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: Nov 08

Paris

#1156 Mar 19, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Rights are infringed, violated, not regulated.
We can use their argument about assault rifles to include low information voters not voting......I mean if you are going to end one right, why not another?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1157 Mar 19, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Actually they said no such thing.

You still don't understand the difference between the right to own A gun for self defense within your home is NOT the same as the right to own ANY gun by ANY one at ANY time ANY where they want without ANY conditions, restrictions, or regulations.

(see previous Scalia's quotes)

No right is absolute if it can be restricted or regulated in any way.

As I've said numerous times, I have no desire whatsoever to repeal the 2nd amendment.

“Vote Republican”

Since: Aug 08

Wyandanch, NY

#1158 Mar 19, 2013
States that enforce their laws will also have fewer shooting victims.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1159 Mar 19, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Gun Restrictions only affect law abiding citizens no one else Restriction mean nothing to a criminal.
Those restrictions (i.e. laws) are what allow the police to arrest a criminal BEFORE they go on a killing spree.

Of course they'll never stop EVERY criminal from committing a crime, but that's no reason to throw out every law which DOES prevent SOME crime.

Otherwise what's the point of having any laws at all?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1160 Mar 19, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You're right, he was menatally ill; his mother was stupid.

We'll never know if he would have been able to slaughter those kids if he didn't have such easy access to his mothers weapons.

You think nutjobs like Lanza have an absolute uninfringable right to own whatever guns he wants.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1161 Mar 19, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Well you SHOULD ask someone to explain it to you, because even the MOST conservative wacko gun nut on the Supreme Court (Scalia)disagrees with you.

Can the 2nd amendment be repealed?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1162 Mar 19, 2013
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.
Well since criminals don't follow laws, then obviously the answer is to repeal ALL laws........

What a moron.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1163 Mar 19, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yes, we HAVE covered this repeatedly, and you STILL get it wrong EVERY TIME.

So now you're claiming that the 2nd amendment is absolute but ONLY for "some" people?

Which ones? Only white people have an absolute uninfringable right to own guns, but all others can be restricted? Only christians? Only land owners?

I'm pretty sure they tried that before, with gun rights, voting rights, etc, etc.

Rights apply to ALL citizens.

It can't be absolute for some but not for others.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1164 Mar 19, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Pssst, voting rights ARE limited.

Can a 4 y/o vote?
Can anyone vote without first registering?

In fact it's usually the same gun-nutters that support voter ID laws which is a restriction on the right to vote.

As I've stated numerous times, NO right is absolute.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1165 Mar 19, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Then why is violent crime higher in anti gun areas?
Pssst, read the title of the article.......

That's kinda the whole point. Gun violence is actually LOWER in states with more gun regulations.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1169 Mar 19, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> 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.
Psssst, guns have killed MILLIONS of innocent people. You gun-nutters would call them "collateral damage".

Considering you're obviously an insane gun-nutter, that makes your guns a threat to EVERYONE.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1172 Mar 19, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> 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?
It's debatable because it's being debated.

I thought that was pretty obvious.

Actually I don't agree with Scalia about anything. I was just pointing out that even your GREATEST advocate and fellow gun-nutter on the court thinks it's debatable.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1173 Mar 19, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> LIAR. Police (who are just men with a piece of tin badge) out gun criminals every day.
Obvioulsy I was referring to civilians.

Become a police officer, or better yet go serve in the military and you can play with whatever guns you want.

Of course cowards like you don't serve.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1174 Mar 19, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Correct, people should not be able to own machine guns or tanks or rpgs or hand grenades or nukes or assault weapons with high capacity magazine, etc.

The danger to society is simply too great.

I'd support banning ALL semi-automatic weapons, but leave the right to own a revolver and single shot rifles & shotguns intact.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1175 Mar 19, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Exactly.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1176 Mar 19, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Btw, you're not being punished because their is no absolute right to own whatever gun you want.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1177 Mar 19, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually they said no such thing.
You still don't understand the difference between the right to own A gun for self defense within your home is NOT the same as the right to own ANY gun by ANY one at ANY time ANY where they want without ANY conditions, restrictions, or regulations.
(see previous Scalia's quotes)
No right is absolute if it can be restricted or regulated in any way.
As I've said numerous times, I have no desire whatsoever to repeal the 2nd amendment.
you still dont understand constitutional law.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1178 Mar 19, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, and there was only 60,000 murders there last year.
And without existing laws there would probably have been double or triple that amount.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1179 Mar 19, 2013
Der Beobachter wrote:
<quoted text> 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
Correct. And since it's already been proven that less guns and more restrictions cuts down on gun crimes, then it's constitituional to regulate & restrict them.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#1180 Mar 19, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually they said no such thing.
You still don't understand the difference between the right to own A gun for self defense within your home is NOT the same as the right to own ANY gun by ANY one at ANY time ANY where they want without ANY conditions, restrictions, or regulations.
(see previous Scalia's quotes)
No right is absolute if it can be restricted or regulated in any way.
As I've said numerous times, I have no desire whatsoever to repeal the 2nd amendment.
My right to defend myself with an effective weapon does NOT end at my front door. Just because limitations have already been placed on the 2nd Amendment does NOT mean those limitations are constitutional, nor does it mean that the 2nd Amendment can be regulated out of existense.

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 Sotomayor, Spielberg win Harvard Du Bois medals (Oct '13) Jan 22 Love abandonment 11
News Defining Political Child Abuse: A Tale of Two C... Dec '15 tomin cali 1
Visiting Harvard University Dec '15 annastraveltribute 1
News Supreme Court hears Texas affirmative action ch... Dec '15 Butbutbut 1
News Atheist Activists Disguised As Scientists (Apr '12) Nov '15 thetruth 168
News Gay Profs OK With Home's Anti-Gay NameBy Katie ... Nov '15 Joey 2
News College students facing depression need more th... (Feb '15) Nov '15 HumanSpirit 3
More from around the web