be banned? Nearly 10,000 people more die every year from cars than from guns (an astounding 33% rounded).

This proves once and for all that these people do not give a damn about human life. It is all about a completely emotional, irrational fear of an inanimate object.

If this had anything to do with human life on any level, than they would be rioting in the streets first and foremost over stopping the production, sales, and use of automobiles.

Furthermore, unlike Saigon's apples to oranges comparison of America gun deaths vs another nations gun deaths, this is American deaths (auto) vs American deaths (guns) - a completely apples to apples comparison.

So come on idiot liberal Dumbocrats - where is the outrage at automobiles and the automobile industry?!?!

Why do you gun nuts keep presenting this stupid argument?

Because they are told to?

 

[uscitizen]

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

 

[Saigon]

Over 100 people die per day from car accidents
Over 40,000 people die per year from car accidents

Why do you gun nuts keep presenting this stupid argument?

That's a very good question...I have wondered the same thing.

But at times I think this debate is so deeply partisan that people will present arguments they would consider embarassingly silly in any other context.

The alternative is to face facts that simply can not and will not be faced.

 

[P@triot]

Over 100 people die per day from car accidents
Over 40,000 people die per year from car accidents

Car Crashes Kill 40,000 in U.S. Every Year | Fox News

Over 31,000 people die per year from shootings

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence : Gun Violence

So why aren't Saigon, Mr. Grumpy, and Jillian calling for automobiles to be banned? Nearly 10,000 people more die every year from cars than from guns (an astounding 33% rounded).

This proves once and for all that these people do not give a damn about human life. It is all about a completely emotional, irrational fear of an inanimate object.

If this had anything to do with human life on any level, than they would be rioting in the streets first and foremost over stopping the production, sales, and use of automobiles.

Furthermore, unlike Saigon's apples to oranges comparison of America gun deaths vs another nations gun deaths, this is American deaths (auto) vs American deaths (guns) - a completely apples to apples comparison.

So come on idiot liberal Dumbocrats - where is the outrage at automobiles and the automobile industry?!?!

Why do you gun nuts keep presenting this stupid argument?

What is "stupid" about it? The fact that it exposes you anti-gun nuts for the irrational idiots that you are? The fact that you couldn't even verbalize why the point is "stupid" says it all....

 

[tjvh]

Over 100 people die per day from car accidents
Over 40,000 people die per year from car accidents

Why do you gun nuts keep presenting this stupid argument?

That's a very good question...I have wondered the same thing.

But at times I think this debate is so deeply partisan that people will present arguments they would consider embarassingly silly in any other context.

The alternative is to face facts that simply can not and will not be faced.

Partisan because an Administration has been attacking our Freedoms... [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUMK9fCBJJw&feature=player_detailpage]Holder Says People Need to be Brainwashed - YouTube[/ame]

 

[P@triot]

Rottweiler -

I see you are reduce to repeating the same bewildering claims you made a week ago.

Again - we have laws for the use of cars. We have drivers licenses, some kind of Warrant of Fitness test for the car, we have compulsory seat belts and so forth. We also have speeding tickets and traffic police.

This is very much what sensible gun laws might deliver.

YOU claimed that ideology was less important than human life - and yet here you are, common after comment after comment, where you argue against lawmakers protecting human life.

Either be honest about that, or start posting comments which suggest human life is important to you.

• First of all, YOU are the one clearly illustrating that you value ideology over life. There are more deaths every year from automobile than guns. So if this is about saving lives, then your #1 focus should be banning automobiles. The fact that it's not just shows that you have an irrational agenda.
  
  
• Second, the fact that you pointed out all of these laws, features, licenses, enforcements, etc. and there are still more deaths from automobiles just SCREAMS how exponentially more dangerous automobiles are!!! You are defeating yourself with your own stupid argument.
  
  
• Third, you continue to illustrate your complete ignorance on this topic (and thus your irrational anti-gun ideology). We have gun laws stupid!!! When I purchased a firearm, I first had to be cleared by the F.B.I. each and every time. Do you understand that? The F.B.I. The nations highest law enforcement arm - the most well funded. Next, for my LICENSE to carry (that's right - LICENSE), I had to do classroom work and pass a written exam. And finally, for my LICENSE, I had to pass a shooting test on a firing range.

