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: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2265 Mar 31, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
For servers at conventions??
You wouldn't be allowed in, Homo One.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2266 Mar 31, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, the depth of your delusion is truly astounding.
I'm not the one pretending half the Second Amendment is the Second Amendment, Sugarplum.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2267 Mar 31, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
It was the republican party that put an end to African American slavery in the first place, you dolt.
Actually, it was three million Union soldiers and sailors.

The Republicans would not have put an end to slavery save for the Civil War.

PS: For the last forty years the GOP seems to be trying to re institute slavery.

Why do you suppose there are so very few blacks in the GOP?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2268 Mar 31, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, unfortunately. If people are treated like animals, then what else can be expected?
Right, it is okay for your bigot friend to address these humans as animals- and "knee grows" and worse, but you are offended by me pointing to the FACT that there percentage of persons of color in the GOP is around 8 percent.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2272 Mar 31, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is amazing to me that you can even type.
It's amazing to me that you can breath with your boyfriend's sausage banging into your tonsils but I don't judge and of course it seems I still have the facts and I don't have to use the edited version of the US Constitution to try to make my point, Shug.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2273 Mar 31, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
I could care less what the percentage is of the republican 'party'.
Real Republicans do care and that is why you aren't welcome into the party except for a few months before the election.

But as leaders in the party have pointed out: people like you are baggage and we have to start being the stupid party and push you out.

Like that third bird in the nest when there is only enough food for two.
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#2274 Mar 31, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not the one pretending half the Second Amendment is the Second Amendment, Sugarplum.
What half don't YOU comprehend?

The first half:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"

The second half:

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The first half is, in English grammar, nominally referred to as a dependent, or subordinate clause, because it requires a qualifier clause: I does NOT stand by itself.

The second clause is, in English grammar, nominally referred to as the main, or independent clause, because it requires nothing else to support the message which it conveys. It stands ALL BY ITSELF without ANY qualifiers.

Compare the following parallel constructed consonant-concurrent sentence:

A well educated population being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear books shall not be infringed.

Do you propose to say that the ONLY reason for the people keeping and bearing books, is for educational purposes only, and for NO other reasons?

Hell, the amendment in question might well have stated:

Clean widows being necessary for proper internal illumination of an abode, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Would you propose to say that the ONLY reason for the people keep and bear arms was for 'clean windows?'

I await your 'learned' response ......
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#2275 Mar 31, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's amazing to me that you can breath with your boyfriend's sausage banging into your tonsils but I don't judge and of course it seems I still have the facts and I don't have to use the edited version of the US Constitution to try to make my point, Shug.
My, but YOU sure do project an awful lot!
You accuse others of YOUR OWN sexual practices!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2276 Mar 31, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
(the original party of SLAVERY).
Slavery began before there was a USA, spooge.

It's in the history books.

The "first" Democrat was Thomas Jefferson- remember that when you are quoting him when you misinterpret the 2nd Amendment.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2277 Mar 31, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
What half don't YOU comprehend?
I understand you are embarrassed to use one alias.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2278 Mar 31, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
What half don't YOU comprehend?
The first half:.
I can read sentences that have two dozen words in it and don't have to break it down into pieces and pretend they aren't connected.

I know exactly how the 2nd was put together and how the state came up with the final wording.

I know how every few words came to be in the final version.

And that it was meant to be read and understood in its entirety.

I understand you are too stupid to take in more than nine words at a time.
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#2279 Mar 31, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, it is okay for your bigot friend to address these humans as animals- and "knee grows" and worse, but you are offended by me pointing to the FACT that there percentage of persons of color in the GOP is around 8 percent.
I must be true about you: You're TOTALLY ignorant of American history. The ONLY things you 'know' are the forced-fed propaganda sent your way in one or another 'public school.'

The fact of whatever percentage —by race, religion, creed, or what have you— in any particular political party has ZERO bearing on the party itself, UNLESS the party represents an extremist point of view.

It is a fact that since the early 1960's the party of the Democrat has worked steadily to erode the nuclear family especially black communities.

Black fathers could NOT live in the same above as his wife, and children, when attempting to receive welfare assistance. For a woman and child to receive such assistance, the man of the house had to move out.

The party of the Democrat went out of their way to garner the 'black vote' by promising MORE welfare money if, IF those blacks voted the Democrat line all across the board.

Then there was Johnson's (LBJ)'New Society' which THREW literally BILLIONS at the black communities all across the U.S., and it did so by ROBBING the Social Security Trust Fund.

It also raided that same fund in order to further the Vietnam War. It raised taxes on the middle class, and even the lower classes to make like they were 'spreading the pain.'

So, black families were TORN apart, youth without fathers present turned toward a life of violent crime, and the rest is history.

Interesting note: Up to the very early 1960's, black literacy was usually on par with their white and Asian fellows, and in some cases they were ever better.

All that changed when the Democrats got their way.

There is a parallel in American history: The comparison between Booker T Washington, and the Massachusetts communist W.E.B. Du Bois.

Washington (a former slave) founded the Tuskegee Institute for the purposes of elevating the former slaves with education.

Du Bois, on the other hand worked to keep the blacks in poverty, and dependent upon handouts in order to keep them in line.

