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.

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#4958 May 23, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
“Fox News: Not Racists, But #1 With Racists.”
Did you happen to notice that conservatives just chose a black candidate in Virginia for its November Lt. Gov. ticket in VIRGINIA? From a field of 7 candidates Jackson handily won all 4 ballot rounds.
Yeah, conservatives are racists allright. Afterall, it's libbies that produce a slave culture. Just can't get off the ol' plantation I guess.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#4959 May 23, 2013
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>Did you happen to notice that conservatives just chose a black candidate in Virginia for its November Lt. Gov. ticket in VIRGINIA? From a field of 7 candidates Jackson handily won all 4 ballot rounds.
Yeah, conservatives are racists allright. Afterall, it's libbies that produce a slave culture. Just can't get off the ol' plantation I guess.
It WOULD be unfair to call them racist in every way, of course. There are certain types of black Americans who appeal to them greatly.

They usually sit outside the conference area at Republican conventions and meetings and say 'Shahn ya SHOOES for ya, mistuh!?? I give yah a GOOD shahn, sah! I be a good Loo-ten'nt GUBNOR for ya too suh!'

That's your man Jackson in a nutshell...:)

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#4960 May 23, 2013
That's also 'Unca' Clarence Thomas,'Unca' Tom Sowell, "Colonel" Allen West, and a few others as well....talk about your Plantation types!

LOL

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#4961 May 23, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
It WOULD be unfair to call them racist in every way, of course. There are certain types of black Americans who appeal to them greatly.
They usually sit outside the conference area at Republican conventions and meetings and say 'Shahn ya SHOOES for ya, mistuh!?? I give yah a GOOD shahn, sah! I be a good Loo-ten'nt GUBNOR for ya too suh!'
That's your man Jackson in a nutshell...:)
I knew you were a bigot. I shall save this for all future reference.
You're pathetic.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4963 May 23, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
It's easy to be rude and condescending to posters like you, Brat, since the above is about all you have to offer in the way of rebuttal or discussion.
In short, you're an empty-headed twit. Get it? Good...:)
"If there were evidence of a merely friendly meeting, it be the same as if there were no assemblage. If they were to give evidence that Blannerhassett and some of those with him were in possession of arms, as people in this country usually are, it would not be sufficient of itself to prove that the meeting was military.

"Arms are not necessarily military weapons. Rifles, shot guns, and fowling pieces are used commonly by the people of this country in hunting and for domestic purposes; they are generally in the habit of pursuing game. In the upper country every man has a gun; a majority of the people have guns every where, for peaceful purposes. Rifles and shot guns are no more evidence of military weapons than pistols or dirks used for personal defence, or common fowling pieces kept for the amusement of taking game. It is lawful for every man in this country to keep such weapons. In England indeed every man is not qualified to keep a gun; but even to those who have not that privilege the possession of dirks and pistols is not unlawful. Surely their possession at that island, of such arms as every man in this country is legally authorized to keep, and which most people do keep, can be no more evidence of a military project, or an intention to subvert the government, than if they had not been there at all. What is the rule to distinguish in such cases" There must be such evidence of a hostile assemblage proved to the court, as if true in point of fact, would constitute a treasonable assemblage."

- Mr. John Wickham, Friday, August 21st, 1807,[REPORTS OF THE TRIALS OF COLONEL AARON BURR (LATE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES) FOR TREASON AND FOR A MISDEMEANOR, In preparing the means of a Military Expedition against Mexico, a territory of the King of Spain, with whom the United States were at peace, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Held at the city of Richmond, in the district of Virginia, in the Summer Term of the year 1807. TO WHICH IS ADDED AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING THE ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE IS SUPPORT AND DEFENCE OF THE MOTION AFTERWARDS MADE BT THE COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED STATES, TO COMMIT A. Burr, H. Blannerhassett and I. Smith, TO BE SENT FOR TRIAL TO THE STATE OF KENTUCKY, FOR TREASON OR MISDEMEANOR, ALLEGED TO BE COMMITTED THERE. TAKEN IN SHORT HAND BY DAVID ROBERTSON, COUNSELLOR AT LAW IN TWO VOLUMES VOL. I. PHILADELPHIA: PUBLISHED BY HOPKINS AND EARLE. FRY AND KAMMERER, PRINTERS. 1808. Pg.582-83](Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court was present at the proceedings of this trial. Mr. Wickham, after the Revolutionary War, earned a degree in law from the College of William and Mary, where he became a close friend of John Marshall, fourth Chief Justice of the U.S.).
spocko