Bottom line, more people die from automobiles and you don't care about that. Which means, you could care less about human life. You just have an irrational fear of an inanimate object due to a lack of knowledge about the subject.

 

[P@triot]

Why do you gun nuts keep presenting this stupid argument?

Because they are told to?

What is "stupid" about it? The fact that it exposes you anti-gun nuts for the irrational idiots that you are? The fact that you couldn't even verbalize why the point is "stupid" says it all....

 

[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".

 

[Saigon]

Rottweiler -

Please try and respond to what is posted sensibly. I sense sometimes you are just flailing away without really thinking the arguments through. No one is denying that cars are dangerous - hence endllessly repeating it is what is causing people to start laughing at you.

1) If we have drivers licenses, compulsory seat belts, mandatory Warrant of Fitness tests and random breath testing or automobiles drivers - do you oppose gun laws which operate on the same principle (i.e. public safety)?

2) Do you understand that cars and swimming pools are designed and intended to serve a legitimate purpose in our societies which is entirely separate from the danger they pose - whereas guns are designed and intended for use solely as a means of killing?

 

[P@triot]

Rottweiler -

Please try and respond to what is posted sensibly. I sense sometimes you are just flailing away without really thinking the arguments through. No one is denying that cars are dangerous - hence endllessly repeating it is what is causing people to start laughing at you.

1) If we have drivers licenses, compulsory seat belts, mandatory Warrant of Fitness tests and random breath testing or automobiles drivers - do you oppose gun laws which operate on the same principle (i.e. public safety)?

2) Do you understand that cars and swimming pools are designed and intended to serve a legitimate purpose in our societies which is entirely separate from the danger they pose - whereas guns are designed and intended for use solely as a means of killing?

I've addressed each and every one of your questions and/or points thoroughly, while you continue to avoid mine (which pretty much shows who is right here). It's your turn now:

• First, there are more deaths every year from automobile than guns. So if this is about saving lives, then your #1 focus should be banning automobiles. Why do you not care about more people dying from autmobiles?
  
  
• Second, the fact that you pointed out all of these laws, features, licenses, enforcements, etc. and there are still more deaths from automobiles just SCREAMS how exponentially more dangerous automobiles are!!! You are defeating yourself with your own argument.
  
  
• Third, we have gun laws. When I purchased a firearm, I first had to be cleared by the F.B.I. each and every time. Do you understand that? The F.B.I. The nations highest law enforcement arm - the most well funded. Next, for my LICENSE to carry (that's right - LICENSE), I had to do classroom work and pass a written exam. And finally, for my LICENSE, I had to pass a shooting test on a firing range.

 

[P@triot]

Rottweiler -

Please try and respond to what is posted sensibly. I sense sometimes you are just flailing away without really thinking the arguments through. No one is denying that cars are dangerous - hence endllessly repeating it is what is causing people to start laughing at you.

1) If we have drivers licenses, compulsory seat belts, mandatory Warrant of Fitness tests and random breath testing or automobiles drivers - do you oppose gun laws which operate on the same principle (i.e. public safety)?

No, I support that 100% and we already have those laws as I've illustrated in my third bullet point several times already.

2) Do you understand that cars and swimming pools are designed and intended to serve a legitimate purpose in our societies which is entirely separate from the danger they pose - whereas guns are designed and intended for use solely as a means of killing?

First, who cares about the "purpose" if it is killing people? I thought the point was about human life, not "purpose"? Second, do you know how many hazardous materials have been outlawed because they killed people, even though they were intended to serve a "purpose"? Third, if guns were created just to kill people, why does law enforcement carry them? Does law enforcement exist just to kill people???

 

[Saigon]

Rottweiler -

You just seem to keep presenting the same tired old points which you must realise yourself are slightly embarassing.

The reason I do not answer some of your points is because you could answer them yourself.

I'll pick out a couple of your "better" ones:

First, there are more deaths every year from automobile than guns. So if this is about saving lives, then your #1 focus should be banning automobiles. Why do you not care about more people dying from autmobiles?

As I have said several times on this thread - we do have sensible laws for the use of cars. We need those laws, and I support them. (Do we need more? Possibly, but I'll leave that for others to comment on as I use public transport!)

