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.

spocko

Oakland, CA

#5337 Jun 18, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Who gives a damn if the rest of the world infringes upon their own citizen's natural born right to self defense?
Who gives a damn if the rest of the world is socialist?
In case you did not get the memo, the USA is different. It was DESIGNED to be different.
Your "rest of the world" so called argument is laughable. It is akin to a teenager saying to their parents, "But, but, but, ALL the other kids are doing it."
Remember how well that crap worked for you last night?
Sorry bonehead, most Americans "give a damn"!Go ahead whine all you want!

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#5338 Jun 18, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry bonehead, most Americans "give a damn"!Go ahead whine all you want!
They do?
About what exactly?

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5340 Jun 19, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
So if you're equating the legality of good citizens owning certain firearms as being supposedly "pro-murder of school children," then ..EDITED....
<quoted text>
Uh, perfesser, if you actually clarified what you DID say or intended, right after your word "No", more folks may get a better idea of what the hell you were saying.
Just saying.
Oh and BTW, we can read, perhaps it is the fault of the writer and that be the one who needs to learn about how an exchange of ideas works.
On a sane, rational board you'd be right, and it could be my fault. On a board full of asshats like "Anti-Fascism," I know you're not. Trolls like that deliberately distort, spin, and lie about the posts of their opponents, construct strawmen and attack them, etc. etc.

You don't get honest debate from dishonest posters like that.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5341 Jun 19, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Who gives a damn if the rest of the world infringes upon their own citizen's natural born right to self defense?
Who gives a damn if the rest of the world is socialist?
In case you did not get the memo, the USA is different. It was DESIGNED to be different.
Your "rest of the world" so called argument is laughable. It is akin to a teenager saying to their parents, "But, but, but, ALL the other kids are doing it."
Remember how well that crap worked for you last night?
It's not "socialist" to restrict access to deadly weapons like guns. That's the sort of brainless argument I'm talking about. "Socialist" is just a bad word you use to mean "things the government does which I don't like," apparently.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5342 Jun 19, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Look here > "I wasn't." and then here > "You didn't read it right.".
Now, just what hell WERE you saying and WHAT did you mean to say.
Since you claim that the reader did not "read it right", then it obviously was written in such a way as to allow for error. Sooooooo, is up to YOU to clarify what YOU wrote. It was confusing.
You moderate the board and make these decisions, now? Wow, I'll keep that in mind, yer highness.

LOL

Let's make it clear....I oppose the murder of schoolkids and other innocents with assault weapons. Therefore I support restrictions on the availability of assault weapons. I was clarifying that to the other poster. The claim that I equated mere possession of assault weapons with a desire to murder schoolkids was therefore a strawman argument by the other poster.

One would wish that you'd apply this kind of demand for detailed explanation to other posters who share your side of the argument, but I suppose that's too much to expect.
Anti-Fascism

United States

#5343 Jun 19, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Your gunloon argument is a total none-starter. Every country has certain restrictive gun laws. In every country a person must be able to show genuine cause to carry a firearm, such as for self-defense or hunting. Israel even requires speaking some Hebrew to legally acquire a fire arm. The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world's population, has about 50 percent of the world's civilian-owned guns, it ranks number one in firearms per capita. The U.S. also has the highest homicide-by-firearm rate among the world's most developed nations.
Everyone has a right to self-defense (including hunting, which is our right to defend against starvation) against any random offensive attacker anywhere in public, out in the wild, or in our homes. It's fascist pieces of trash with your mindset who seek to pick and choose who can have that right to self-defense that pisses me off.

Go on and bring up "ex-cons" because as I said in another thread: If they're free and let go on the streets then apparently the government sees that they've rehabilitated them enough to live peacefully in society.

If the ex-con cannot be trusted with a "legally" held gun in his hand then *what the hell* is the government thinking in *letting those convicts out on the street* with access to buying or stealing those guns on the black market, or access to many other deadly weapons, like knives, ability to make bombs now, etc. And all the prey walking and sleeping around them in houses out there? So whose fault *is it* really, when it comes down to it?

