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.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4982 May 26, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Vikings: Spam, spam, spam, lovely 190 year old spam!
"GENERAL WASHINGTON TO MR. GERRY.

"CAMP AT PENNYBACKERS MILL, SEPT. 27, 1777.

"SIR,

"I am favoured with your's of the 25th. I yesterday wrote you that I did not think myself authorized to seize upon any arms the property of private persons; but if they can be collected and the owners satisfied for them, it would be of very essential service, as great numbers of militia would join the army could they be furnished with arms. I am glad you have began the collection of blankets and shoes; this business cannot be carried to too great an extent and I think if the measure is properly pursued, great quantities of blankets, rugs and coverlids, may be collected in the back counties..."

[The Life of ELBRIDGE GERRY. With Contemporary Letters. TO THE CLOSE OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. BY JAMES T AUSTIN. BOSTON: WELLS AND LILLY--COURT STREET. 1828.](Elbridge Thomas Gerry,(July, 1744 – November 23, 1814), was an American statesman and diplomat. As a Democratic-Republican he was selected as the fifth Vice President of the United States (1813–1814), serving under James Madison.)

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#4984 May 28, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
You feel pretty stupid now having to backpedal don't you - your the one referring to the guy as "a black man"!
Hey, mental giant, my point was that libbies decry the Tea Party as racists and yet they chose a "black man" over 6 other "white" candidates.
Try and keep up. I know how challanged you government educated folks are out there.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#4985 May 28, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"GENERAL WASHINGTON TO MR. GERRY.
"CAMP AT PENNYBACKERS MILL, SEPT. 27, 1777.
"SIR,
"I am favoured with your's of the 25th. I yesterday wrote you that I did not think myself authorized to seize upon any arms the property of private persons; but if they can be collected and the owners satisfied for them, it would be of very essential service, as great numbers of militia would join the army could they be furnished with arms. I am glad you have began the collection of blankets and shoes; this business cannot be carried to too great an extent and I think if the measure is properly pursued, great quantities of blankets, rugs and coverlids, may be collected in the back counties..."
[The Life of ELBRIDGE GERRY. With Contemporary Letters. TO THE CLOSE OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. BY JAMES T AUSTIN. BOSTON: WELLS AND LILLY--COURT STREET. 1828.](Elbridge Thomas Gerry,(July, 1744 – November 23, 1814), was an American statesman and diplomat. As a Democratic-Republican he was selected as the fifth Vice President of the United States (1813–1814), serving under James Madison.)
Ah, glad you're coming around. As we see here, it could be considered appropriate for authorities, when AUTHORIZED, to seize the arms of private individuals - AS LONG AS THEY WERE COMPENSATED FOR THEM - in order to fit out a militia to defend the country.

'Forming a militia' is of course the key phrase in the 2nd Amendment. No other justification for private ownership of arms is in the Constitution, of course.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#4986 May 28, 2013
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>Hey, mental giant, my point was that libbies decry the Tea Party as racists and yet they chose a "black man" over 6 other "white" candidates.
Try and keep up. I know how challanged you government educated folks are out there.
They selected him not because of his color but because of his retarded t-bag mindset, the guy is mental! Are you f-ing idiots now saying GOPers like black folks? That'll be the day ...
Justin

United States

#4987 May 28, 2013
Marine Corp Pat wrote:
That is exactly why President Obama wants stricter gun laws… so that there will be fewer deaths… but the right loves blood and death, even when it is the blood and death of 6 and 7 year olds.
These right-wing bastards disgust me.
The political right arn't the people pointing guns at children and pulling the damn trigger. No, the blood in on the hands on your people.
Anti-Fascism

United States

#4988 May 29, 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...
And by making "drugs" like marijuana (among others, but marijuana is a harmless plant, even safer than alcohol, yet alcohol is legal...) illegal, the incompetent (and corrupt) government(s) created a BLACK MARKET for these gangs to take control of and fight over.

If drugs were legal, how would these thugs gangs make their money?

It seems the government LOVES creating the environment where there's a black market for gangs like these, in order to demand more taxes from the citizens so they can pay for more police (power, control) and other such laws which would help infringe upon liberties, yet the dimwitted people still look toward big daddy government for safety and security.

It's one big system by design, not by accident; not by chance.

Criminals in high places.

