For how great Boulder's City is environmental-wise, they obviously suck business-wise. Who's the genius that thinks a business owner will want to open a restaurant on the hill which closes/stops serving at 11pm? Who the eff do they think visits this area? Cafe Aion is the exception to the rule. Get a freaking clue, people. The Hill is visited by students and alums. What do students and alums want in their restaurants? Booze after 11pm. The only thing limiting alcohol to before 11pm is going to do is (a) make the hill crappier by preventing development of appropriate restaurants, and (b) force student to throw big house parties. Good job, BCC. Now maybe you should go back to saving some prairie dogs.
I agree. Street-level retail/eateries would make the most sense. You could put condos above the retail/restaurants with a rooftop pool and parking underground.
OK, fine, that's your argument. You don't want to increase gun regulations to potentially "save one life." I do. Now, let's get some politicians to run against each other on this point and see who wins. Then, pass laws in support of our position on firearms.
And the points about automobiles are valid if we were talking about automobiles, but we're not talking about automobile safety. We're debating regulating firearms. I prefer to regulate autos and guns differently since they are so vastly different products/devices.
I never said anything about the benefits of firearms. I'm just trying to save lives. Pass more gun regulations. Save lives. It's proven to work.
Um, really? A study based on facts is, well factual. If I study how far away the moon is form the earth and present a study on it, if the study was done correctly, it is factual. The simple fact that there aren't additional studies to support it doesn't make it any less right. If you want to show some facts that what is shown is false, then do so. Otherwise, I stand on the basis that more firearm regulations = less firearm deaths. That's good thing, right?
What's that have to do with regulating guns? We can address regulating alcohol all you want, but that's a completely different issue as alcohol is made to get people drunk and firearms are made to kill.
fine, make that argument for cars and we'll address it. But, this argument isn't about cars now is it? It's about firearms. Stay on topic and address the points about firearms.
You can argue there's no cause and effect, but the facts remain - the greater number of firearm regulations in a state, the lower the number of deaths by firearms in the state. I would argue there is a direct correlation - the simplest answer is usually the correct one, and here, the simplest answer for why these states have the lowest deaths by firearms is the fact the have the most regulations of firearms.
Um, so, you're against saving lives? I don't get it. I post a link showing, based on facts mind you, that the greater number of firearm regulations a state has, the lower number of deaths by firearms occur in that state. That's a fact, brother. I don't portend to state that there won't still be areas of the state (like Chicago, in your example) that will have higher death rates by firearms than other areas. And yes, that should be addressed as well. But you can't deny that states that pass more firearm regulations have fewer deaths in the state as a whole. That's why I say, pass more firearms regulations and save lives. It's proven to work. And even if it is one life, sorry that you don't like that argument, but it's true.
Your carbon monoxide argument is a straw-man. We can, should, and do regulate carbon monoxide. But we're talking firearms here, so let's stay on topic.
Seriously? We have laws to prevent alcohol related deaths. Ever heard of a DUI? Even so, the major difference between ANY straw-man argument you can come up with and firearms is that only firearms are made for the specific purpose of killing. With this MAJOR difference, there should be a greater focus on ensuring that persons using those devices whose sole purpose is to kill have the mental capacity to own such a device. And putting limits on the killing capacity of each device sounds like a pretty good idea as well.
I feel bad if people eventually lose their jobs, but if these laws save even one life, I'm sure even they'd agree it was worth it. As seen by this recent study:
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/06/172133... the more firearms regulations a state has, the fewer deaths by firearms occur in a state. So, based on these facts, in order to save more lives, I say PASS MORE REGULATIONS OF FIREARMS.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Opus