States with strict gun laws found to have fewer shooting deaths

Mar 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Reuters

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.

Comments (Page 236)

Showing posts 4,701 - 4,720 of5,071
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5586
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>You are sadly mistaken if you want us to believe YOU are well to do.
You can't even breathe on your own without the government doing it for you.
Oh, and sorry for the poor spelling. I ain't bin taught to be no gubermint paid teecher to edumicate folks with a pretty liberal arts degree.
I'm paid for what I know and the problems I CAN and DO solve without the government's precious help.
Poor Free Bagger
Get back to us when you can think for yourself, write legibly, and form an intelligent reply. Your post was an embarrassment.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5587
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I get it...you're "one of those"...YOU can own a gun but nobody else. YOU'RE one of the elitists...or as I like to refer to you...a gun owner, "useful idiot". Somehow, YOU believe YOU would be immune from the law...confiscation...or any other infringement on our rights.
Remarkably stupid, but typical misreading of someone else's post. Glad to see I'm not the only one you can't reply intelligently to, but not a surprise...:)

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5588
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, as usual.
I was referring to teabaggers.
Guns are fine.
It's teabaggers that are dangerous.
So armed teabaggers frighten you.
After reading your drivel here, I concur, you have a reasonable cause for alarm. You have arrived at a logical conclusion.
AQ signing off.
Anti-Fascism

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5589
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
The 2nd Amendment involves arms available at the time, and is now outdated.
Also, it was intended to form militias to keep the peace and fight off enemies like Indians and the British. NOTHING to do with "battling a tyrannical [U.S.] government." That's just Rightie/gun nut fantasy.
Spreading your blatant misled opinions and/or lies again?

Why would they write this in the 13 Amendment of the Virginia Bill of Rights (1776), if what you say is "true" (don't you wish?):

"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."

So, again, one must school your forgetful mind again?

They speak of the militia, made up of the entire body of people, to be armed for their defense of freedom; then they go onto to say that "standing armies" (ran by government) are *dangerous* to liberty in time of peace (aka when they're used and set up to fight the citizens themselves).

Only an absolute simpleton (or deceiver) would not openly understand the obvious from that writing alone.

They knew that the militia was to protect We The People from tyrannical governments, foreign or domestic.

They were fighting their own domestic government' military at the time, so of course they had this in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment (and other Amendments in each State) which speak of arming the body of people for their protection of life and liberty.

The Bill of Rights' exact context is *clearly* an attempt to limit (and obviously be skeptical of)*DOMESTIC* government power.

Why would they be so clueless (don't you wish?) as to *ASSUME* a domestic government will always obey the written word of law and supposedly *never* turn tyrannical, yet then think that it's best the people have no arms to back up their liberties and rights spoken of in the law, and others naturally held outside of said law?

Only the intelligent among us know for a fact that: Spoken and/or written rights / liberty mean nothing unless one has force of arms to back them up.

I've clear logic and evidence backing me. You have a bunch of lies, or at best: partial-truths backing you.

“Drink up! Summer's comin'”

Since: Jul 10

Norfolk, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5590
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Get back to us when you can think for yourself, write legibly, and form an intelligent reply. Your post was an embarrassment.
Nothing said....again!
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5591
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
^ Proving,*yet again*, that you've no clear answer to my original question of how they're supposedly "dangerous."
If you did, you'd have gone into more detail even after your silly little joke, yet you did not.
Thanks for showing us,*yet again*, that you really don't know what you're talking about; you speak from emotion, not logic.
Have a good day, sir!:-)
I didn't watch the clip.

YOU should have known that.

I didn't know the pistol was loaded.

You should have anticipated my stupidity and moved out of way quicke

Teabagger mentality never ceases to expose their STUPIDITY.

