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 06

Location hidden

#4264 Apr 25, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
The title of this thread is
"States with strict gun laws found to have fewer shooting deaths'

You cited two references. The first for the JAMA said this:

"The real question is not about the number of firearm laws but whether the laws ultimately safeguard the citizens they are intended to protect. Although multiple studies have examined the relationship between federal and state firearm laws and homicide and suicide rates, the overall association between firearm legislation and firearm mortality is uncertain and remains controversial."
So actually, you are showing a reference in direct conflict with the article on which the thread is based.
My post said that Texas and Florida had fewer shooting deaths per capita than the national average.
Your second source showed deaths vs gun ownership, not vs gun laws.
Bottom line is you think I am a liar, but I know you are a idiot.

Since: Feb 06

Location hidden

#4265 Apr 25, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Washing DC is not a state.
So you flunked out civics before you flunked out of math?
Did I say it was a state you fool? I said the national average and last I heard, Washington D.C. is part of the nation.
You need to get your head out of Obama's aŠŠ and take a class on ready comprehension. Your freaking liberals can never back up facts, just hurl BS.

Since: Feb 06

Location hidden

#4266 Apr 25, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are fifty states.
Both Florida and Texas rank here compared to other states.
Apples to apples.
Oranges to oranges.
Look again at the sources you linked to, no apples to apples there.

Since: Feb 06

Location hidden

#4267 Apr 25, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the Democratic party and the Republican party of 150 years ago are not the Democratic party and Republican party today.
Or forty years ago.
Putting aside you are off topic again, GayDavy.
You finally said something true. The Democratic Party wasn't run by socialist 150 years ago

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#4268 Apr 25, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>You say you've got no statistics or proof of what you way?

Then you lose. Sit down and shut up.
Nice attempt at side tracking and deflecting. However, I backed exactly what I said and posted. Go back and read the post. When you do, you have three choices: 1. Admit you are wrong, 2. Realize you are wrong and shit up, 3. Realize you are wrong and keep attempting to deflect and detract from that fact. I know which one my money is on.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#4269 Apr 25, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>I don't do other posters' homework for them. You claimed you had more meaningful information than the poll I cited, you could not produce it, therefore you lost, as I've already noted.

Dismissed.
You understanding what I posted is my homework? That is liberalism to a T!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#4270 Apr 25, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>I don't do other posters' homework for them. You claimed you had more meaningful information than the poll I cited, you could not produce it, therefore you lost, as I've already noted.

Dismissed.
That is not what I posted. Please repost where I said that, or give a post number where I claimed I had more meaningful information than the poll you cited. I stated that all statistics are not created equal. I referred to FBI statistics carrying more weight than polls. I referred to Census statistics carrying more weight than polls. I never stated the poll you cited, FBI stats, and Census stats all addressed the same subject matter. If you can produce a post that proves I did, i'll concede.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#4271 Apr 25, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
Here's the exchange I had with Dr. Sniper, just FYI:

Dr-Sniper - So now all statistics are created equal? You think a poll carries as much statistical weight as say, FBI published Statistics, or published Census information?
Typical all or none liberal mentality.

Tha Professor - Show me the "FBI published statisstics or published census information" which shows that the vast majority of Americans didn't support extended background checks at the beginning of this month (April). Let's see 'em, wiseguy.

Dr – Sniper - I point out that all statistics are not created equal. Your interpretation is that I stated all statistics address the same subject matter.

As you can see, Herr Dr. Sniper is lying about what I said and is still unable to show me how his "FBI published Statistics, or published Census information" on background checks for gun purchasers overrules the poll results I cited. He also created a strawman when he pretended that I'd said that "all statistics are created equal."

I must assume then that der Herr Doktor doesn't know what he's talking about, or is lying.
See previous post. You're done! Lmao

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#4272 Apr 25, 2013
Robert Newell wrote:
<quoted text>
You finally said something true. The Democratic Party wasn't run by socialist 150 years ago
Democrats were socialist too just like the new Progressive Republican Party was lead by Lincoln who preferred the transition from Socialism to Communism over Capitalism.

An Unfinished Revolution: Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln

by Robin Blackburn

The impact of the American Civil War on Karl Marx, and Karl Marx on America.

Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln exchanged letters at the end of the Civil War. Although they were divided by far more than the Atlantic Ocean, they agreed on the cause of “free labor” and the urgent need to end slavery. In his introduction, Robin Blackburn argues that Lincoln’s response signaled the importance of the German American community and the role of the international communists in opposing European recognition of the Confederacy.

The ideals of communism, voiced through the International Working Men’s Association, attracted many thousands of supporters throughout the US, and helped spread the demand for an eight-hour day. Blackburn shows how the IWA in America—born out of the Civil War—sought to radicalize Lincoln’s unfinished revolution and to advance the rights of labor, uniting black and white, men and women, native and foreign-born. The International contributed to a profound critique of the capitalist robber barons who enriched themselves during and after the war, and it inspired an extraordinary series of strikes and class struggles in the postwar decades.

In addition to a range of key texts and letters by both Lincoln and Marx, this book includes articles from the radical New York-based journal Woodhull and Claflin’s Weekly, an extract from Thomas Fortune’s classic work on racism Black and White, Frederick Engels on the progress of US labor in the 1880s, and Lucy Parson’s speech at the founding of the Industrial Workers of the World.

http://www.versobooks.com/books/954-an-unfini...

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#4273 Apr 26, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
LOL...I see GunSlow1 still thinks that if he posts enough spam about the history of guns and America he'll somehow convert everyone to the NRA position and get them to go out and buy themselves a shiny new gun.
Sorry, putz, not happening. Your irrelevancies bring about nothing but laughter at your expense...:)
The 16 yr. old "professor" is spouting falsehoods again. Posting what he believes, or the Demorat position on the subject. By the way Lil Boie, I have, and most in my family have purchased weapons in the last year. Just remember the line of Charleton Heston. Another item to remember is what the Founding Fathers said about oppression. I'll let you find it, but it goes to government overreach.

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#4274 Apr 26, 2013
Who started this topic? What a complete assinine thing to say.

What about Chicago?

What about Washington, DC?

What about Detroit?

What about Massachusetts? You know, the place where the Boston Bombers acquired firearms without permits?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#4275 Apr 26, 2013
The study does not show that stricter gun laws deter criminals from getting guns.

Massachusetts was mentioned as a working model of benefits of gun control but Boston became a police state in a matter of a few hours when bombings took place. Very telling as to who gun control benefits and who loses liberty and freedom and promises of Constitution.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#4276 Apr 26, 2013
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
Who started this topic? What a complete assinine thing to say.
What about Chicago?
What about Washington, DC?
What about Detroit?
What about Massachusetts? You know, the place where the Boston Bombers acquired firearms without permits?
those Cities & Massachusetts shows just what happens when Modern Pseudo Liberalism takes hold which is not good.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4277 Apr 26, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not even close.
It was founded to oppose the EXPANSION of slavery into newly added states, and they did not oppose expansion because they opposed slavery, they opposed the "free" labor and were concerned blacks would replace them as cheap labor.
Even during the Civil War, Lincoln did not oppose slavery; he would not have freed the slaves if he could have kept the Union together with slavery in place: he would have.
PS: the first REpublicans were all DEMOCRATS.
PPS: It's 150 years later, and the Republicans are 94 percent white.
How come?
"Most people are either a Democrat by design, or a Democrat by deception. That is either they were well aware the racist history of the Democrat Party and still chose to be Democrat, or they were deceived into thinking that the Democratic Party is a party that sincerely cared about Black people.

"History reveals that every piece of racist legislation that was ever passed and every racist terrorist attack that was ever inflicted on African Americans, was initiated by the members of the Democratic Party. From the formation of the Democratic Party in 1792 to the Civil Rights movement of 1960's, Congressional records show the Democrat Party passed no specific laws to help Blacks, every law that they introduced into Congress was designed to hurt blacks in 1894 Repeal Act. The chronicles of history shows that during the past 160 years the Democratic Party legislated Jim Crows laws, Black Codes and a multitude of other laws at the state and federal level to deny African Americans their rights as citizens.