I support laws of a similar nature for the use of guns. For instance:

- a minimum age of perhaps 18
- a compulsory "drivers license" for gun owners
- occasional mandatory safety checks for all firearms

The key law would be:

- compulsory psychiatric evaluation for all gun owners when the licence is issued
- a license system tagged to each weapon, so that police can link any weapon to the legal owner

Would you support those?

Third, we have gun laws. When I purchased a firearm, I first had to be cleared by the F.B.I. each and every time. Do you understand that? The F.B.I. The nations highest law enforcement arm - the most well funded. Next, for my LICENSE to carry (that's right - LICENSE), I had to do classroom work and pass a written exam. And finally, for my LICENSE, I had to pass a shooting test on a firing range.

As you know - the US has 246 times more gun-related homocides than the UK. This suggests that the US are currently woefully inadequate and need to be urgently updated.

Also, current US laws do not place enough emphasis on the rights of potential victims, but tend to be based purely and simply on the rights of owners. This is inadequate - and the stats prove the end result.

I understand that you accept the current laws, but as current laws have resulted in a homocide rate 5 times that of any other civilised nation (while the rate of auto death in the US per vehicle is at most 1.5 times that of other nations) then logically you must support more effective gun laws.

 

[tjvh]

Rottweiler -

You just seem to keep presenting the same tired old points which you must realise yourself are slightly embarassing.

The reason I do not answer some of your points is because you could answer them yourself.

I'll pick out a couple of your "better" ones:

First, there are more deaths every year from automobile than guns. So if this is about saving lives, then your #1 focus should be banning automobiles. Why do you not care about more people dying from autmobiles?

As I have said several times on this thread - we do have sensible laws for the use of cars. We need those laws, and I support them. (Do we need more? Possibly, but I'll leave that for others to comment on as I use public transport!)

I support laws of a similar nature for the use of guns. For instance:

- a minimum age of perhaps 18
- a compulsory "drivers license" for gun owners
- occasional mandatory safety checks for all firearms

The key law would be:

- compulsory psychiatric evaluation for all gun owners when the licence is issued
- a license system tagged to each weapon, so that police can link any weapon to the legal owner

Would you support those?

Third, we have gun laws. When I purchased a firearm, I first had to be cleared by the F.B.I. each and every time. Do you understand that? The F.B.I. The nations highest law enforcement arm - the most well funded. Next, for my LICENSE to carry (that's right - LICENSE), I had to do classroom work and pass a written exam. And finally, for my LICENSE, I had to pass a shooting test on a firing range.

As you know - the US has 246 times more gun-related homocides than the UK.

This suggests that the US are currently woefully inadequate and need to be urgently updated.

Also, current US laws do not place enough emphasis on the rights of potential victims, but tend to be based purely and simply on the rights of owners. This is inadequate - and the stats prove the end result.

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.

 

[Saigon]

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.

 

[NoNukes]

Over 100 people die per day from car accidents
Over 40,000 people die per year from car accidents

Car Crashes Kill 40,000 in U.S. Every Year | Fox News

Over 31,000 people die per year from shootings

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence : Gun Violence

So why aren't Saigon, Mr. Grumpy, and Jillian calling for automobiles to be banned? Nearly 10,000 people more die every year from cars than from guns (an astounding 33% rounded).

This proves once and for all that these people do not give a damn about human life. It is all about a completely emotional, irrational fear of an inanimate object.

If this had anything to do with human life on any level, than they would be rioting in the streets first and foremost over stopping the production, sales, and use of automobiles.

Furthermore, unlike Saigon's apples to oranges comparison of America gun deaths vs another nations gun deaths, this is American deaths (auto) vs American deaths (guns) - a completely apples to apples comparison.

So come on idiot liberal Dumbocrats - where is the outrage at automobiles and the automobile industry?!?!

Why do you gun nuts keep presenting this stupid argument?

What is "stupid" about it? The fact that it exposes you anti-gun nuts for the irrational idiots that you are? The fact that you couldn't even verbalize why the point is "stupid" says it all....

Cars are necessary in our lives as a source of transportation. Guns are not necessary.

 

[OODA_Loop]

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?!

What question and expected answer do you think will omit "gansters" ?

 

[Saigon]

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?!