We're played like pawns by the "criminal elite".
Anti-Fascism

United States

#4989 May 29, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, glad you're coming around. As we see here, it could be considered appropriate for authorities, when AUTHORIZED, to seize the arms of private individuals - AS LONG AS THEY WERE COMPENSATED FOR THEM - in order to fit out a militia to defend the country.
'Forming a militia' is of course the key phrase in the 2nd Amendment. No other justification for private ownership of arms is in the Constitution, of course.
The justification for private militias were for protection of We The People and our rights; protection against a tyrannical domestic government. You cannot twist, squirm and turn your little way around that FACT, kid. Don't bother. ;-)

Funny how you say under your nickname "Save the country from fascism!"

Yet you're attempting to back up a possible fascist dictatorship in criminally seizing our arms which, from the beginning, the founders knew [those firearms] were meant to be there in order to help protect us FROM tyrannical, FASCIST government(s) infringing upon our liberties.

Silly kid, are you this lacking in clear logic and intelligence?

Or are you a troll who is intentionally just trying to stir up trouble on forum(s) since you're so miserably (misery loves company) bored?

What part of "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." do you NOT understand?

Or are you illiterate? Can you not comprehend plain English as such?

If the government SEIZES those guns AT ANY TIME then, they INFRINGED upon that right of the people, backed BY LAW, to KEEP and BEAR arms!

It does NOT say "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, lest justly compensated."

DOES it? Nope!

Is this sinking in yet,[undercover] FASCIST sympathizer?

You're an embarrassment to yourself, fascist. Oh yes, you truly are a fascist! Even if you don't openly admit it, your words give you away. You're attempting to look for ways to make We The Peoples' defense weak against a possible future tyrannical government. Plain as day to see.

The founders wanted We The People armed so as to protect our rights. That's why the 2nd Amendment is found in the Bill of Rights; that Bill of Rights written in the CLEAR context of protecting the PEOPLES' rights vs. a tyrannical domestic government, not a foreign government.

The founders clearly differentiated between private militias made of the body of people as compared to "standing armies" ran by the domestic government, of which they claimed those [standing armies] as being DANGEROUS TO LIBERTY in their writings.

Silly propagandist fascist trolls, you cannot win this. You lost a long time ago; you're just in denial of your loss.
Anti-Fascism

United States

#4990 May 29, 2013
Excuse me, it says "Save America from Fascism!"

The irony of YOU saying that? Priceless. Truly priceless!:-D

Anyway, if you don't like We The People being armed then: you're free to move to another country where they severely restrict or ban guns from their citizens' possession. But if you seek to break the law (2nd Amendment) then you'll be seen as the criminal(s) that you are, and we'll not put up with that CRIME for one second.

So leave; or if staying, then deal with it and remain unarmed like a defenseless sheep, if you so choose to.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#4991 May 29, 2013
"The justification for private militias were for protection of We The People and our rights; protection against a tyrannical domestic government. You cannot twist, squirm and turn your little way around that FACT, kid. Don't bother. ;-)

No need to twist a lie.

Who gave you that interpretation/justification?

Glenn Beck?

Figures.
Anti-Fascism

United States

#4992 May 29, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
"The justification for private militias were for protection of We The People and our rights; protection against a tyrannical domestic government. You cannot twist, squirm and turn your little way around that FACT, kid. Don't bother. ;-)
No need to twist a lie.
Who gave you that interpretation/justification?
Glenn Beck?
Figures.
Oh little one, I don't need anyone else to give me any interpretation of what is *so* plain to see.

I have a well working brain; I can think and interpret for myself. I trust no one else; especially no one in the media, seeing as many of them, imo, are used as propaganda tools by the government in one way or another, on both sides.

I came up with it all on my own because I'm not mentally challenged.

If all of the other Amendments [in the Bill of Rights] are written in the context of protecting the people and our rights from a tyrannical *domestic* government then, what monumental simpleton would think the 2nd Amendment is *any* different?

WOW!

Tell me you're smoking some drugs, are very drunk, or some other excuse?

I hope you're not naturally this clueless, yet also voting?

Yeesh! That's scary.

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Suffolk, VA

#4993 May 29, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
They selected him not because of his color but because of his retarded t-bag mindset, the guy is mental! Are you f-ing idiots now saying GOPers like black folks? That'll be the day ...
What I'm saying is that Dems be the massa's that be keepin' minotiries in bondage for votes and control.

History records that the 14th Amendment, Civil rights, desegregation are all products of Republicans.