Not the fault of gun accessibility! It's the fault of the government and their incompetence (or intentional evil, done to make money on repeat offenders in the so-called "justice" system).

Simpletons cannot think this far in and understand the true issue at hand; simpletons only think with the shallow mindset which was fed to them by their master propagandists.

Question authority.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5344 Jun 19, 2013
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting.
It was >YOU< who just got through explaining that Hitler DID in fact restrict gun ownership to select groups.
You just shot down your own hot air balloon - kid.
Again.
What happened to that group which, you just got done telling us WAS in fact forcefully disarmed?
How did that work out for them?
Try reading my posts. I've never said that Hitler didn't restrict guns for a small segment of the population. I'm only saying that he LIBERALIZED gun ownership for the vast majority of the population. Is that confusing, or what? Or did the word "restrict" just set off your gunner talking-point alarm?

Jews and a few other minorities had EVERYTHING taken from them, not just guns, and as I've already pointed out, their possession of guns would not even have protected them from armed FELLOW CITIZENS, much less the Wehrmacht.

Please, try reading that one a couple of time before pretending that you're scoring points or catching me out in something. You'll embarrass yourself less that way, Skippy.
Anti-Fascism

United States

#5345 Jun 19, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
You moderate the board and make these decisions, now? Wow, I'll keep that in mind, yer highness.
LOL
Let's make it clear....I oppose the murder of schoolkids and other innocents with assault weapons. Therefore I support restrictions on the availability of assault weapons. I was clarifying that to the other poster. The claim that I equated mere possession of assault weapons with a desire to murder schoolkids was therefore a strawman argument by the other poster.
One would wish that you'd apply this kind of demand for detailed explanation to other posters who share your side of the argument, but I suppose that's too much to expect.
It's your fault then, buddy. You [intentionally] twisted "anti murder of school children" from "antis"? lol! You numbskull. "antis" means "anti-gun people;" so really, you're the dunce who turned it into what it was not to begin with by adding all that other nonsense. I simply changed it up and 'owned' you at your own game, simple one.

Why don't *you* stop trolling and please do go to a forum and topic where you can at least *win* the debate at hand.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5346 Jun 19, 2013
In an age of massive, standing, professional military forces, citizen ownership of handguns and rifles is NO LONGER a guarantee of personal freedom, folks.

You can pretend it's 1776 all you want, that you can form a militia and beat away represssion, that that's what the 2nd Amendment was all about, etc. etc.

But it wasn't happening for the Jews in prewar Germany, and it ain't happening for you if you start up your little teabagger revolt against that mean ol' Obama Administration today.

The fact is, you've created an imaginary "tyranny" and use it to justify massive gun sales, gun possession, tough talk about revolutions, and a blockade of ANY sensible gun regulation which would cut back on the tens of thousands of gun deaths which occur EVERY YEAR in this country.

So next time someone you know is the victim of a gun crime, don't come crying to us about it. Just suck it up and pretend it's the 'price of freedom,' losers.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5347 Jun 19, 2013
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone has a right to self-defense (including hunting, which is our right to defend against starvation) against any random offensive attacker anywhere in public, out in the wild, or in our homes. It's fascist pieces of trash with your mindset who seek to pick and choose who can have that right to self-defense that pisses me off.
..EDITED....
Then you're pissed off about nothing, idiot. You're pissed off about a strawman of your own invention.

I'll admit that "hunting as self-defense against starvation" is pretty damn funny, though. That's one crazy justification for gun ownership...LOL

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5348 Jun 19, 2013
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
It's your fault then, buddy. You [intentionally] twisted "anti murder of school children" from "antis"? lol! You numbskull. "antis" means "anti-gun people;" so really, you're the dunce who turned it into what it was not to begin with by adding all that other nonsense. I simply changed it up and 'owned' you at your own game, simple one.
Why don't *you* stop trolling and please do go to a forum and topic where you can at least *win* the debate at hand.
You didn't explain what "antis" meant, I'd never heard the term before, and I deliberatedly mocked you by asking (yes, ASKING) if it meant "anti-murder-of-schoolkid s."