Oakland, CA

#4964 May 23, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"If there were evidence of a merely friendly meeting, it be the same as if there were no assemblage. If they were to give evidence that Blannerhassett and some of those with him were in possession of arms, as people in this country usually are, it would not be sufficient of itself to prove that the meeting was military.
"Arms are not necessarily military weapons. Rifles, shot guns, and fowling pieces are used commonly by the people of this country in hunting and for domestic purposes; they are generally in the habit of pursuing game. In the upper country every man has a gun; a majority of the people have guns every where, for peaceful purposes. Rifles and shot guns are no more evidence of military weapons than pistols or dirks used for personal defence, or common fowling pieces kept for the amusement of taking game. It is lawful for every man in this country to keep such weapons. In England indeed every man is not qualified to keep a gun; but even to those who have not that privilege the possession of dirks and pistols is not unlawful. Surely their possession at that island, of such arms as every man in this country is legally authorized to keep, and which most people do keep, can be no more evidence of a military project, or an intention to subvert the government, than if they had not been there at all. What is the rule to distinguish in such cases" There must be such evidence of a hostile assemblage proved to the court, as if true in point of fact, would constitute a treasonable assemblage."
- Mr. John Wickham, Friday, August 21st, 1807,[REPORTS OF THE TRIALS OF COLONEL AARON BURR (LATE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES) FOR TREASON AND FOR A MISDEMEANOR, In preparing the means of a Military Expedition against Mexico, a territory of the King of Spain, with whom the United States were at peace, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Held at the city of Richmond, in the district of Virginia, in the Summer Term of the year 1807. TO WHICH IS ADDED AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING THE ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE IS SUPPORT AND DEFENCE OF THE MOTION AFTERWARDS MADE BT THE COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED STATES, TO COMMIT A. Burr, H. Blannerhassett and I. Smith, TO BE SENT FOR TRIAL TO THE STATE OF KENTUCKY, FOR TREASON OR MISDEMEANOR, ALLEGED TO BE COMMITTED THERE. TAKEN IN SHORT HAND BY DAVID ROBERTSON, COUNSELLOR AT LAW IN TWO VOLUMES VOL. I. PHILADELPHIA: PUBLISHED BY HOPKINS AND EARLE. FRY AND KAMMERER, PRINTERS. 1808. Pg.582-83](Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court was present at the proceedings of this trial. Mr. Wickham, after the Revolutionary War, earned a degree in law from the College of William and Mary, where he became a close friend of John Marshall, fourth Chief Justice of the U.S.).
Yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzz you certainly are a 'fouling piece':)

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#4965 May 24, 2013
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>I knew you were a bigot. I shall save this for all future reference.
You're pathetic.
Actually, though you're too f---ing stupid to realize it, I'm pointing out the bigotry of YOU, your side, and your kept Negroes such as the ones I named above.

It's funny the way you get all blustery and trot out the self-righteousness when you're called on your own racism. Of course, the only black people who are "victims" are the ones who smooch your rumps, oddly enough...

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#4966 May 24, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"If there were evidence of a merely friendly meeting, it be the same as if there were no assemblage. If ...EDITED.....
If you weren't a worthless, irrelevant, spamming troll you might amount to something here. Oh well!
spocko

Oakland, CA

#4967 May 24, 2013
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>Did you happen to notice that conservatives just chose a black candidate in Virginia for its November Lt. Gov. ticket in VIRGINIA? From a field of 7 candidates Jackson handily won all 4 ballot rounds.
Yeah, conservatives are racists allright. Afterall, it's libbies that produce a slave culture. Just can't get off the ol' plantation I guess.
LOL ... skin color does not define this man have you listened what this troglodyte advocates?

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#4968 May 24, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL ... skin color does not define this man have you listened what this troglodyte advocates?
That's funny coming from a libby. O'bama's skin color does not define him and yet because we depolre his philosophies, we are somehow racists.