So it appears that that your covert racism still exists and you use deflection as the deception to your true identities.

I grew up in the Northeast and now live in the south. I still hear more derogatory language and descrimination up north than I ever hear down south. The blue states are a hellava lot more racists than the red states.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#4994 May 29, 2013
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh little one, I don't need anyone else to give me any interpretation of what is *so* plain to see.
I have a well working brain; I can think and interpret for myself. I trust no one else; especially no one in the media, seeing as many of them, imo, are used as propaganda tools by the government in one way or another, on both sides.
I came up with it all on my own because I'm not mentally challenged.
If all of the other Amendments [in the Bill of Rights] are written in the context of protecting the people and our rights from a tyrannical *domestic* government then, what monumental simpleton would think the 2nd Amendment is *any* different?
WOW!
Tell me you're smoking some drugs, are very drunk, or some other excuse?
I hope you're not naturally this clueless, yet also voting?
Yeesh! That's scary.
"I came up with it all on my own because I'm not mentally challenged".

Yes you are.

"I have a well working brain; I can think and interpret for myself".

I don't think so, you aren't "thinking" at all.

"written in the context of protecting the people and our rights from a tyrannical *domestic* government".

No where does ANY passage in the bill of rights mention "tyrannical" or "domestic".

Teabaggers think the Obama administration is "tyrannical", so you have the right to overthrow it?

It's your constitutional "duty"?

Why can't you carry a handgun into a courtroom?

A federal building?

A county courtroom?

In your feeble mind, those are "infringements".

OR are they "selective" as are most teabagger "interpretations"
Anti-Fascism

New York, NY

#4995 May 29, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
"I came up with it all on my own because I'm not mentally challenged".
Yes you are.
"I have a well working brain; I can think and interpret for myself".
I don't think so, you aren't "thinking" at all.
"written in the context of protecting the people and our rights from a tyrannical *domestic* government".
No where does ANY passage in the bill of rights mention "tyrannical" or "domestic".
Teabaggers think the Obama administration is "tyrannical", so you have the right to overthrow it?
It's your constitutional "duty"?
Why can't you carry a handgun into a courtroom?
A federal building?
A county courtroom?
In your feeble mind, those are "infringements".
OR are they "selective" as are most teabagger "interpretations"
Ever read "Congress shall make no law..."?

Congress is domestic government, kid.

The context of the Bill of Rights is clearly to help protect us from tyrannical *domestic* government.

Lay off the drugs, kid; you're clearly not living in reality.

You're a troll, I hope. I refuse to believe you're literally this clueless. What a waste of time.

You can move to another country if you're not satisfied with the Constitution, or our rights as protected by law.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

#4996 May 29, 2013
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
Ever read "Congress shall make no law..."?
Congress is domestic government, kid.
The context of the Bill of Rights is clearly to help protect us from tyrannical *domestic* government.
Lay off the drugs, kid; you're clearly not living in reality.
You're a troll, I hope. I refuse to believe you're literally this clueless. What a waste of time.
You can move to another country if you're not satisfied with the Constitution, or our rights as protected by law.
"Ever read "Congress shall make no law..."?

But they clearly did.

Automatic weapons ban without a permit.

Darn, seems they made a LAW.

"The context of the Bill of Rights is clearly to help protect us from tyrannical *domestic* government.

Clearly?

Only to a teabagger.

The context?

Up to "interpretation" by a teabagger.

Who you choose to parrot.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#4997 May 29, 2013
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
The justification for private militias were for protection of We The People and our rights; protection against a tyrannical domestic government. You cannot twist, squirm and turn your little way around that FACT, kid. Don't bother. ;-)
..EDITED....
It's not a fact, so there's no need to get around it. Militias were used to keep the peace within the young U.S.(I cite the Whiskey Rebellion as an example) and to fight off attacks from hostile natives and outside forces such as the British.

They were never....I REPEAT NEVER....intended to fight against our own government or overthrow it. That is a LIE.

Dismissed, punk.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#4998 May 29, 2013
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
Ever read "Congress shall make no law..."?
Congress is domestic government, kid.
The context of the Bill of Rights is clearly to help protect us from tyrannical *domestic* government.
Lay off the drugs, kid; you're clearly not living in reality.
You're a troll, I hope. I refuse to believe you're literally this clueless. What a waste of time.
You can move to another country if you're not satisfied with the Constitution, or our rights as protected by law.
Poor response which refuted nothing. And how lame is "move to another country?" LOL

A waste of time, indeed...

