University of Colorado allows students to carry guns

[tjvh]

not everywhere. but one would think people would be smart enough not to want to live in the wild west.

macho idiots think they're going to be the new sherriff in town.

So the 92-year old man who was minding his own business in his own home when people invaded with intent to do him harm was being "macho"? Really Jillian?

Jillian, like a typical liberal (especially a liberal woman) is all irrational emotion and zero logical thought. Every political stance she has is solely based on irrational emotions without an ounce of intellect behind it.

Guns are banned in many places in America thanks to idiots like Jillian, and all we see are innocent citizens slaughtered. Conversely, where guns are permitted, all we see are innocent citizens stopping awful crimes (such as this 92-year old man being alive today because he did not listen to irrational, emotional train wrecks like Jillian).

Jillian, sweetheart, seek a mental health professional. What ever has scarred you, whatever has caused such irrational, emotional reactions with zero thought or logic is a problem.

actually, you braindead twit, my husband and son shoot and my husband and father and brother own guns.

but they're not wackos like you rightwingnut loons who think you should be able to run around with a gun and shoot up anyplace you feel like.

noi matter how big and stupid you make your fonts.

and given that you're the one throwing the tantrum, i'd say that you're the emotional train wreck. i'm doing just fine.

glad to help you melt down though, it's always amusing seeing loons like you sputter and drool.

So now defending ourselves and our Freedoms has become "wackos like you rightwingnut loons who think you should be able to run around with a gun and shoot up anyplace you feel like." to the irrationally loony left... Why am I not surprised.

 

[P@triot]

Even in prison people are murdered, by other inmates.

So by idiot liberal Dumbocrat "logic", we should immediately ban prisons...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Even in prison people are murdered, by other inmates.

So by idiot liberal Dumbocrat "logic", we should immediately ban prisons...

I wouldn't go there but they might.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxQK3tmpj4Y]Inmate manufactured weapon 101 (San Quentin) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLy9cPItl6g]Gladiator Days Anatomy of a prison murder Part 3.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Merchant_of_Meh]

I don't dispute that more guns will stop mass shootings as that is a matter of simple math and probability, but what I worry about is the unarmed people that will inevitably get caught in the crossfire of these shootouts between the would-be mass murderer and the gun-toting hero? You can just see a story of some random person getting hit by a stray bullet coming from a country mile away with decisions like this.

Not everyone is a dead eye. There will no doubt be many stories of people using their gun to save lives, but there will also be stories where innocent people will either get injured or killed in the crossfire by stray bullets, either by the would-be assailant or by the hero. That's what happens in a shootout and it's damn near unavoidable. Like the above, this is also a matter of simple math and probability. So while I'm happy for the University of Colorado in their decision to protect themselves more vigilantly, I hope they are prepared for the potentially tragic consequences that can happen.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't dispute that more guns will stop mass shootings as that is a matter of simple math and probability, but what I worry about is the unarmed people that will inevitably get caught in the crossfire of these shootouts between the would-be mass murderer and the gun-toting hero? You can just see a story of some random person getting hit by a stray bullet coming from a country mile away with decisions like this.

Not everyone is a dead eye. There will no doubt be many stories of people using their gun to save lives, but there will also be stories where innocent people will either get injured or killed in the crossfire by stray bullets, either by the would-be assailant or by the hero. That's what happens in a shootout and it's damn near unavoidable. Like the above, this is also a matter of simple math and probability. So while I'm happy for the University of Colorado in their decision to protect themselves more vigilantly, I hope they are prepared for the potentially tragic consequences that can happen.

Care to share some stats investigating reports to support your opinion that armed citizens while in the acted of defended others in an assault shot an innocent by stander?

 

[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?!?!

 

[Merchant_of_Meh]

I don't dispute that more guns will stop mass shootings as that is a matter of simple math and probability, but what I worry about is the unarmed people that will inevitably get caught in the crossfire of these shootouts between the would-be mass murderer and the gun-toting hero? You can just see a story of some random person getting hit by a stray bullet coming from a country mile away with decisions like this.

