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.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1116 Mar 18, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a trick question. If they are a criminal, sure they could have been arrested for something else before committing murder.
But the police can not arrest someone for murder simply because they suspect they will murder someone.
Of course you can't be arrested for murder if the murder hasn't happened yet, just as you can't be arrested for burglary if the burglary hasn't happened yet.

But you CAN be arrested for attempted murder or conspiracy to commit a murder, etc.

So criminals HAVE been prevented from killing people due to enforcement of existing laws.

Yep, that was too easy.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1117 Mar 18, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at your choice of words. "Limited Right". Ironically the definition of infringe is to LIMIT or undermine. How is that concept constitutional again?
Because the founders never intended for the 2nd amendment to be absolute; if they had, they would have said the 2nd amendment right to own a gun is absolute and can never be repealed or overturned by the courts.

Does it say that? Nope. Instead they used the phrase "shall not be infringed" which is obviously subjective as evidence by the contuined disagreement over its meaning by even the most experienced constitutional scholars.

For a more detailed explanation you'll have to ask Justice Scalia; it's his opinion I was quoting from.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1118 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, the 2nd amendment isn't an absolute right; it can and is restricted & regulated all across America.
its a right under the US constitution for law abiding citizens now at the state level since 2010 which is why these gun laws around the United States are being challenged just like in New York State with gun registration with New York State's new gun law which has to do with the SCOTUS case of Haynes vs United States which under that ruling the New York Gun Law will be ruled Unconstitutional because Federal Government cant require a convicted felon to register a firearm that they are suppose to be in possession to begin with and would constitute self-incrimination.

Haynes v. United States

The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1119 Mar 18, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Your confusing Rights and Regulations and that is the problem besides with the US Constituion's 2nd Amendment and speaking of Machine Guns my neighbor has had a World War 2 water cooled machine for years and its his right and legal to own it and there has never been any problems.
The Bill of Rights: A Transcription
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bil...
If rights can be regulated, then they're not absolute.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1120 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually NYC's gun laws have significantly reduced gun violence in the city.
The problem with Chicago & Detroit and other places is they aren't properly enforcing their laws. They need to adopt NYC's "stop & frisk" law, as well as random regular sweeps through high crime neighborhoods confiscating all illegal weapons in the hands of criminals.
The problem in CT was that his MOM was able to legally buy those guns when she obviously shouldn't have.
I agree Chicago & Detroit's problems are that they law officials are not enforcing their Laws which Detroit & Chicago are products of the New Left's Great Society Failure and the New Left was founded and conceived in Southeast Michigan which started at the University of Michigan and New Left's Manifesto was agreed upon in Port Huron Michigan and is what became known as the Port Huron Statement and polices are a failure as we can see from what is known as modern day Detroit.

The Port Huron Statement

Written in 1960 by a core group of the fledgling Students for a Democratic Society, the statement became a manifesto for the new left. Its embrace of participatory democracy and egalitarianism; its portrayal of American society as undemocratic, bureaucratic, and militaristic; and its vision of a community in which no one would suffer from isolation, alienation, or want, all struck a chord with thousands of young white college students.

https://www2.bc.edu/~weiler/sixtiesdocuments....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1121 Mar 18, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
So it's ok to restrict the guns that the law abiding can purchase to decrease the number of guns available to those who do not follow the law in the first place? Thereby leaving the law abiding defenseless and the law breaking still with a gun and a major advantage?
I should have known you were a criminal. That's the only way you could rationalize such a situation.
The restiction applies equally to criminals as well as law abiding citizens. The only problem with the current restrictions is the police don't properly enforce those restrictions and allow the criminals to have guns they shouldn't have.

The answer isn't MORE guns, because the criminals will always have bigger or more guns than you. You'll always be out manned and out gunned.

So if all pistols are banned or all assault rifles are banned, then the police don't have to check whether you're a legal gun owner or not; they'll immediately know you're a criminal and can arrest and confiscate any and all weapons they find.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1122 Mar 18, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
What is reasonable about placing more restrictions on people's gun rights, when restriction on people's gun rights have not worked.
You know the definition of insanity, right?
The second amendment is absolute. As has been pointed out to you numerous times by numerous posters, you are confusing rights and laws. They are not synonymous.
Gun restrictions have preveted many violent crimes. Obviously not all of them, but just because we haven't stopped all murders or all burglaries or even all speeders doesn't mean you throw out all laws related to them.

