States with strict gun laws found to have fewer shooting deaths

Mar 7, 2013 Full story: Reuters 5,076

States that have more laws restricting gun ownership have lower rates of death from shootings, both suicides and homicides, a study by researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University found.

Read more
Mr NaughtyBits

Hatfield, UK

#5442 Jun 23, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
No. You have no such thing.
First you need 2/3 of both houses of congress to call for a repeal.
Or, you would need 2/3 of the state legislatures to call for a repeal.
After clearing the former hurdle, you will need to then send that repeal bill to each of the state legislatures respectively.
In each of those states, you are mostly likely to again be faced with a 2/3 hurdle to pass.
In the latter case, each of those 2/3 state legislatures have a similar high hurdle to pass to even call for a repeal within their own individual legislatures.
After you clear either of the two ways to call for repeal, you then have to clear the biggie vote getting.
Those votes would have to be 3/4 of the states respectivbely.
You do not have that many votes sir. You need 38 states AFTER clearing all the previous hurdles. You do not have them. The number of armed households alone, counter your claim sir.
You are kidding yourself, or have no idea of how many votes it really takes. Now you know. Now you also know, you do not have them.
We do.
Correction!!!!!

2/3rds of both houses of the Congress, and THEN 3/4ths of the states in order to RATIFY.

Jeez, and here I am a simple Brit informing you ...

;-)

My bill is in the snail mail ...

:-)
Mr NaughtyBits

Hatfield, UK

#5444 Jun 23, 2013
Thesaurus wrote:
<quoted text>What's a "strick" gun law? How does it differ from a strict one?
Strick is what's shoved up your chocolate box, you dumb cretin!

:-))

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#5445 Jun 23, 2013
Mr NaughtyBits wrote:
<quoted text>
"You are correct that a gun was primarily invented to kill things."
That statement is simply untrue. Name just one maker of guns who will state unequivocally, and with no reservations that his device was 'designed to kill.'
Just one.
You can't, and you won't even find such an assertion in the 'fine print.'
Guns were discovered —not invented— by the Chinese. The gun is an analogue of a rocket held in-place.
Interesting.
You say it ain't true and then ask a question that is not related to the point.
You also took it out of context.
Some are invented srtrictly for target shooting too. Neither you nor I mentioned that.

No where did I say nor did I imply that a manufacturer would admit anything. I simply took the other's words and intent and meaning in the context and went with it. I assure you that my .308 was designed to kill my food. It does that just fine.
The point sir, was, and still is, a weapon's useage in the true American principle, is strictly a defensive use. In those defensive uses, there is death. It is justified. It is only justified when it is in life defense of self.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#5446 Jun 23, 2013
Mr NaughtyBits wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction!!!!!
2/3rds of both houses of the Congress, and THEN 3/4ths of the states in order to RATIFY.
Jeez, and here I am a simple Brit informing you ...
;-)
My bill is in the snail mail ...
:-)
Read it again.

That is exactly what I said.
I layed out the 2 ways to call for it.
I then said that in either case, it THEN does what?
Goes to the states and you need 38 of them.
That's 3/4 of them.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#5447 Jun 23, 2013
Mr NaughtyBits wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction!!!!!
2/3rds of both houses of the Congress, and THEN 3/4ths of the states in order to RATIFY.
Jeez, and here I am a simple Brit informing you ...
;-)
My bill is in the snail mail ...
:-)
Here it is subject.

"After you clear either of the two ways to call for repeal, you then have to clear the biggie vote getting.
Those votes would have to be 3/4 of the states respectivbely."

