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.

Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#2809 Apr 3, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for helping me remind gun gnutters that they don't know the second amendment, including those they insist they know it "verbatim".
PS: Cracker, that would be another $100...
Niether do YOU...even when it is written out right in front of you...

AND YOU say it's "wrong and stuff in it not there"...but can't prove it!!!

You're just a non-reading, non-comprehending, ignorant, lying, POS, "frustrated control freak".

"PS: Cracker, that would be another $100..."

I don't care how much you want to charge for your table or lap dancing...YOU aren't worth one red cent.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#2810 Apr 3, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Shall I run a tab?
<quoted text>
You can run a tab, a coke, a dr pepper or a sprite for all I care...I'm not paying for your table or lap dancing...it's fun to watch but that's it.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#2811 Apr 3, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
~stomp stomp stomp~
WAHHHHHHHHH! MOMMY! Why can't I just make things up? WAHHHHHH!
Poor Melonhead: gun gnutters can't get the 2nd Amendment changed to the shorter NRA-approved version.
Who said anything about getting it "changed"...? Your violent but buddy is the one that wants to repeal it...that's because he has one more brain cell than you do and he knows it has to be repealed before he can get the gun laws he wants.

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

The "REAL" Supreme Court
2008; DC v Heller
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#2813 Apr 3, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! All cons want to focus on is "... shall not be infringed."
And what is it the "frustrated control freaks" like you say...?

Oh yeah...from YOU..."The militia is NOT necessary to the security of a free state and is NOT a check or balance against anything in particular."

Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#2814 Apr 3, 2013
conservative crapola wrote:
<quoted text>
House Dems Push Plan Requiring Gun Owners to Buy Liability Insurance
hahahahahahahahahahaha
Make me...lol
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#2816 Apr 3, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, that's the most quoted part. As I've said before, I look at the entire amendment.
"As I've said before, I look at the entire amendment."

Suuure you do...then you discount the "militia", "the right of the people" and "shall not be infringed"

Quoted from you..."The militia is NOT necessary to the security of a free state and is NOT a check or balance against anything in particular."

So just for our continued education...just what do YOU see in the 2nd Ameendment...?

Since: Jan 13

Anderson, IN

#2818 Apr 3, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it has, when you start with 50 cents an hour and wind up with $2 an hour you are way ahead of the rest of us :-)
That's the best you can come up with? You didn't address why your salary didn't increase 4x in a 30 year time span. Even if you started working at minimum wage it should have at least doubled. And, if I made $2.00 an hour and am "way ahead of the rest of us" you need to surround yourself with better role models to be "the rest of us" with. Sounds like the quote "fat, dumb and lazy is no way to go through life, son" applied to you.

Tap danced around the self preservation didn't you?
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#2820 Apr 3, 2013
haztobesaid wrote:
<quoted text>Self preservation is the exact reason I am armed. I am an old fart now and need an equalizer for the twenty-something thugs who think I worked so long to give them my property or life. I have found peace and followed it but self-preservation trumps it when the feces hits the fan.
I guess I am in the one percent, kind of. While I haven't been in the 6 & 7 digit income levels, my salary at the same job grew over 4x (almost 5x) in a little over 20 years.
I have the same question Armed Veteran has - why didn't yours?
Which part of "80% of American households have had virtually no economic gains in the past thirty years. The top 20% have seen a meager increase. The top 1%? They have seen their annual income grow from about a half million dollars per year to nearly 2 million $ per year" don't you understand?
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#2821 Apr 3, 2013
haztobesaid wrote:
<quoted text>That's the best you can come up with? You didn't address why your salary didn't increase 4x in a 30 year time span. Even if you started working at minimum wage it should have at least doubled. And, if I made $2.00 an hour and am "way ahead of the rest of us" you need to surround yourself with better role models to be "the rest of us" with. Sounds like the quote "fat, dumb and lazy is no way to go through life, son" applied to you.
Tap danced around the self preservation didn't you?
Huh? You a bit slow aren't ya moron?!!!
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#2822 Apr 3, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Even a no-information LIAR like you should know that the NRA is the principle enemy here, a greedy and power-hungry lobbying organization desperate to protect the gun industry and its sales, even if 2% of them are to Mexican drug gangs. They are the political and social force behind gun terrorism and the prevention of rational gun regulations.
Not fictitious, unlike your credibility, puddin.
"Even a no-information LIAR like you should know that the NRA is the principle enemy here,..."

No, the princple enemy here would be those that want to repeal the 2nd Amendment and "push gun nutz out of the way"...presumably into your "camps" in order to do it. Are those "re-education camps" or just plain "internment camps"...?

Then of course for those that "push back" or even think of defending themselves, their State, Country or Constitution...YOU would "call out the National Guard to shoot them down in the streets".

