States with strict gun laws found to ...

States with strict gun laws found to have fewer shooting deaths

There are 5075 comments on the Reuters story from Mar 7, 2013, titled States with strict gun laws found to have fewer shooting deaths. In it, Reuters reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reuters.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#6049 Jul 20, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>I dunno Forrest? Wanna start with GZ ignoring or violating every single instruction given to him by his instructor, by the police and by the neighborhood watch code of conduct - now go back to your cave troglodyte!!
Really? Do tell. Present your proof of such a statement.
Typical liberal mentality. You think if you repeat propaganda enough, people will believe it.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6050 Jul 20, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Do tell. Present your proof of such a statement.
Typical liberal mentality. You think if you repeat propaganda enough, people will believe it.
Proof of what statement? You want me to draw you a picture?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#6067 Jul 20, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>Proof of what statement? You want me to draw you a picture?
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>I dunno Forrest? Wanna start with GZ ignoring or violating every single instruction given to him by his instructor, by the police and by the neighborhood watch code of conduct - now go back to your cave troglodyte!!

I just want you to back it up. Of course you can't, so you deflect, avoid, and cast insults.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#6068 Jul 20, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
I dunno Forrest? Wanna start with GZ ignoring or violating every single instruction given to him by his instructor, by the police and by the neighborhood watch code of conduct - now go back to your cave troglodyte!!
"...violating every single instruction given to him by his instructor,"

Such as....?

"...by the police..."

Such as...?

"...the neighborhood watch code of conduct..."

Such as...?
marknicolle

United States

#6069 Jul 20, 2013
Marine Corp Pat wrote:
That is exactly why President Obama wants stricter gun laws… so that there will be fewer deaths… but the right loves blood and death, even when it is the blood and death of 6 and 7 year olds.
These right-wing bastards disgust me.
we conservatives love blood and death? oh really

i have never seen a democrat stand up for the right of an unborn child to live

thats a lie and it proves how hypocritical obamunists are
what about 72 million babies that liberals have killed through abortion

its us conservatives that stand up for traditional marriage and traditional family values
its us conservatives that are standing up for the rights of an unborn child to live
its mostly conservatives that are teaching our kids that sex needs to wait until marriage and there by equipping them to live lives that are in accordance with the bible and there by saving them selves from a culture of death we are teaching them to ignore the sex ed at school and and instead live a pure life and there by equipping them with the knowledge that could save thier lives

liberalism leads to socialism which leads to communism
not all things that liberals stand for are bad like programs that provide assistance to the poor retired seniors and those with disabilities who are born in america us citizens only

here are the bad things that liberals want
1 to take everyone's guns don't deny it you know it to be true
the problem is you take away our guns here comes communism

2 get everyone dependent on the government

3 give up your guns and well be there to save you " after the burglar already killed the victim because under liberals ideas the victim doesn't have any rights because he has no gun because the liberals took it away from him

4 you liberals stand for a culture of death under the mask of women health ie abortion

so who again loves blood and death its the party that wants to take away my rights to protect myself its the party who wants the complete destruction of biblical marriage and traditional family values its the party that wants every one dependent on the government its the party who has pushed for and gotten abortion legalized and further that same party that got partial birth abortion legalized as well its not us right wingers no its liberals its liberals and also your very own Margaret Sanger who you liberals love who started planned parent hood was a Nazi women in her manual that she wrote for her organisation she encouraged her people that worked for her to more aggressively encourage pregnant black women to get abortions

and also did you know that if you get an abortion that you are 800 times more likely to get breast cancer but liberals will do any cover up they can because deep down they know that im right

woa unto you that call evil good and good evil who take the truth and turn it into a lie

now to be fair i believe that bush jr and daddy bush and obama and dick Cheney are all just as evil and diabolical

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#6106 Jul 21, 2013
Is this online dating crap the way the mods shut down a thread, or the way spocko avoids answering the questions posed to him?
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6107 Jul 21, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"...violating every single instruction given to him by his instructor,"
Such as....?
"...by the police..."
Such as...?
"...the neighborhood watch code of conduct..."
Such as...?
What is it with you friggen gunloons with rocks in your head?
He was told by in his open-carry classes to never, ever look for confrontations!
He was told by the police dispatcher not pursue and stay with his car!
He was instructed the neighborhood watch manual (it’s online) to only use your “eyes and ears” to never carry a gun and to never pursue a suspect!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#6108 Jul 21, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>What is it with you friggen gunloons with rocks in your head?
He was told by in his open-carry classes to never, ever look for confrontations!
He was told by the police dispatcher not pursue and stay with his car!
He was instructed the neighborhood watch manual (it’s online) to only use your “eyes and ears” to never carry a gun and to never pursue a suspect!
He was told by in his open-carry classes to never, ever look for confrontations!
He did not look for confrontation. He was a Neighborhood Watchman. He called the police to report suspicious activity. He tried to keep an eye on the suspect until police arrived.