You were saying ...
spocko

Oakland, CA

#5448 Jun 23, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
You responded to Dr Sniper’s post…“Now that is pure idiocy!!”
So I asked you;
Can you be specific...what is "idiocy"...?
Now "spocko"...it's quite obvious you're not the brightest bulb on the shelf...or the sharpest knife in the drawer so I'll go S L O W for you;
Within the C O N T E X T of the post Y O U responded to…once again…what is “idiocy”…?
Don’t go getting on your soapbox like you did the last time. Try and keep your response within the context of the post you responded to.
Too lazy to look it up?
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#5449 Jun 23, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Too lazy to look it up?
Really...?...look up what you have locked up in your pea sized brain...?

YOU said his post was "idiocy".

I'm asking what specifically in his post YOU consider "idiocy".

If don't have the balls to back up your statement, say so.
drinK the Hive

New York, NY

#5450 Jun 23, 2013
Being Smashed On The Head With A Mallet An Often Feel Amazingly Healing...

http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture...

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5451 Jun 23, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Nothing you say is true or even plausible."
Really...? So the FBI Uniform Crime Report wouldn't be "TRUE" or "PLAUSIBLE" for you...?
I gave you a FACT...and this is all you can come back with.
You're just another windbag, "frustrated control freak" that gets more frustrated when the FACTS prove YOU WRONG...too bad, lying POS.
You don't have facts. You have a silly little phrase you repeat endlessly in hopes it intimidates people, when in fact it's laughable and embarrassing.

Get some facts, then come back. Assclown.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5452 Jun 23, 2013
Dan Salazar wrote:
Illinois has strick gun laws. Are the articles authors ignoring the Killing Fields in South Chicago because the victums are BLACK?
Move over Paula Deen. Racists seem to be coming out of the woodwork.
First you help support massive gun ownership which guarantees easy access to guns by street gangs and criminals...then you blame those who oppose this and call them "racists?"

You're dumber than dumb, and more dishonest even than the average GOPee politician.

Just go away.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#5453 Jun 23, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Really...?...look up what you have locked up in your pea sized brain...?
YOU said his post was "idiocy".
I'm asking what specifically in his post YOU consider "idiocy".
If don't have the balls to back up your statement, say so.
Okay, I’ll take your bait it’s not exactly rocket science!
Idiocy is: Our do-nothing GOPer t-bags are like children pouting until they get their candy. On all counts of economic growth, progress is stifled by the ineptitude of the wingnuz t-bags fabricating a whole alternative knowledge system or alternate reality with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics. Outside the system, President Obama - whatever his policy errors - is a figure of imposing intellect and dignity. Within the system, he’s a pitiful nothing, unable to speak without a teleprompter, an affirmative-action phony doomed to inevitable defeat. Tax cuts for the rich trickle down to everyone else. Shrinking government generates more jobs. Cutting the budget deficit now is more important than boosting the economy. Medicare and Medicaid are the major drivers of budget deficits. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Low-income Americans don’t pay taxes. The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president. Tax cuts for the rich stimulate the economy and the job market. Obama is a Muslim sympathizer and soft on terrorism he won't protect the country. Obama wasn't born in the United States. Obama is a socialist trying to nationalize industries.
I can go on with this all day long ... you feel like an idiot yet :-/
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#5454 Jun 23, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have facts. You have a silly little phrase you repeat endlessly in hopes it intimidates people, when in fact it's laughable and embarrassing.
Get some facts, then come back. Assclown.
You're still a violent. lying, POS, EXTREMIST, "frustrated control freak". So what else is new...?

Here are the FACTS...that YOU call "a silly little phrase" that's "laughable and embarrassing"

FACT...More murders are committed with blunt objects than murdres committed with rifles.

Murders by Weapons

Weapons 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Blunt objects 647 603 623 549 496
(clubs, hammers,
etc.)

Rifles 453 380 351 367 323

Source: FBI Uniform Crime Report, Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in...

FACT..."tha professor" is an ignorant, lying, POS...and a real "Assclown".

Source: From his own words above and any of his posts.