Not everyone is a dead eye. There will no doubt be many stories of people using their gun to save lives, but there will also be stories where innocent people will either get injured or killed in the crossfire by stray bullets, either by the would-be assailant or by the hero. That's what happens in a shootout and it's damn near unavoidable. Like the above, this is also a matter of simple math and probability. So while I'm happy for the University of Colorado in their decision to protect themselves more vigilantly, I hope they are prepared for the potentially tragic consequences that can happen.

Care to share some stats investigating reports to support your opinion that armed citizens while in the acted of defended others in an assault shot an innocent by stander?

I know what you're getting at and you misinterpreted my post predictably.

You believe that because what I stated above has rarely happened or never happened, that it won't happen now that this campus will allow its inhabitants to carry guns and thus prevent senseless mass shootings. Sound logic, but as I said not once, but twice in my post, it's simple math and probability. That's what I was getting at so although you either missed this point or conveniently overlooked it, I will admit that I do not have stats available.

inb4he'salibrulwithnofactstobackuparguments

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't dispute that more guns will stop mass shootings as that is a matter of simple math and probability, but what I worry about is the unarmed people that will inevitably get caught in the crossfire of these shootouts between the would-be mass murderer and the gun-toting hero? You can just see a story of some random person getting hit by a stray bullet coming from a country mile away with decisions like this.

Not everyone is a dead eye. There will no doubt be many stories of people using their gun to save lives, but there will also be stories where innocent people will either get injured or killed in the crossfire by stray bullets, either by the would-be assailant or by the hero. That's what happens in a shootout and it's damn near unavoidable. Like the above, this is also a matter of simple math and probability. So while I'm happy for the University of Colorado in their decision to protect themselves more vigilantly, I hope they are prepared for the potentially tragic consequences that can happen.

Care to share some stats investigating reports to support your opinion that armed citizens while in the acted of defended others in an assault shot an innocent by stander?

I know what you're getting at and you misinterpreted my post predictably.

You believe that because what I stated above has rarely happened or never happened, that it won't happen now that this campus will allow its inhabitants to carry guns and thus prevent senseless mass shootings. Sound logic, but as I said not once, but twice in my post, it's simple math and probability. That's what I was getting at so although you either missed this point or conveniently overlooked it, I will admit that I do not have stats available.

inb4he'salibrulwithnofactstobackuparguments

So basically all you have is opinion? Thanks for your opinion.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?!?!

That 31,000 includes suicides

 

[Merchant_of_Meh]

Care to share some stats investigating reports to support your opinion that armed citizens while in the acted of defended others in an assault shot an innocent by stander?

I know what you're getting at and you misinterpreted my post predictably.

You believe that because what I stated above has rarely happened or never happened, that it won't happen now that this campus will allow its inhabitants to carry guns and thus prevent senseless mass shootings. Sound logic, but as I said not once, but twice in my post, it's simple math and probability. That's what I was getting at so although you either missed this point or conveniently overlooked it, I will admit that I do not have stats available.

inb4he'salibrulwithnofactstobackuparguments

So basically all you have is opinion? Thanks for your opinion.

Never said I had facts so I apologize if you assumed otherwise. What I expressed is purely opinion.

 

[regent]

I wonder how many shootings don't take place because no weapon was available at the moment of rage. No statistics on that I guess.

 

[P@triot]

I wonder how many shootings don't take place because no weapon was available at the moment of rage. No statistics on that I guess.

I wonder how many automoblie fatalaties don't take place because a teen had no access to an automobile when mom or dad wasn't home. No statistics on that I guess.

Furthermore, every day in this nation, someone carrying gun experiences something that causes "rage" and they don't pull out their firearm and start shooting. You're truly talking out of your ass here because your side has run out of irrational ideas for why guns should be banned.

 

[uscitizen]

Guns on campus ok, but no smoking.

 

[P@triot]

Guns on campus ok, but no smoking.

Because guns SAVE lives while smoking TAKES lives...

 

[regent]

I wonder how many shootings don't take place because no weapon was available at the moment of rage. No statistics on that I guess.

I wonder how many automoblie fatalaties don't take place because a teen had no access to an automobile when mom or dad wasn't home. No statistics on that I guess.