If the 2nd amendment was absolute, then it could never be restricted in any manner at any time for anyone anywhere for any reason.

Obviously that's not the case.

Btw, if I'm "confusing" it, then I'm in good company, because all the SCOTUS justices agree it is not an absolute right.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1123 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If rights can be regulated, then they're not absolute.
I agree with what you are saying that is true but that is where the Federal Courts draw the lines and that is their responsiblity which the SCOTUS said in Mcdonald vs Chicago that the 2nd amendment is a right under the US constitution and cannot be infringed by the states anymore and I dont believe you would get 2/3 majority of the states to repeal the 2nd amendment.
downhill246

Delray Beach, FL

#1124 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Killing babies is illegal.
ba·by (bb)
n. pl. ba·bies
1.
a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/baby

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1125 Mar 18, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>its a right under the US constitution for law abiding citizens ........(remainder irrelevent)....
I had to read no further than your first condition placed on what is supposedly an absolute right.

If it's truly absolute, then it applies to ALL citizens WIHTOUT exception; law abiding or not.

The second you make it conditional, it's no longer absolute.

So if you can impose a condition of "law abiding citizen", why can't I impose a condition that it only applies to "left handed citizens" and still claim it is an absolute right?

Once you open the door even a crack.........
downhill246

Delray Beach, FL

#1126 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The restiction applies equally to criminals as well as law abiding citizens. The only problem with the current restrictions is the police don't properly enforce those restrictions and allow the criminals to have guns they shouldn't have.
The answer isn't MORE guns, because the criminals will always have bigger or more guns than you. You'll always be out manned and out gunned.
So if all pistols are banned or all assault rifles are banned, then the police don't have to check whether you're a legal gun owner or not; they'll immediately know you're a criminal and can arrest and confiscate any and all weapons they find.


Too bad the courts think differently.

"To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald."

Moore v. Madigan (2013)
Judge Richard Posner , US Court of Appeals fo the 7th Circuit

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1127 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Gun restrictions have preveted many violent crimes. Obviously not all of them, but just because we haven't stopped all murders or all burglaries or even all speeders doesn't mean you throw out all laws related to them.
If the 2nd amendment was absolute, then it could never be restricted in any manner at any time for anyone anywhere for any reason.
Obviously that's not the case.
Btw, if I'm "confusing" it, then I'm in good company, because all the SCOTUS justices agree it is not an absolute right.
Gun Restrictions only affect law abiding citizens no one else Restriction mean nothing to a criminal.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#1128 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>Actually NYC's gun laws have significantly reduced gun violence in the city.

The problem with Chicago & Detroit and other places is they aren't properly enforcing their laws. They need to adopt NYC's "stop & frisk" law, as well as random regular sweeps through high crime neighborhoods confiscating all illegal weapons in the hands of criminals.

The problem in CT was that his MOM was able to legally buy those guns when she obviously shouldn't have.
Well don't you just have an answer for everything. Lmao! NYC's stop and frisk law violates its citizens' and inhabitants' civil rights.
Here's the problem. You could put every person in the US in an individual cage 24/7/365 without access to any weapons and that would reduce violent crime as well. Should we do that?

Same for Adam Lanza's mom. You think violating her rights would have been the answer? Do you think Adam would not have found firearms in some other way? He was mentally ill, not stupid.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1129 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I had to read no further than your first condition placed on what is supposedly an absolute right.
If it's truly absolute, then it applies to ALL citizens WIHTOUT exception; law abiding or not.
The second you make it conditional, it's no longer absolute.
So if you can impose a condition of "law abiding citizen", why can't I impose a condition that it only applies to "left handed citizens" and still claim it is an absolute right?
Once you open the door even a crack.........
that is what the Liberal Majority on the SCOTUS in 1968 did in Haynes vs United States they opened the door which they shouldnt of.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration. The National Firearm Act was amended after Haynes and the new registration provision was upheld in United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971) which had to do with a buyer of unregistered hand grenades and was subject to criminal liability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United...