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#4999 May 29, 2013
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
What I'm saying is that Dems be the massa's that be keepin' minotiries in bondage for votes and control.

>>Race-baiting going to win the argument for you, you think?:)

History records that the 14th Amendment, Civil rights, desegregation are all products of Republicans.

>>History calls you a liar. The 14th Amendment? Sure. Civil Rights and desegregation were mostly accomplished by Dems, though Southern Dems were in the '60s still segregationists. And obviously since the '70s the Dems have swung behind racial equality and desegregation while Repubs have swung in the OTHER direction.

So it appears that that your covert racism still exists and you use deflection as the deception to your true identities.

>>Funny, coming from a poster who started his post with a Stepin' Fetchit routine...

I grew up in the Northeast and now live in the south. I still hear more derogatory language and descrimination up north than I ever hear down south. The blue states are a hellava [sic] lot more racists [sic] than the red states.

>>You're a helluva big liar.
Anti-Fascism

New York, NY

#5000 May 29, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
"Ever read "Congress shall make no law..."?
But they clearly did.
Automatic weapons ban without a permit.
Darn, seems they made a LAW.
"The context of the Bill of Rights is clearly to help protect us from tyrannical *domestic* government.
Clearly?
Only to a teabagger.
The context?
Up to "interpretation" by a teabagger.
Who you choose to parrot.
Darn, seems they infringed upon our rights and thus are criminals who should be imprisoned. Sadly, the people are ignorant and/or lack backbone to protest this infringement, thus nothing happened.

If you cannot understand the CLEAR context of the Bill of Rights, you're truly then a simpleton, or on some really hard drugs... or a troll. ;)

You lose.
Anti-Fascism

New York, NY

#5001 May 29, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a fact, so there's no need to get around it. Militias were used to keep the peace within the young U.S.(I cite the Whiskey Rebellion as an example) and to fight off attacks from hostile natives and outside forces such as the British.
They were never....I REPEAT NEVER....intended to fight against our own government or overthrow it. That is a LIE.
Dismissed, punk.
Yes, it is a fact. Simply because you're either a LIAR or emotionally brainwashed doesn't disprove the fact. You're just ignorant. The 2nd Amendment, among every other Amendment in the Bill of Rights has a CLEAR context of SKEPTICISM of government power when pertaining to the peoples' liberties, and thus seeks to protect against such tyranny in domestic government.

You, too, are a clueless dunce if you cannot comprehend the plain-as-day context seen throughout the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment.

See: Virginia Bill of Rights, 1776:

Amendment 13:

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

----

They viewed the peoples' militia as a safe defense of a FREE state; then right after that they speak out against "standing armies," ran by whom? The federal government, of course. They say these are DANGEROUS TO LIBERTY.

So the militia is set up as self-defense from tyrannical government attempting to overthrow the peoples' liberty, not to offensively or criminally "overthrow the government". This is all about self-defense, not criminal offense. Don't get it twisted, bud.

The founders wanted the people armed for protection of their rights vs. a possible tyrannical government in the future. They just got done fighting off their own tyrannical domestic government: Great Britain

So it's obvious what their intent was when writing the 2nd Amendment... well, obvious to me, at least. ;-)

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5002 May 29, 2013
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it is a fact. Simply because you're either a LIAR or emotionally brainwashed doesn't disprove the fact. You're just ignorant. The 2nd Amendment, among every other Amendment in the Bill of Rights has a CLEAR context of SKEPTICISM of government power when..EDITED.... well, obvious to me, at least. ;-)
Obvious to you? That's because you're a moron with an agenda.

Calling me names seems to be your way of saying "I've got nothing, sorry!" Because you don't. There's simply NOTHING IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT suggesting that it's anti-government or government power.

NOTHING.

So you basically lose.:)

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 Should they teach this in schools? Mon okimar 3
News FPC Vows Legal Action on Approved California As... Aug 4 jimwildrickjr 1
News WVa AG: Manchin Should Resign Dem Leadership Role Aug 4 JohnInLa 3
News The NRA And The Worst Ad You May Ever See Jul 31 Red Crosse 185
History of the .233 Remington Jul 31 SummerBB8 1
News Heidi Harris: CCW's On The Rise Jul 29 Get Out 2
News Country singer Scotty McCreery cited for Jul 25 Been There Done That 4
More from around the web