You guys are a hoot and the real bigots!

thanks for the Friday joke of the day!

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4971 May 24, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzz you certainly are a 'fouling piece':)
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the court ruled the following:

"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."

And, although many parts of Cruikshank have been overturned by later decisions, it is still relied upon with some authority in portions. Cruikshank was also reaffirmed in Presser v. Illinois in 1886.

That being the case concerning the view of the court concerning the second amendment at that time. And for more than 100 years thereafter. Then how can the court reconcile the following?:

1934 National Firearms Act

1938 Federal Firearms Act

1968 Gun Control Act

1972 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms created

1986 Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act

1990 Crime Control Act

1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

Did not the federal government totally disregard the ruling of the court? Not to mention the express prohibition found within the “Restrictive clause” of the Second Article of Amendment to the United State Constitution itself:

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

I contend it can be firmly held that the federal government has indeed disregarded the prior ruling of the court. In addition to the clear restriction found within the second amendment itself.

Why? Has the court joined in a long running conspiracy with the other branches of the federal government. And this in order to deprive part or all of We The People of our preexisting Constitutionally secured right? It certainly appears that way, does it not? Especially after considering that the right to keep and bear arms was intended as the final checkpoint in our system of checks and balances.

What has happened to our intended system of “checks and balances”?

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4972 May 24, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
If you weren't a worthless, irrelevant, spamming troll you might amount to something here. Oh well!
Interesting how that I post the actual historical FACTS. While all you spew is vile and mindless CONJECTURE.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4973 May 24, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting how that I post the actual historical FACTS.
Interesting how you keep skipping over the proof that you are wrong.

2006
Firearm Homicides Japan = 2
Firearm Homicides USA = 25,423

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4974 May 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting how you keep skipping over the proof that you are wrong.
2006
Firearm Homicides Japan = 2
Firearm Homicides USA = 25,423
The key facts are:

• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people
• Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/...
spocko

Oakland, CA

#4975 May 24, 2013
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>That's funny coming from a libby. O'bama's skin color does not define him and yet because we depolre his philosophies, we are somehow racists.
You guys are a hoot and the real bigots!
thanks for the Friday joke of the day!
You feel pretty stupid now having to backpedal don't you - your the one referring to the guy as "a black man"!
spocko

Oakland, CA

#4976 May 24, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the court ruled the following:
"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."
And, although many parts of Cruikshank have been overturned by later decisions, it is still relied upon with some authority in portions. Cruikshank was also reaffirmed in Presser v. Illinois in 1886.
That being the case concerning the view of the court concerning the second amendment at that time. And for more than 100 years thereafter. Then how can the court reconcile the following?:
1934 National Firearms Act
1938 Federal Firearms Act
1968 Gun Control Act
1972 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms created
1986 Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act
1990 Crime Control Act
1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
Did not the federal government totally disregard the ruling of the court? Not to mention the express prohibition found within the “Restrictive clause” of the Second Article of Amendment to the United State Constitution itself:
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
I contend it can be firmly held that the federal government has indeed disregarded the prior ruling of the court. In addition to the clear restriction found within the second amendment itself.
Why? Has the court joined in a long running conspiracy with the other branches of the federal government. And this in order to deprive part or all of We The People of our preexisting Constitutionally secured right? It certainly appears that way, does it not? Especially after considering that the right to keep and bear arms was intended as the final checkpoint in our system of checks and balances.
What has happened to our intended system of “checks and balances”?
None your idiotic babblings refer to the 2nd amendment – ye moron!
The first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Col...

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4977 May 24, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
None your idiotic babblings refer to the 2nd amendment – ye moron!
The first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Col...
"Affray....

"5. Nor unless such wearing be accompanied with such circumstances as are apt to terrify the people; consequently the wearing of common weapons, or having the usual number of attendants, merely for ornament or defense, where it is customary to make use of them, will not subject a person to the penalties of this act. Ibid. s. 9.[Pg. 50]

"Act of 1805, 2 Rev. Code, ch. 83, p. 108.