He was told by the police dispatcher not pursue and stay with his car!
He was NOT told not to pursue and stay with his car. Please provide audio or transcript showing that! The dispatcher said,"we don't need you to do that". That was a way to reduce liability by the city in case something happened to Zimmerman. At no time did the dispatcher say do not, or stop pursuing the suspect. Regardless, Zimmerman DID stop trying to keep an eye on Martin and headed back to his vehicle. He was attacked by Martin before he could get to his vehicle.

He was instructed the neighborhood watch manual (it’s online) to only use your “eyes and ears” to never carry a gun and to never pursue a suspect!
He was off duty as Neighborhood Watchman. He is a concealed carry permit holder. He did not "pursue" Martin, he tried to keep an eye on him until police arrived. Pursuing him would imply that Martin tried to flee, and Zimmerman gave chase. That did not happen. Zimmerman lost sight off Martin, headed back to his vehicle, and was attacked by Martin. Prove otherwise! Oh, that's right, if someone could prove otherwise, Zimmerman would have been found guilty instead of NOT GUILTY!
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6109 Jul 21, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
He was told by in his open-carry classes to never, ever look for confrontations!
He did not look for confrontation. He was a Neighborhood Watchman. He called the police to report suspicious activity. He tried to keep an eye on the suspect until police arrived.
He was told by the police dispatcher not pursue and stay with his car!
He was NOT told not to pursue and stay with his car. Please provide audio or transcript showing that! The dispatcher said,"we don't need you to do that". That was a way to reduce liability by the city in case something happened to Zimmerman. At no time did the dispatcher say do not, or stop pursuing the suspect. Regardless, Zimmerman DID stop trying to keep an eye on Martin and headed back to his vehicle. He was attacked by Martin before he could get to his vehicle.
He was instructed the neighborhood watch manual (it’s online) to only use your “eyes and ears” to never carry a gun and to never pursue a suspect!
He was off duty as Neighborhood Watchman. He is a concealed carry permit holder. He did not "pursue" Martin, he tried to keep an eye on him until police arrived. Pursuing him would imply that Martin tried to flee, and Zimmerman gave chase. That did not happen. Zimmerman lost sight off Martin, headed back to his vehicle, and was attacked by Martin. Prove otherwise! Oh, that's right, if someone could prove otherwise, Zimmerman would have been found guilty instead of NOT GUILTY!
Of course he did - you are stating your opinion not facts ...

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#6110 Jul 21, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>Of course he did - you are stating your opinion not facts ...
No. In stating facts that came out in court. What is your backing?
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#6112 Jul 22, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
What is it with you friggen gunloons with rocks in your head?
He was told by in his open-carry classes to never, ever look for confrontations!
He was told by the police dispatcher not pursue and stay with his car!
He was instructed the neighborhood watch manual (it’s online) to only use your “eyes and ears” to never carry a gun and to never pursue a suspect!
What is it with you ignorant, "frustrated control freaks"...?

"He was told by in his open-carry classes to never, ever look for confrontations!"

He didn't.

"He was told by the police dispatcher not pursue and stay with his car!"

No he wasn't...he was told; "we don't need you to do that"...AND...even according to the Mayor, it was NOT a police order he was required to obey.

"He was instructed the neighborhood watch manual (it’s online) to only use your “eyes and ears” to never carry a gun and to never pursue a suspect!"

He was NOT working in that capacity at the time.

Don't you ever use facts when you post...?
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6114 Jul 22, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
What is it with you ignorant, "frustrated control freaks"...?
"He was told by in his open-carry classes to never, ever look for confrontations!"
He didn't.
Yes he did, following someone in the dark is not only confrontational but creepy as hell!
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>

"He was told by the police dispatcher not pursue and stay with his car!"
No he wasn't...he was told; "we don't need you to do that"...AND...even according to the Mayor, it was NOT a police order he was required to obey.
So what? the fact remains he chose to pursue inspite of being told not to! Police dispatchers are highly trained and give instructions to people in distress all the time and yes of course, they are not binding court orders ye friggen moron!
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"He was instructed the neighborhood watch manual (it’s online) to only use your “eyes and ears” to never carry a gun and to never pursue a suspect!"
He was NOT working in that capacity at the time.
Don't you ever use facts when you post...?
Your not making any sense, when GZ drives around in his car looking for suspicious people, obviously he IS patrolling the neighborhood!! Your opinions are based on your misguided wingnuz ideology and not on verifiable facts - you are a moron!!