Poor teabagger.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5592
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>You are sadly mistaken if you want us to believe YOU are well to do.
You can't even breathe on your own without the government doing it for you.
Oh, and sorry for the poor spelling. I ain't bin taught to be no gubermint paid teecher to edumicate folks with a pretty liberal arts degree.
I'm paid for what I know and the problems I CAN and DO solve without the government's precious help.
Poor Free Bagger
But I work for Walmart and I am "well to do".

Thanks to all that teabagger "welfare".

Couldn't have done it without you.

I need a vacation but don't have a home in Bermuda, so be a good teabagger and make sure I get my tax incentive this month.

Thanks.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5593
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
So armed teabaggers frighten you.
After reading your drivel here, I concur, you have a reasonable cause for alarm. You have arrived at a logical conclusion.
AQ signing off.
Thanks, nice to know they scare even their own.

Don't you feel like a big gubmint socialist, checking to see if their safety is on and the weapon is unloaded before they enter your home?

Because if they shoot you, it's your fault.

You are required to anticipate THEIR stupidity.
ABs

Aiken, SC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5594
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

4

2

2

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money...~mt
rockstar

Saylorsburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5595
Jun 26, 2013
 
B.S..... I'd rather walk around at night in Houston that Chicago. An armed society is a polite society.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5596
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The problem with Reaganomics is eventually you run out of taxpayer money.

Then get the Federal Reserve to print more and the "capitalist" are happy again.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5597
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

rockstar wrote:
B.S..... I'd rather walk around at night in Houston that Chicago. An armed society is a polite society.
you got that right and you can tell the difference between the two cities Socially & Economically.
Anti-Fascism

Anonymous Proxy

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5598
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't watch the clip.
YOU should have known that.
I didn't know the pistol was loaded.
You should have anticipated my stupidity and moved out of way quicke
Teabagger mentality never ceases to expose their STUPIDITY.
Poor teabagger.
I didn't read the entire thread; a lot of people don't. Next time, be specific and put words in quotations and explanations for such words, clearly splitting them up to clarify your point; then it won't look like *you're* claiming those words. It's *your* fault. Learn from your mistakes now.

You *still* cannot answer my original question concerning how so-called "teabaggers" are "dangerous," as you so cluelessly claim.

You embarrass yourself further. Keep going!:-)
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5599
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
The 2nd Amendment involves arms available at the time, and is now outdated.
Also, it was intended to form militias to keep the peace and fight off enemies like Indians and the British. NOTHING to do with "battling a tyrannical [U.S.] government." That's just Rightie/gun nut fantasy.
"The 2nd Amendment involves arms available at the time, and is now outdated."

WRONG...DC v Heller decision calls that argument "bordering on the frivolous";

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
3536 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding."

"Also, it was intended to form militias to keep the peace and fight off enemies like Indians and the British."

So in the mid 1700's and before, when those militias were formed, what was the legitimate gov't of the colonies...?...the KING of England...the British.

So the militia was formed long before the 2nd Amendment...and that very same militia was used to fight against the legitimate gov't of the colonies...against the KING of England and the British.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5600
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Remarkably stupid, but typical misreading of someone else's post. Glad to see I'm not the only one you can't reply intelligently to, but not a surprise...:)
I'm so glad you're not surprised (not...don't care). Then this shouldn't surprise you either..of course you already knit anyway.

You're a violent, ignorant, lying, POS, EXTREMIST, "frustrated control freal".
FormerParatroope r

Richmond, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5601
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
The 2nd Amendment involves arms available at the time, and is now outdated.
Also, it was intended to form militias to keep the peace and fight off enemies like Indians and the British. NOTHING to do with "battling a tyrannical [U.S.] government." That's just Rightie/gun nut fantasy.
Really? Does that mean the entire Constitution is outdated? We have cars, electricity, computers and indoor plumbing. Do the rights recognize only the technology of the time?
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5602
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
But I work for Walmart and I am "well to do".
Thanks to all that teabagger "welfare".
Couldn't have done it without you.
I need a vacation but don't have a home in Bermuda, so be a good teabagger and make sure I get my tax incentive this month.
Thanks.
Spoken like a true leech.
Anti-Fascism

Anonymous Proxy

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5603
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

If 'tha Professor' is serious in his opinions then, there's nothing else I can [mainly] feel but sorry for him.