Oh, and one final thing: All the way up to the 1970's, it was the Southern Democrats who ran the KKK.
It was ALSO the Southern Democrats which fought tooth and nail against EVERY civil rights law put before the U.S. Congress.
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#2280 Mar 31, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Slavery began before there was a USA, spooge.
It's in the history books.
The "first" Democrat was Thomas Jefferson- remember that when you are quoting him when you misinterpret the 2nd Amendment.
YOU are so incorrect in that assertion regarding Jefferson, that you're either attempting to rewrite history, or you're so thick that not even gamma rays may pass!

Jefferson started the Democratic Republican party.
The operative term there: Republican.

He might well have called it the Free Republican Party, or even the United Republican party, but the end result is going to be the very same: REPUBLICAN!
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#2282 Mar 31, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I can read sentences that have two dozen words in it and don't have to break it down into pieces and pretend they aren't connected.
I know exactly how the 2nd was put together and how the state came up with the final wording.
I know how every few words came to be in the final version.
And that it was meant to be read and understood in its entirety.
I understand you are too stupid to take in more than nine words at a time.
Now you engage in casuistry, i.e., the use of clever but unsound reasoning, esp. in relation to moral questions; sophistry.

Face it: You cannot begin to support your line of reasoning with quotes from the time of founders of the American Republic.

Oh, and BTW: The 'state' did not construct the the amendment in question. It was the first Congress of the U.S. who did so, having received input from none other than George Mason.

Here's the first clause of the 17 article:
"That the People have the right to keep and bear arms;"

Note the SEMICOLON:
"a punctuation mark (;) indicating a pause, typically between two main clauses, that is more pronounced than that indicated by a comma."

Main Clause:
"a clause that can form a complete sentence standing alone, having a subject and a predicate."

Guess what? YOU LOSE AGAIN!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2284 Mar 31, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU are so incorrect in that assertion regarding Jefferson, that you're either attempting to rewrite history, or you're so thick that not even gamma rays may pass!
Jefferson started the Democratic Republican party.
The operative term there: Republican.
He might well have called it the Free Republican Party, or even the United Republican party, but the end result is going to be the very same: REPUBLICAN!
Exactly barefoot2626 is revisionist.

1. Advocacy of the revision of an accepted, usually long-standing view, theory, or doctrine, especially a revision of historical events and movements.

2. A recurrent tendency within the Communist movement to revise Marxist theory in such a way as to provide justification for a retreat from the revolutionary to the reformist position.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/revisionist

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2285 Mar 31, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
I must be true about you: You're TOTALLY ignorant of American history.
It must be true about you: you are total unaware of sexual transmitted diseases and the health department has put out an APB up and down the I-5 corridor in mens bathrooms warning truckers that you are infected.

Thanks for sharing!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2286 Mar 31, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite, DOLT:
I don't have time to teach you history, how to read, and warn you about STDs, so I will just do the last:

You really have to start using protection, dear, not only for your own health, but the farmers in Kentucky are concerned about the sheep population.

PS: I said Jefferson was the 'first' Democrat. Notice the single quote mark around the word first. What that means is, more or less, there is no real 'first' Democrat, but among early politicians, it could be argued that Jefferson lead the way until the party was more formally built around Andrew Jackson.

You will note that SLAVERY came before both were born.

You seem to forgot where you put the goalposts.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2287 Mar 31, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly barefoot2626 is revisionist.
You told us the tea party was on the left.

Your own stupidity needs no revision.

I think they are conducting polling to see if it makes the list.

Maybe you can get a Topix badge for it?
Tm Clmns

Victoria, Canada

#2288 Mar 31, 2013
Women for self Protection wrote:
Well if this post isn't a lie i do not know what is... The reason gun death in Chicago,IL is so high is because of the lower income people point blank. Call me Racist i do not give a shit. Almost 80% of all shootings involve Drugs sales and Gang active people...
I live in Chicago, I know the street i grew up on them. You people from other states do not know shit about them, You live in all your fancy ass houses telling us how we should live and how we should do this look in the mirror.
Our young black males are dead is because the only way to make money is on the street there anit no jobs like Mr Obama promised us!
All your stuff shirts use us lower income people for your stupid laws, We i am here to tell you no matter what gun laws you past you anit going to stop anyone from getting the guns except you upper class people..
Which will lead into a fest for people like US.... So just remember i am right around the corner when they pass these laws. on Gun control...
This was written by the NRA propaganda dept......

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2289 Mar 31, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
Won't even bother to comment about the origins of the detestable institution of slavery, you moron.
Of course not: I had to remind you that slavery existed for over one hundred years before there was a USA and close to 200 years before there was a Democratic party.

Didn't stop you from asserting the Democrats were somehow responsible for slavery, though.

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.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... 22 min WasteWater 1,606
News Democrats to push for universal background chec... Aug 26 payme 4
News Melania Trump will address immigration controve... Aug 23 JohnInLa 218
News George Soros, Other Democratic Megadonors Plowi... Aug 21 Heath Ledger Suic... 2
News New Dating Site Aims to Pair Concealed Carry Si... Aug 21 RobertM 1
News Psychiatrists Reminded To Refrain From Armchair... Aug 20 lorr d 4
News In Several States, Trump's Poll Monitors May Be... Aug 17 Marauder 9
More from around the web