God damn, did you never hear sarcasm before or are you just dishonest? Dumb or dishonest, which is it, Skippy?:)
Anti-Fascism

United States

#5349 Jun 19, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Try reading my posts. I've never said that Hitler didn't restrict guns for a small segment of the population. I'm only saying that he LIBERALIZED gun ownership for the vast majority of the population. Is that confusing, or what? Or did the word "restrict" just set off your gunner talking-point alarm?
Jews and a few other minorities had EVERYTHING taken from them, not just guns, and as I've already pointed out, their possession of guns would not even have protected them from armed FELLOW CITIZENS, much less the Wehrmacht.
Please, try reading that one a couple of time before pretending that you're scoring points or catching me out in something. You'll embarrass yourself less that way, Skippy.
And if you lived back then and were a German, you'd probably be for restricting or banning guns in/from their hands too, you fascist.

Try to twist out of it all you want, it's not going to work:

TYRANTS will always seek to restrict and eventually ban weapons from the people [who do not agree with their tyranny] the tyrant knows will use those arms to fight him with if it ever came down to it.

You're helping tyrants disarm the people. You're the loser here.
Anti-Fascism

United States

#5350 Jun 19, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
In an age of massive, standing, professional military forces, citizen ownership of handguns and rifles is NO LONGER a guarantee of personal freedom, folks.
You can pretend it's 1776 all you want, that you can form a militia and beat away represssion, that that's what the 2nd Amendment was all about, etc. etc....

...
The context of the 2nd Amendment is clear (to those who're actually intelligent and not liars): the people have a right to arms, as they're the militia, in order to protect against tyrannical governments, foreign or domestic, from infringing upon their rights and liberties.

If handguns and rifles aren't enough, then we must have more. You can think or say that's insane but, I really don't give a damn, kid, the right and the LAW is there, plain and clear. Respect it or, if you don't like it that much, you're free to move to another country.

This wouldn't be "insane" if the people always kept up with the armament of themselves and growing in technology as other militaries do. They sadly let the criminal politicians twist and turn, then ban certain weaponry from their hands, so now it's out of their minds to logically hold those weapons. They sadly fell for the twisted, incorrect interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by many snakes and liars out there. They've sadly become complacent and trustworthy of the government [whom they emotionally backed and voted into office] so they think there's nothing to worry about now.
Anti-Fascism

United States

#5351 Jun 19, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't explain what "antis" meant, I'd never heard the term before, and I deliberatedly mocked you by asking (yes, ASKING) if it meant "anti-murder-of-schoolkid s."
God damn, did you never hear sarcasm before or are you just dishonest? Dumb or dishonest, which is it, Skippy?:)
You're a liar or not intelligent at all.

If I'm reading/hearing someone who's pro-abortion (I'm not) say "Those antis are annoying today..." - I automatically know they're talking about "anti-abortionists" or "pro-life" people.

I'm strongly going to guess that you're lying though, so too bad, you cannot pull that over on me... liar. ;-)
Anti-Fascism

United States

#5352 Jun 19, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you're pissed off about nothing, idiot. You're pissed off about a strawman of your own invention.
I'll admit that "hunting as self-defense against starvation" is pretty damn funny, though. That's one crazy justification for gun ownership...LOL
Hunting and eating that food *is* a form of self-defense though, simple one. It's defending ones life from death by way of starvation. Thus hunting is an actual right, not merely a supposed "privilege".

Also, the meat will always be cleaner than the "meat" sold in the supermarkets, tainted with hormones, antibiotic, fed non-organic poison food when it was alive, etc. So people have to right to defend their life and health against eating that absolute garbage they sell there, too.