Really, to be that much out of touch with reality and clear logic? Wow.

He actually thinks our lawfully backed rights are limited only to the technology created at the time the Bill of Rights?

I mean, talk about clueless! lol! How could anyone ever bring up such an imbecilic thing yet not fear the obvious embarrassment that'd follow?

Only trolls, those with low intelligence, the insane or traitors specifically seeking to work with fascists within the system to overthrow our rights, one step at a time.

So he has a choice of one of those to pick from. Whether he remains silent, doesn't matter; he's proven to AT LEAST be one of those options - all of which is not a good look on anyone.

What if many now say that: The only arms which they had in government military ("standing armies") hands back then were those same types of basic rifles, so that's what the government must put in the hands of their police, agents and military soldiers today! ;-)
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5604
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't read the entire thread; a lot of people don't. Next time, be specific and put words in quotations and explanations for such words, clearly splitting them up to clarify your point; then it won't look like *you're* claiming those words. It's *your* fault. Learn from your mistakes now.
You *still* cannot answer my original question concerning how so-called "teabaggers" are "dangerous," as you so cluelessly claim.
You embarrass yourself further. Keep going!:-)
So........you're blaming me, because you didn't watch the video?

You're blaming me, because you didn't read the entire thread?

"MY" mistake?

And I should be "EMBARRASSED"?

Poor teabagger.
Wall Street Government

Sebastian, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5605
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Spoken like a true leech.
You're damned right.
A raft of studies show that millions of taxpayer dollars are flowing to new and existing Wal-Mart stores around the country. In many instances, individual Wal-Mart facilities have received either direct or indirect subsidies from states and localities. Last May, Good Jobs First (GJF), a research and advocacy group that seeks to hold corporations accountable when they receive public subsidies, released a report detailing subsidies WalMart has received to build both retail stores and the network of nearly 100 distribution centers the company has created to facilitate its expansion. The group found that over 90% of the company's distribution centers have been subsidized. It also uncovered 91 instances when the retail stores received public funds, and believes "the real total is certainly much higher."
GJF investigators documented 244 Wal-Mart subsidy deals with a total value of $1.008 billion. Taxpayer dollars have helped individual stores and distribution centers with everything from free or cut-price land to general grants. One example: in Sharon Springs, N.Y., a distribution center made a deal with an industrial development agency for the agency to hold the legal title to the facility so the corporation could evade property taxes. Good Jobs First estimates that Wal-Mart will save about $46 million over the life of this one agreement.
the committee estimates that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in an excess cost of $420,750 a year for federal taxpayers.
The effects of Wal-Mart's free-loader policies radiate beyond Wal-Mart itself; Wal-Mart employees are not the only victims. Firms large and small are forced to cut their own costs in order to compete, creating a "race to the bottom, in which everyone suffers," according to the AFL-CIO report. Employers that provide adequate pay and benefits to their employees are under pressure from companies like Wal-Mart that do not. The result: a growing low-wage sector and ever-greater need for government benefits (funded, incidentally, by an increasingly regressive tax structure).
Thank you for shopping at walmart.
Poor teabagger leech.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 4,701 - 4,720 of5,071
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

5 Users are viewing the Guns Forum right now

Search the Guns Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
U.S. right wing extremists more deadly than jih... 4 hr Barack ist der ausfall 44
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... 4 hr Barack ist der ausfall 7,119
Armed and ready in Murder City, USA 6 hr Dan the Man Chambersburg 3
Cash denouncing Cuomo spreads across N.Y. 12 hr who iz u 7
Israel halts peace talks with Palestinians 14 hr Jeff Brightone 1
I, Publius: A cold, dead hand is still dead 17 hr Banned 75
As Many As One Million Armed New Yorkers Are Ab... 22 hr Banned 4
•••
•••
•••
•••