What question and expected answer do you think will omit "gansters" ?

You do understand the words "psychological evaluation", right?

Do you think any sane psychologist is going to pass someone who seems to be a crack-snorting paranoid scizophrenic?

 

[OODA_Loop]

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?!

What question and expected answer do you think will omit "gansters" ?

You do understand the words "psychological evaluation", right?

Do you think any sane psychologist is going to pass someone who seems to be a crack-snorting paranoid scizophrenic?

Gansters do not always present as crack-snorting paranoid scizophrenics

 

[Montrovant]

What question and expected answer do you think will omit "gansters" ?

You do understand the words "psychological evaluation", right?

Do you think any sane psychologist is going to pass someone who seems to be a crack-snorting paranoid scizophrenic?

Gansters do not always present as crack-snorting paranoid scizophrenics

I doubt the majority of criminals would be kept from purchasing guns because of a 30 minute interview. It's a strange impression to think that there are a bunch of these crack-snorting paranoid schizophrenics running around buying bunches of guns, and doing it legally.

 

[P@triot]

Rottweiler -

You just seem to keep presenting the same tired old points which you must realise yourself are slightly embarassing.

Yes, I keep presenting the same old points that bury you, and which, you are incapable of responding to because they prove what an irrational anti-gun nut you are.

The reason I do not answer some of your points is because you could answer them yourself.

I'm asking you to answer them. And you can't...

As I have said several times on this thread - we do have sensible laws for the use of cars. We need those laws, and I support them. (Do we need more? Possibly, but I'll leave that for others to comment on as I use public transport!)

Please answer the following questions (if you can):

• So what you're saying is, you don't care about human life? You don't care how many people die, so long as there are "sensible laws" in place?!?! You can't answer the question, you just keep listing laws for automobiles. But people are DYING - who cares about laws?!?! People are D-Y-I-N-G. Cleary human life means nothing to you.
  
  
• And how "sensible" are these laws if people keep dying?
  
  
• If 10,000 more people per year die from automobiles, why aren't you spearheading an effort to ban all automobiles? That is a HUGE number. If you can't answer this (and you can't, all you do is avoid the question by listing laws for automobiles - laws that clearly aren't preventing deaths), then it clearly illustrates this is just about an irrational prejudice against an inanimate object (one that should be focused on automobiles based on numbers).

I support laws of a similar nature for the use of guns. For instance:

- a minimum age of perhaps 18
- a compulsory "drivers license" for gun owners
- occasional mandatory safety checks for all firearms

The key law would be:

- compulsory psychiatric evaluation for all gun owners when the licence is issued
- a license system tagged to each weapon, so that police can link any weapon to the legal owner

LMAO! This is why foreigners should not stick their nose in American business. You have no idea at all about our gun laws (like the fact that you do have to be 18 to purchase a gun ). You don't know what you're talking about. And that's why I'm killing you in this "debate".

"Occasional mandatory safety check?!?! LMAO! One of the dumbest suggestions in world history... :lol:

As you know - the US has 246 times more gun-related homocides than the UK. This suggests that the US are currently woefully inadequate and need to be urgently updated.

As you know - we have almost 10,000 more deaths per year from automobiles than we do from guns. I don't care about the UK (just like your foreign ass shouldn't care about the US - but for some strange reason, you're obsessed with a nation in which you have no vote, no stake, and no voice). The US is much larger and much different, thus UK statistics don't apply and have no meaning. By US numbers alone, automoblies are exponentially more dangerous. So why aren't you screaming about banning the manufacturing, sales, purchase, and use of automobiles?

Also, current US laws do not place enough emphasis on the rights of potential victims, but tend to be based purely and simply on the rights of owners. This is inadequate - and the stats prove the end result.

You know nothing about US laws. Absolutely nothing. Epic Fail on your part.

I understand that you accept the current laws, but as current laws have resulted in a homocide rate 5 times that of any other civilised nation (while the rate of auto death in the US per vehicle is at most 1.5 times that of other nations) then logically you must support more effective gun laws.

Again, other nations are irrelevant. Since you have no argument, you have to point to "other nations". We're talking about the United States. And in the United States, roughly 10,000 more people die per year from automobiles than from guns. Game. Set. Match. You lose....