Come back when you have something of substance to support your argument...oh wait...you have no argument and nothing of substance.
Marauder

Fairbanks, AK

#5455 Jun 23, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, I’ll take your bait it’s not exactly rocket science!
Idiocy is: Our do-nothing GOPer t-bags are like children pouting until they get their candy. On all counts of economic growth, progress is stifled by the ineptitude of the wingnuz t-bags fabricating a whole alternative knowledge system or alternate reality with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics. Outside the system, President Obama - whatever his policy errors - is a figure of imposing intellect and dignity. Within the system, he’s a pitiful nothing, unable to speak without a teleprompter, an affirmative-action phony doomed to inevitable defeat. Tax cuts for the rich trickle down to everyone else. Shrinking government generates more jobs. Cutting the budget deficit now is more important than boosting the economy. Medicare and Medicaid are the major drivers of budget deficits. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Low-income Americans don’t pay taxes. The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president. Tax cuts for the rich stimulate the economy and the job market. Obama is a Muslim sympathizer and soft on terrorism he won't protect the country. Obama wasn't born in the United States. Obama is a socialist trying to nationalize industries.
I can go on with this all day long ... you feel like an idiot yet :-/
Thank you for proving what a neutered, non-reading, non-comprehending, idiot YOU are. The air must be really thin on top of that pedestal you have yourself on.

Thank you for addressing absolutely nothing from Dr Sniper’s post…YOU are an idiot.
Mr NaughtyBits

Hatfield, UK

#5456 Jun 24, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting.
You say it ain't true and then ask a question that is not related to the point.
You also took it out of context.
Some are invented srtrictly for target shooting too. Neither you nor I mentioned that.
No where did I say nor did I imply that a manufacturer would admit anything. I simply took the other's words and intent and meaning in the context and went with it. I assure you that my .308 was designed to kill my food. It does that just fine.
The point sir, was, and still is, a weapon's useage in the true American principle, is strictly a defensive use. In those defensive uses, there is death. It is justified. It is only justified when it is in life defense of self.
Guns are an 'adapted' technology.
I should not need to explain that.

A 'target gun' is one which has been especially prepared (manufactured) to perform for just that purpose. Of course, that also includes the fact that the ammunition which will be used has been especially constructed such as to render a repeatable performance as well.

You say: "I assure you that my .308 was designed to kill my food."

I have a bow, and a set of arrows which will suffice as well for that very same task. Does that mean that those were 'designed to kill' for food?

If I kill an animal using an axe, or hatchet, does that mean that the axe/hatchet are now 'designed to kill?'

No, it does not. Rather what it means is just this: You may use your rifle, and ammunition in a successful quest to put food on your table, in the very same way as I might employ the bow and arrow, neither of which was 'designed to kill.'

Rather, both of those were adapted to the cause.

About the only things —in my estimation— which ARE 'designed to kill,' are chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

Everything else is an adapted purpose.
Mr NaughtyBits

Hatfield, UK

#5457 Jun 24, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
First you help support massive gun ownership which guarantees easy access to guns by street gangs and criminals...then you blame those who oppose this and call them "racists?"
You're dumber than dumb, and more dishonest even than the average GOPee politician.
Just go away.
What causes street gangs?

Do guns cause street gangs, or do OUTLAWED drugs cause street gangs?

If the drugs are no longer outlawed, will there still be street gangs? And if so, why would that be?

Prior to the outlawry of personal drug use, there weren't any street gangs, and neither was there a gun problem.

So, when are YOU going to ADDRESS the REAL problem?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#5458 Jun 24, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
First you help support massive gun ownership which guarantees easy access to guns by street gangs and criminals...then you blame those who oppose this and call them "racists?"
You're dumber than dumb, and more dishonest even than the average GOPee politician.
Just go away.
Uh, perfesser, in case you have not noticed, the street gangs and criminals ALREADY have them.
It is impossible to "prevent" what already exists.

