States with strict gun laws found to have fewer shooting deaths

Mar 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Reuters

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.

Comments
1,081 - 1,100 of 5,070 Comments Last updated Aug 27, 2013

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1136
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If rights can be regulated, then they're not absolute.
So if we use your thinking Voting is not an absolute right then either and can be eliminated too just like the 2nd Amendment and there you have a society like China where they have no gun or voting rights.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1137
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant. Unlike a gun, their primary function isn't to kill things.
^Willful ignorance at its finest.^
Tray

Saltillo, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1138
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are full of crap.
But we knew that already.
No law ever stopped anyone from doing anything so no need for any laws at all.
Wipe your chin, hun.
Then why is violent crime higher in anti gun areas?
Tray

Saltillo, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1139
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No proof of that whatsoever.
I could just as easily claim 10 million people have used a nuclear weapon for self defense, so therefore everyone should have a right to their own personal nuke.
See how easy it is to make claims with no evidence whatsoever.....
Liar. Even Clinton admitted 1,500,000 self defense uses per year. Oh back to the old "nuke" ranting. A nuke can not be use as it causes extreme collateral damage. If one could be used ONLY on a specific target then why not? A weapon that kills many more innocent people would infringe on the rights of those innocent victims. As before liar, show how me or my guns are ANY threat to you.
Tray

Saltillo, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1140
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Oooh, playing words games.
Okay, people using guns to kill people.
Show me one person killed by another person where the murder weapon was a ballot.
Happy now?
Yep, finally you admit your a liar.
Tray

Saltillo, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1141
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
Liar. Violent crime INCREASED after the gun control laws started.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1142
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Many armed people are killed every day; their gun didn't save them.
You are correct. Cops get killed all too often, and they are ususally armed everyday. Having a firearm on your person is no guarantee that you will have a chance to use it. But NOT having it means you will have ZERO chance of defending yourself with it. Having car insurance doesn't mean you won't get into an accident, but you are damn glad you have when you do need it.

Are you really this dense, or are you doing it on purpose.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1143
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If it's illegal, then have them arrested.
And as usual, the point went sailing right over your head.{rolls eyes}
Tray

Saltillo, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1144
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
How is "shall not be infringed" debatable? Please show how it is a gray area. If justice Scalia said slavery was legal (like other SCOTUS claimed) would you still agree with him? Are you claiming these men are all knowing all seeing?
Tray

Saltillo, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1145
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
If rights can be regulated, then they're not absolute.
Rights are infringed, violated, not regulated.
Tray

Saltillo, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1146
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
LIAR. Police (who are just men with a piece of tin badge) out gun criminals every day.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1147
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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.
You would fit right in with the Gestapo. Seig Heil!!!

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1148
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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.
But you are willing to PUNISH millions of law-abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong by restricting their right to legally own certain firearms simply because a handful of maniacs just so happened to use those same weapons??? Hypocrite much?
hojjoj

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1149
Mar 19, 2013
 
youtube.com/watch... ……… Get Over it quickly
Pennsylvania is shoot to kill

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1150
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yep, and there was only 60,000 murders there last year.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1151
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>Yep, and there was only 60,000 murders there last year.
Precisely.

“I'm Watching YOU”

Since: Jan 09

Ft. Lewis WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1152
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, if YOU are looking to restrict a constitutional right, then then onus is on YOU to prove those restrictions actually DO what you CLAIM they do.
So you agree that You have to Prove that the Restricting of the constitutional Right to bear Arms will save lives BEFORE you can actually change the Constitution. How will you Prove that taking my right to own an AR style weapon will save lives
MickeyVilleMike

Clifton Park, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1153
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

As Sheeple sees it;

Amendment 1 Freedoms, Petitions, Assembly
RESTRICT; Due to Large gatherings of people sometimes ends in a riot

Amendment 2 Right to bear arms
RESTRICT; Due to people are killed by guns

Amendment 3 Quartering of soldiers
RESTRICT; due to it will save the government money to house Military in private homes, Leaving more money for welfare projects

Amendment 4 Search and arrest
Restrict; So you can catch people trying to protect themselves

Amendment 5 Rights in criminal cases. Restrict so that criminals get more rights and honest Law abiding people get fewer rights

Amendment 6 Right to a fair trial
Restrict; only criminals get a fair trial Law abiding people get locked up

Amendment 7 Rights in civil cases
Restrict; if you own something the government does not like You Are Guilty

Amendment 8 Bail, fines, punishment
Restrict; See amendment 7

Amendment 9 Rights retained by the People
REMOVE- the government Knows what’s good for you

Amendment 10 States' rights
REMOVE- The federal government is all that’s needed

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1154
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
It stops when people feel safe again. Every time there is another mass shooting, there will be another push to further restrict gun rights.
I'd suggest you end-of-the-world survivalist nutjobs talk to your buddies and get them to quit shooting up schools and malls and theaters etc, before all guns are banned.
If it was really about the deaths of children or adults, Chicago would have had the national guard in months ago. This is about more control from the federal government, hense the 2nd amendment.
MickeyVilleMike

Clifton Park, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1155
Mar 19, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Oh I forgot to ADD since religion causes so many Problems the Federal Government will choose one religion and EVERYONE will BELIEVE in it or else

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Harvard University Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jesse Ventura Swoons Over Fidel Castro and Che ... Aug 4 WE JUST DONT CARE 17
Study says Erie is unhappy, but happily cheap Jul 31 Frugality Fatigue 31
Study: Religion No Go-To for LGBs; Suicide Risk... Jul 28 Jumper The wise 93
Hillel, a safe haven for Israel supporters (Feb '14) Jul '14 indict judy Genshaft 4
Doing Something is Better Than Doing Nothing fo... Jul '14 humanSpirit 1
Bangladesh: Behemoth Garment Industry Weathers ... Jun '14 Human at Earth 1
The Definitive Stoughton School Committee Debat... (Apr '13) Jun '14 Kundrot dionkie 11

Search the Harvard University Forum:
•••