"Sect. 1. No free negro or mulatto shall keep or carry a fire-lock of any kind, or military weapon, or powder, or lead, without a licence from the court of the county or corporation; which licence may, at any time, be withdrawn. Arms, &c. so kept, shall be forfeited to the informer...."

"(A) A Certificate of the seizure of a gun, &c. on sect. 8, of 1 Rev, Code, p 187.

"county, to wit.

"Whereas AJ, of the county aforesaid, labourer, hath this day brought before me, JP, a justice of the peace for the said county, one gun, with powder and shot, by him found and seized in the bands and possession of a certain free mulatto man, known by the name of (or negro man slave belonging to as the case may be) who is not by law qualified to keep the same; and the said AJ having also, before me, made due proof of such seizure as aforesaid. By virtue of an act of the general assembly in that case made and provided, I do hereby order and direct, that the said AJ shall and may retain the said gun, powder and shot, to his own use; and that the said mulatto man shall receive thirty lashes upon his bare back, well laid on, which last sentence AC, a constable in this county, is ordered ta exetute. Given under my hand and seal, &c.
[Pg. 554]

SLAVES.

(B) Licence to keep arms and ammunition.

[This can only be granted by the court. See 2 Rev. Code, ch. 83, p 108.][Pg. 555]

-[The New Virginia Justice, Comprising the Office and Authority of a Justice of the Peace, in the Commonwealth of Virginia. TOGETHER WITH A VARIETY OF USEFUL PRECEDENTS, ADAPTED TO THE LAWS NOW IN FORCE. TO WHICH IS ADDED AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING ALL THE MOST APPROVED FORMS IN CONVEYANCING: SUCH AS DEEDS OF BARGAIN AND SALE, OF LEASE AND RELEASE; OF TRUST, MORTGAGES, BILLS OF SALE, &c. ALSO, THE DUTIES OF A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, ARISING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. By William Waller Hening, Attorney At Law. The Second Edition, Revised, Corrected, Greatly Enlarged, and Brought Down to the Present Time. By the Author. RICHMOND: PUBLISHED BY JOHNSON & WARNER. 1810.]

"Licensing" was intended for "SLAVES", and NOT free people.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4979 May 26, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
1810
Vikings: Spam, spam, spam, spam 200 year old spam

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4980 May 26, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Vikings: Spam, spam, spam, spam 200 year old spam
"In the intervals of toil their amusements consist chiefly of hunting and shooting, in the woods, or on the mountains; whence they acquire prodigious muscular activity and strength. We have no game laws, such as exist in Europe, to prohibit the possession and use of firearms to the great body of the people. Our boys carry a gun almost as soon as they can walk; and the habitual practice of shooting at a target, with the rifle, renders the Americans the most unerring marksmen, and the most deadly musketry in the world; as was singularly evidenced at Bunker's Hill, in the commencement of the revolutionary conflict, and at New-Orleans, at the close of the last war."--John Bristed,[THE RESOURCES OF THE OF AMERICA; OR, A VIEW OF THE AGRICULTURAL, COMMERCIAL, MANUFACTURING, FINANCIAL, POLITICAL, LITERARY, MORAL AND RELIGIOUS CAPACITY AND CHARACTER or THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. BY JOHN BRISTED, COUNSELLOR AT LAW. AUTHOR OF THE RESOURCES OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE New-York: PUBLISHED BY JAMES EASTBURN & CO. AT THE LITERARY ROOMS, BROADWAY, CORNER OF PINE STREET. Abraham Paul, printer. 1818.]

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#4981 May 26, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
1818
Vikings: Spam, spam, spam, lovely 190 year old spam!

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 Supreme Court Continues to Reschedule Concealed... Jun 21 Daniel stollings 2
News Mass shooters tend to be domestic abusers first Jun 20 Jagermann 2
News GOP House hopeful says more in Congress should ... Jun 16 Red Crosse 3
Former University Professor Suggests the NRA Is... Jun 15 FormerParatrooper 5
News 2nd Amendment: Good Enough for Kim Kardashian, ... Jun 13 Billyball 4
News Bristol Palin is engaged (May '15) Jun 3 Grecian Formula 19 75
News New Thermal Scope Offers Amazing Night Vision Jun 2 OwenJames 1
More from around the web