And the hunting is just *one of many* justifications of gun ownership, simple troll.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#5353 Jun 19, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
In an age of massive, standing, professional military forces, citizen ownership of handguns and rifles is NO LONGER a guarantee of personal freedom, folks.
You can pretend it's 1776 all you want, that you can form a militia and beat away represssion, that that's what the 2nd Amendment was all about, etc. etc.
But it wasn't happening for the Jews in prewar Germany, and it ain't happening for you if you start up your little teabagger revolt against that mean ol' Obama Administration today.
The fact is, you've created an imaginary "tyranny" and use it to justify massive gun sales, gun possession, tough talk about revolutions, and a blockade of ANY sensible gun regulation which would cut back on the tens of thousands of gun deaths which occur EVERY YEAR in this country.
So next time someone you know is the victim of a gun crime, don't come crying to us about it. Just suck it up and pretend it's the 'price of freedom,' losers.
Let's take this apart, First of all, The Second Amendment doesn't say, IF... there is a standing militia. Gee Whiz the least you traitors can do is get your story straight??

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#5354 Jun 19, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not "socialist" to restrict access to deadly weapons like guns. That's the sort of brainless argument I'm talking about. "Socialist" is just a bad word you use to mean "things the government does which I don't like," apparently.
Wanna bet?
I'm all in.
You?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#5355 Jun 19, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
You moderate the board and make these decisions, now? Wow, I'll keep that in mind, yer highness.
LOL
Let's make it clear....I oppose the murder of schoolkids and other innocents with assault weapons. Therefore I support restrictions on the availability of assault weapons. I was clarifying that to the other poster. The claim that I equated mere possession of assault weapons with a desire to murder schoolkids was therefore a strawman argument by the other poster.
One would wish that you'd apply this kind of demand for detailed explanation to other posters who share your side of the argument, but I suppose that's too much to expect.
I am not moderating anything. I too was confused by your post and followup, so I spoke out hopiong to get a clarification, just like the other psoter was attempting with you.

So, let's get this straight.

YOU:
"oppose the murder of schoolkids and other innocents with assault weapons."
WE:
Oppose the murder of school kids and other innocents BY CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF INDIVIDUALS, no matter what "assault weapon" those CRIMINALS employ in their CRIMINAL ACTS.

You:
Oppose an inanimate object being employed by persons hell bent on criminal acts for whatever reason.

WE:
Oppose the criminal actions themselves, as that is the ONLY thing that ANY law can realistically address - PENALIZE the ACTIONS of the law breaker.

YOU:
wish that I'd apply this kind of demand for detailed explanation to other posters who share my side of the argument
I:
Have done so and will continue to do so. Ask Tray, Where is my America, and any other folks on "my side" who I have wrestled with and see what they have to say on that matter.
You are incorrect.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#5356 Jun 19, 2013
Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
<quoted text>Let's take this apart, First of all, The Second Amendment doesn't say, IF... there is a standing militia. Gee Whiz the least you traitors can do is get your story straight??
IF they had their story straight, they would not be traitors.
Anti-Fascism

New York, NY

#5357 Jun 19, 2013
If you think this way about We The People then, do you also think the same way about the government?

What if that government chooses to abuse their arms against the citizens here or abroad?

Since you're worried about an AR15 ending up in a private criminals' hands, then *surely* you'd be terrified of nuclear weapons ending up in a possible future dictators' hands within the government?

Therefore, if you seek restrictions on arms owned by citizens, you thus must [severely] restrict arms held by the government.

You cannot pick and choose only one to restrict, yet ignore the other side ending up with probable tyrannical, fascist criminals [in government] holding massive amounts of deadly firepower...*if* you're a reasonable thinking person, right? ;-)

So will you pick and choose like a two-faced hypocrite? Or...?

This is all about the balance of power between We The People and the government.

MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction - this is basically what helped prevent the "Cold War" from turning "Hot" all those years ago.

It's no different with any group of citizens and the government.

The balance of power is what truly helps keep the peace and prevents lopsided [government] tyranny from taking over, or lopsided [anarchy] chaos from ruling.

So either the people have to boost of their strength of arms or, the government must severely downsize.

http://www.topix.com/forum/guns/TT2PK56QHFSQ7...

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