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6115 Jul 22, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes he did, following someone in the dark is not only confrontational but creepy as hell!<quoted text>
So what? the fact remains he chose to pursue inspite of being told not to! Police dispatchers are highly trained and give instructions to people in distress all the time and yes of course, they are not binding court orders ye friggen moron!<quoted text>
Your not making any sense, when GZ drives around in his car looking for suspicious people, obviously he IS patrolling the neighborhood!! Your opinions are based on your misguided wingnuz ideology and not on verifiable facts - you are a moron!!
To bad your definition of "confrontational" doesn't fit any dictionary. Following is NOT confronting. No matter how you slice it.

And he wasn't "driving around in his car looking for suspicious people". He was on his way to (or was it from?) the store.

I know this is difficult for you, but please try to stick to the facts as they were presented in court instead of the versions you keep making up in your head.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6116 Jul 22, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
To bad your definition of "confrontational" doesn't fit any dictionary. Following is NOT confronting. No matter how you slice it.
And he wasn't "driving around in his car looking for suspicious people". He was on his way to (or was it from?) the store.
I know this is difficult for you, but please try to stick to the facts as they were presented in court instead of the versions you keep making up in your head.
No it is not you brainless moron, following someone in the dark almost always ends in a confrontation, in fact in this case it ended up in someones violent death. It doesn't matter where GZ was going ye moron, as soon as he decided to stop and pursue a "suspicious suspect" he was patrolling. Beside what the f*** kind of moron brings a gun to go to the grocery store?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#6117 Jul 22, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>Of course he did - you are stating your opinion not facts ...
No. It would be you stating your opinion. I'm stating what a court case backed up.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6118 Jul 22, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
No. It would be you stating your opinion. I'm stating what a court case backed up.
So now you're actually claiming lawyers are the only honest and reliable people on the planet?
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#6119 Jul 22, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you're actually claiming lawyers are the only honest and reliable people on the planet?
As opposed to YOU...in this case...?...yes...you're an ignorant, lying, POS, extremist, "frustrated control freak".
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#6120 Jul 23, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes he did, following someone in the dark is not only confrontational but creepy as hell!<quoted text>
So what? the fact remains he chose to pursue inspite of being told not to! Police dispatchers are highly trained and give instructions to people in distress all the time and yes of course, they are not binding court orders ye friggen moron!<quoted text>
Your not making any sense, when GZ drives around in his car looking for suspicious people, obviously he IS patrolling the neighborhood!! Your opinions are based on your misguided wingnuz ideology and not on verifiable facts - you are a moron!!
Gee...if it's that "creepy" then why would Trayvon make the first contact and ask him why he was following him...?

"Pursue"...quit exagerating. "....yes of course, they are not binding court orders ye friggen moron!"

So what's your point if you understand it was NOT a binding order...friggin idiot!

So anytime a neighborhood watch person is going to the store...they are now "...patrolling the neighborhood!!". Maybe if YOU could prove what you are saying the prosecution could have used you in court...but then you can't...so they didn't...sucks for you huh..?...no glory.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6121 Jul 23, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
As opposed to YOU...in this case...?...yes...you're an ignorant, lying, POS, extremist, "frustrated control freak".
LOL ... take a chill-pill moron!!
spocko

Oakland, CA

#6122 Jul 23, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee...if it's that "creepy" then why would Trayvon make the first contact and ask him why he was following him...?
"Pursue"...quit exagerating. "....yes of course, they are not binding court orders ye friggen moron!"
So what's your point if you understand it was NOT a binding order...friggin idiot!
So anytime a neighborhood watch person is going to the store...they are now "...patrolling the neighborhood!!". Maybe if YOU could prove what you are saying the prosecution could have used you in court...but then you can't...so they didn't...sucks for you huh..?...no glory.
Your self-serving wingnuz drivel is not only childish it is embarrassing!!

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 CIA director bails on Harvard speech after Chel... Oct 8 C Kersey 2
News Schools seek to help immigrants amid mixed sign... Sep 23 Defeat barbara boxer 12
News Oprah Winfrey lists Elmwood Park house, her las... (Nov '16) Sep '17 Fiery Fox 3
News Harvard withdraws fellowship invitation to Chel... Sep '17 youll shoot your ... 29
News In Selma, Ala., Obama Proved that he is 'Black ... (Mar '15) Sep '17 Bill C 10
News Harvard Revokes Acceptance of 10 Incoming Fresh... Sep '17 Bill C 3
News Mass deportation isn't just impractical. It's v... (Sep '16) Sep '17 help people in fl... 6
More from around the web