Furthermore, every day in this nation, someone carrying gun experiences something that causes "rage" and they don't pull out their firearm and start shooting. You're truly talking out of your ass here because your side has run out of irrational ideas for why guns should be banned.

Where did I say I believed guns should be banned? I'm talking about voids in our studies.
I will wait patiently to see if studies are made at Colorado, assuming the posts of Colorado allowing guns is true. But it does seem that something indeed causes these gun murders, is it rage, periods of insanity or what? In any case autos are not made to harm people, but what is the purpose of guns? Bad analogy.

 

[uscitizen]

Guns on campus ok, but no smoking.

Because guns SAVE lives while smoking TAKES lives...

Guns take lives as well.
when misused.

FACT: Suicide is still the leading cause of firearm death in the U.S. In 2007, the U.S. firearm suicide total was 17,352 an increase from the 2006 national gun suicide number of 16,883. The state of Illinois saw a 13.7% INCREASE in gun suicides from 372 in 2006 to 423 in 2007. Over half of suicides in the U.S. are committed with firearms.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=suicide+by+gun+statistics&ei=UTF-8&fr=w3i&type=W3i_DS,136,0_0,Search,20120416,6901,0,8,0

A smoking cigarette, a smoking gun....

 

[Saigon]

James -

Nice to seesome real data and statistics presented here - thanks for a useful post.

I'm just rushing off to work, but will answer this in more detail this evening.

Just one thing I notice right off the bat -

Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation

I do not believe guns CAUSE crime - hence I am not saying correlation does equal causation.

I believe guns ENABLE crime.

All countries have crime and criminals, but I believe that the statistics are so much worse in violent crime in the US because the presence of such massive amounts of weapons mean that criminals are more likely to kill people in a crime in the US than they are in other countries, where they may only be armed with a knife or fists.

I'll come back to the othe stats later - they look interesting.

the US absolutely has a higher homicide rate with homicides, and a higher rate of gun owners than the rest of the developed world. But it does NOT mean that these two things correlate with one another.

Rsearch conducted by Harvard has concluded that there is a very clear correlation - and not only between the US and other countries, but across a range of 26 countries (from memory) the study concluded that a very strong correlation existed between gun posession statistics and homocides.

While there were other factors involved (i.e. gun ownership in rural areas causes less fatalities than in urban areas), the report concluded that the correlation was basically undeniable. I'd go further and say when you look at the homocide statistics it is obvious.

As I stated before the most major flaw I can find is that you're comparing different cultures/countries together. And there's no real way to compare the cultures with one another and determine how they alter the numbers of homicides were committed in each country (as far as I know-if there is one I would like to see it). If you were to walk through the actual city areas of Buffalo and Toronto-you would notice that although they're just a stones throw from one another-that the cultures are VASTLY different (I'm using them as an example because I have lived in both). I wouldn't think twice about walking in town through Toronto alone at night-in Buffalo? Absolutely not.

I'm not naive enough to think that gun ownership has no correlation to the ability to murder somebody-of course it does. I just think that the real issue is the culture behind each country, and what ultimately drives somebody to murder someone. Guns are the method (as you correctly stated), but not the motivation. Of course it's easier for somebody to murder somebody with a gun than a knife (on the flip side it's also easier to defend against one in all fairness). But that doesn't mean that the murderer wouldn't do so anyways if they hypothetically weren't able to get one.

Also, I realize I probably came off somewhat as a jerk in my previous post, so I do sincerely apologize for that.

I totally agree that culture is one very large feature in all of this, but at the same time - culture does not make anyone go out and commit crime, either.

But certainly when we compare a lot of western countries, the variations are quite minor, and can be explained by poverty, immigration, drugs and local laws and policing.

The odd man out in this is the US. When we compare the US with other western countries we see the same pattern repeated in every comparison - the US has ten times the number of guns of country X, and 5 - 10 times the number of homicides.

Across Canada, Italy, France, the UK, Australia we see endless differences in culture, but compare any of those with the US and the pattern is the same - those countries have far less guns, and far less homocides.

I do not believe any honest adult does not see guns as a factor in that equation.

 

[Saigon]

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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I wonder how many shootings don't take place because no weapon was available at the moment of rage. No statistics on that I guess.

They picked up a knife

 

[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?