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#2823 Apr 3, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
Because of a clause telling why the people have the right to keep and bear arms, you think it limits the right that also contains a clause prohibiting limitation? Talk about not seeing the Forrest for the trees.

>>It makes gun ownership contingent upon forming militias. It's true it doesn't state that this is the only reason, and in those days people on the frontier certainly hunted for food and used guns for protection. But this only reinforces my statement that the Amendment is outdated (although I favor retaining the ability of licensed owners to hunt).

A militia is still necessary to the security of a free state! That is why socialist liberal Democrats want so badly to infringe the second amendment. It is the last of the checks and balances set forth by our founders.

>>It's not ANY kind of "check and balance." It's for the preservation of the State, not it's overthrow! When are you gun nuts going to understand that?

Your theory holds no water. The US established an Army in 1775. The second amendment was ratified in 1791, when Army and Militia were two distinctly different entities.

>>Duh. No one said militias were a sbustitute for armies, unfortunately for you. And the United States didn't exist in 1775, just a bunch of rebllious colonists.
It does NOT make gun ownership contingent upon forming militias! Your tunnel vision is blinding you to reality. The SCOTUS has already ruled that your stance on this is wrong.
Around the time the second amendment was written and ratified, 1791, people brought their own arms to join or form a militia. The phrase you refer to simply states, because of that, the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Who is trying to overthrow a state? You really go out on some tangents! You liberals jump from wanting gun control because of a few mass shootings, in gun free zones I might add, to the right to keep and bear arms meaning people will overthrow the state! Smoke and mirrors to detract from the truth!
Do you truly not realize it was talking about securing the freedom of the states from Federal Tyranny or possibly a foreign invader, such as the UN or others? Or do you realize it, and want states susceptible to such things?

Yes someone did say that at the time the second was written, the militia was the army. That was not the case. I am fully aware the US did not exist on paper in 1775. But the army originated in 1775. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_U...

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#2824 Apr 3, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Even a no-information LIAR like you should know that the NRA is the principle enemy here, a greedy and power-hungry lobbying organization desperate to protect the gun industry and its sales, even if 2% of them are to Mexican drug gangs. They are the political and social force behind gun terrorism and the prevention of rational gun regulations.
Not fictitious, unlike your credibility, puddin.
No traitors like you are the enemy.......

“ROCK ON ROCKERS!!”

Since: Mar 11

Rockin' USA ;)

#2826 Apr 3, 2013
The STRICTER the Better..on Gun Laws...THIS isn't about a Elementary School Dress Code...

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#2827 Apr 3, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Taking deadly, child-killing guns off the street PROTECTS our freedoms - our freedom to live in peace, to protect our children, to have safe public areas and schools, etc. You don't have any Constitutional right to violate those rights, puddin.
The rest of your crappy post was the usual offtopic spam, which for the FOURTH time I tagged and bagged, li'l boy.:)
How will any law get guns or drugs off of any street???

has it ever worked with drugs????

Tell us how a gun can kill anyone???

Gasoline on the other hand can spontaneous combust killing someone.....

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#2828 Apr 3, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Not that the Bible means a DAMNED thing in regard to the laws in a country with separation of Church and State, but in fact the Bible never mentions gay marriage OR abortion. ANYWHERE.
So go fish, li'l fella...:)
Wrong again..........

It talks about a man that lays with a man..........

And murder...

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#2829 Apr 3, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Which part of "80% of American households have had virtually no economic gains in the past thirty years. The top 20% have seen a meager increase. The top 1%? They have seen their annual income grow from about a half million dollars per year to nearly 2 million $ per year" don't you understand?
We understand that thugs like you have not been able to rob as many people lately....

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#2830 Apr 3, 2013
Colorado Chick wrote:
The STRICTER the Better..on Gun Laws...THIS isn't about a Elementary School Dress Code...
What law would have prevented the Sandy hook shooting???
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#2833 Apr 3, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
What law would have prevented the Sandy hook shooting???
You are calling people "thugs" yet here you are promoting anarchism ... you are a piece of work ain't ya.

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#2834 Apr 3, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Not that the Bible means a DAMNED thing in regard to the laws in a country with separation of Church and State, but in fact the Bible never mentions gay marriage OR abortion. ANYWHERE.
So go fish, li'l fella...:)
SEQUESTER GESTURE: OBAMA GIVES BACK 5%...but still won’t let children in the white house. Maybe he should give up his putter.

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#2835 Apr 3, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
We understand that thugs like you have not been able to rob as many people lately....
CO Democrat Doesn't Understand High-Capacity Magazines Can Be Reloaded. Low information law makers for low information voters.

CO State Rep. Diana DeGette (D) "I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available."

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... 1 hr payme 1,483
News Democrats to push for universal background chec... 9 hr FormerParatrooper 1
News Melania Trump will address immigration controve... 22 hr JohnInLa 234
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