"History reveals that the Republican Party was formed in 1854 to abolish slavery and challenge other racist legislative acts initiated by the Democratic Party...."
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/3554.html

If ignorance is bliss, then you must be the happiest person on earth.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4278 Apr 26, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the Democratic party and the Republican party of 150 years ago are not the Democratic party and Republican party today.
Or forty years ago.
Putting aside you are off topic again, GayDavy.
Genocide, Hickory and Slavery:
The Origins of the Party

After the U.S. Constitution came into effect the voters and elected officials, then consisting by law of property-owning white men in most states, divided largely into two parties. The Federalist Party favored a strong national government ruled by a wealthy elite (themselves). The Democratic-Republican Party favored dispersing power more broadly among white male property owners. By 1820 the Federalists had run out of steam and the Democratic-Republican Party had moved towards the center, so that the U.S. essentially had only one political party. In 1824 all four major candidates for the Presidency were Democratic-Republicans.

The Democratic Party, as a party distinct from the Democratic-Republican Party, began with the beliefs and ambitions of one man: Andrew Jackson. Nicknamed Old Hickory, he became the President of the United States from 1829 to 1837. However, had not Jackson's ideas and ambitions appealed to many Americans in the 1820's and 30's, the Democratic Party would never have formed around him.

Andrew Jackson was born in North Carolina in 1767. He became a successful lawyer after working in as a clerk in a law office (he did not attend law school), and was a noted for his horse racing and gambling. Moving to Tennessee, he became wealthy from land speculation, worked slaves on his land, and continuing to practice law. He was elected as the state's first Representative to Congress in 1796. His real break came in 1812 when the United States declared war on the British, hoping to seize Canada, Florida, and more sovereign American Indian land. Jackson first commanded the Tennessee militia, then was made Major-General of American forces in the South.

In the War of 1812 many American Indian tribes sided with the British, being tired of Americans, individually and as represented by both state and national government, stealing their land. Some tribes tried to remain neutral; others fought on the American side. Finding himself desperately short of fighters, Jackson enlisted Cherokee fighters, promising them protection against more land theft. With them his army defeated the Creeks who were fighting on the British side at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend in 1814. He then marched to New Orleans....

In 1819 the U.S. government purchased Florida from Spain, thus strengthening the cause of the Slave states. Jackson had led U.S. troops into Florida in 1818 in the First Seminole War. He became the first American governor of Florida in 1821. The Spanish system of freeing slaves who had escaped from U.S. plantations came to an end.(1)

Jackson believed he would make a good President and ran for the office for the first time in 1824. The Democratic Party did not exist; it coalesced around the hope of obtaining office by associating with Jackson, and on three major points of agreement. The first was the continued taking of American Indian land, with or without whatever degree of genocide was necessary to carry it off. This plank was popular with both land-speculators and less affluent European-American settlers because it made purchasing land cheap. The second plank was the continuation and extension of slavery, which made life easy and profitable for Jackson and his followers. The third plank was what would now be called an expansionary monetary policy. This allowed white settlers to borrow money to buy stolen Indian land to work with slaves to raise tobacco, cotton, and other profitable crops for market.
http://www.iiipublishing.com/books/demhist.ht...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4279 Apr 26, 2013
Robert Newell wrote:
<quoted text>
The title of this thread is
Yes, and we know how religiously you conform to the title of the thread.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4280 Apr 26, 2013
Robert Newell wrote:
So actually, you are showing a reference in direct conflict with the article on which the thread is based.
So reading comprehension is not your strong suite.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4282 Apr 26, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Genocide, Hickory and Slavery:
I have no interest in your off-topic copy & pastes, GayDavy, and if you didn't learn your lesson on your LAST alias, you keep posting them.

Topix is getting annoyed.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4283 Apr 26, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
"History reveals that the Republican Party was formed in 1854 to abolish slavery and challenge other racist legislative acts initiated by the Democratic Party...."
Holy smokes- if it's on the internet, it must be true!

Since: Feb 06

Location hidden

#4284 Apr 26, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
So reading comprehension is not your strong suite.
Funny how you never address an issue, just run off at the mouth,.
Is that part of your rules for radicals?
By the way, where is your Mensa card?

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 Why assault rifle sales are booming (Jun '15) 8 hr payme 253
News Jesus and the Second Amendment May 28 FormerParatrooper 5
News Bristol Palin is engaged (May '15) May 28 Three Rounds 67
News Assault weapon bans should stand May 27 okimar 884
News Hillary to Voter Calling for More Second Amendm... May 27 Justice Leaguer 2
News Federal Judge Strikes Down DC Concealed Carry Law May 26 Prep-for-Dep 4
News Facebook Spends $16 Million on Armed Guards for... May 26 okimar 3
More from around the web