It is your stupidity that we oppose. Your "solutions" are ridiculous and unenforcable on street gangs and criminals.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#5459 Jun 24, 2013
Mr NaughtyBits wrote:
<quoted text>
Guns are an 'adapted' technology.
I should not need to explain that.
A 'target gun' is one which has been especially prepared (manufactured) to perform for just that purpose. Of course, that also includes the fact that the ammunition which will be used has been especially constructed such as to render a repeatable performance as well.
You say: "I assure you that my .308 was designed to kill my food."
I have a bow, and a set of arrows which will suffice as well for that very same task. Does that mean that those were 'designed to kill' for food?
If I kill an animal using an axe, or hatchet, does that mean that the axe/hatchet are now 'designed to kill?'
No, it does not. Rather what it means is just this: You may use your rifle, and ammunition in a successful quest to put food on your table, in the very same way as I might employ the bow and arrow, neither of which was 'designed to kill.'
Rather, both of those were adapted to the cause.
About the only things —in my estimation— which ARE 'designed to kill,' are chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
Everything else is an adapted purpose.
By your take as it may or may not be true, One must argue a point within the context the other presented in order to defeat it in that context.

The point was, and is, that the only moral and proper use of a firearm AS IT RELATES TO BEING EMPLOYED as a device to kill other living things, is purely a defensive use. It is the only true American principle of proper firesrm use.

BTW, your last statement opposes your own point. Some biological weapons were adapted from medical research. Research intended to help people, not kill them.
You argue irrelevant points, and make erroneous statements to boot.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#5460 Jun 24, 2013
Mr NaughtyBits wrote:
<quoted text>
What causes street gangs?
Do guns cause street gangs, or do OUTLAWED drugs cause street gangs?
If the drugs are no longer outlawed, will there still be street gangs? And if so, why would that be?
Prior to the outlawry of personal drug use, there weren't any street gangs, and neither was there a gun problem.
So, when are YOU going to ADDRESS the REAL problem?
Street gangs exist for a different reason than you point out. It's much more elemental and basic than that as the main reason they form is a sense of "famiy".
Do you need me to explain that one further, since you like to point out what is "obvious" and should not need explained?

They fund their families by dealing in black market items, only one of which is drugs.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#5461 Jun 24, 2013
Mr NaughtyBits wrote:
<quoted text>
What causes street gangs?
?
A human need and longing for a sense of belonging.
A sense that your homies have your back when your family does not.
A knowing that they are in the same boat together, unwanted and abandoned by their own families, and it is usually their fathers.
Humans are pack animals. When one pack shuns them and does not watch out for them, they find, or form a new pack.
Legalizing drugs will not make that go away.
Legalizing drugs is better argued in a different context that speaks to freedom of the individual to make their own choices.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5462 Jun 24, 2013
Marauder wrote:
..jabber, jabber...Here are the FACTS...that YOU call "a silly little phrase" that's "laughable and embarrassing"
FACT...More murders are committed with blunt objects than murdres committed with rifles.
Murders by Weapons
Weapons 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Blunt objects 647 603 623 549 496
(clubs, hammers,
etc.)
Rifles 453 380 351 367 323
...jabber....
I never said a word about "rifles," so obviously your comments aren't relevant - anymore than they're rational, intelligent, or mature.

GFY, loser, to use your own language so you'll understand.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Harvard University Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Study: Coffee drinkers may lower risk of endome... (Nov '11) Sun Chanal 3
News Atheists open up: What they want you to know Mar 29 geezerjock 1
News Surrounded: Why Saudi Arabia's Security Is At Risk Mar 28 Islam Forbids 13
News In Selma, Ala., Obama Proved that he is 'Black ... Mar 14 Spotted Girl 2
News Man once convicted of spying pleads guilty to d... Mar 12 Sterkfontein Swar... 1
News Mummy Problems: As Florida Bans 'Climate Change... Mar 10 IB DaMann 3
petroleum products and lubricant testing online... Feb '15 cefirt 1
More from around the web