The Warren Court(Liberal Majority 1953-1969)

The Warren Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States between 1953 and 1969, when Earl Warren served as Chief Justice. Warren led a liberal majority that used judicial power in dramatic fashion, to the consternation of conservative opponents. The Warren Court expanded civil rights, civil liberties, judicial power, and the federal power in dramatic ways

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Court

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1130 Mar 18, 2013
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad the courts think differently.
"To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald."
Moore v. Madigan (2013)
Judge Richard Posner , US Court of Appeals fo the 7th Circuit
Exactly.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#1131 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>Scalia already ruled unusual or dangerous guns ban be banned for civilian use. That includes any assault rifle.

So just when ARE you planning on taking all these regulations and bans and restrictions to the court? What are you waiting for? Many of them have been on the books for decades; some for centuries.

Until the SCOTUS rules otherwise, those bans & regulations & restrictions are constitutional.

Better get busy.......
Nothing unusual about a AR.........LOL

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#1132 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>Of course you can't be arrested for murder if the murder hasn't happened yet, just as you can't be arrested for burglary if the burglary hasn't happened yet.

But you CAN be arrested for attempted murder or conspiracy to commit a murder, etc.

So criminals HAVE been prevented from killing people due to enforcement of existing laws.

Yep, that was too easy.
Yes, but you have to be caught in the act of attempting or planning the murder to be arrested for attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder. And those are the only crimes they are guilty of. So prove they were going to commit murder.
Much like your argument about proving voter ID laws prevent voter fraud, you can not prove the person was actually going to go through with the actual murder.:)

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#1133 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>Because the founders never intended for the 2nd amendment to be absolute; if they had, they would have said the 2nd amendment right to own a gun is absolute and can never be repealed or overturned by the courts.

Does it say that? Nope. Instead they used the phrase "shall not be infringed" which is obviously subjective as evidence by the contuined disagreement over its meaning by even the most experienced constitutional scholars.

For a more detailed explanation you'll have to ask Justice Scalia; it's his opinion I was quoting from.
I don't have to ask anyone. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the definition of infringe is to limit or undermine. Therefore the meaning of the phrase is, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be limited or undermined.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#1134 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>The restiction applies equally to criminals as well as law abiding citizens. The only problem with the current restrictions is the police don't properly enforce those restrictions and allow the criminals to have guns they shouldn't have.

The answer isn't MORE guns, because the criminals will always have bigger or more guns than you. You'll always be out manned and out gunned.

So if all pistols are banned or all assault rifles are banned, then the police don't have to check whether you're a legal gun owner or not; they'll immediately know you're a criminal and can arrest and confiscate any and all weapons they find.
Oh the restriction applies to criminals all right. How well is that working out? How ignorant can you be?
Name one mass murder in the US where the shooter followed the gun law.
Name one gun murder in the US where the shooter followed the gun law.

Prove that if people are allowed more guns the criminals will always have more or bigger guns. Prove I will always be out manned and out gunned.

Dude, move to Mexico! They do things exactly how you like them.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#1135 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>Gun restrictions have preveted many violent crimes. Obviously not all of them, but just because we haven't stopped all murders or all burglaries or even all speeders doesn't mean you throw out all laws related to them.

If the 2nd amendment was absolute, then it could never be restricted in any manner at any time for anyone anywhere for any reason.

Obviously that's not the case.

Btw, if I'm "confusing" it, then I'm in good company, because all the SCOTUS justices agree it is not an absolute right.
Prove gun restrictions have prevented many violent crimes.

We have covered this repeatedly. It is not the second amendment that is not absolute. It is the definition of "The People" that is not absolute.

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 Trump, Clinton aides clash at post-election gat... 13 hr Lawrence Wolf 123
News Strict parenting is a sign of love Dec 3 Panties Hurt In L... 2
News Rhodes scholars for Class of 2017 announced Nov 21 spytheweb 1
Harvard Private Special Acceptance Nov 14 QQQ 1
News Oprah Winfrey lists Elmwood Park house, her las... Nov 12 former democrat 1
News Brennan: Area's millennial voters shrug at Clin... Oct '16 ClintonTrashes 1
woman put in jail for carrying protest sign Oct '16 rlwaller 1
More from around the web