States with strict gun laws found to ...

States with strict gun laws found to have fewer shooting deaths

There are 5076 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.

Marauder

Valdez, AK

#5629 Jun 27, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not talking about random collections of right-wng nuts, racists, and White Supremacists who get together to play in the woods on weekends, doofus. Those aren't real "militias."
My opinion is that a right to bear arms based only on the formation of militias is outdated, yes. Try refuting it instead of spluttering and babbline.
"I'm not talking about random collections of right-wng nuts, racists, and White Supremacists who get together to play in the woods on weekends, doofus. Those aren't real "militias."

I'm not either dumbarse...try doing some research yourself once in awhile. I'm talking about State sponsered militias. Those are the ones that fall under the "Organized militia"...just like the National Guard. The "Unorganized militia" is everybody else not part of the "Organized militia".

"My opinion is that a right to bear arms based only on the formation of militias is outdated,..."

The right to keep and bears arms has NEVER been based on the formation of militias. It is a right of the people that existed BEFORE the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment didn't "grant" the right whatsoever...it was "Enumerated" in the Bill of Rights as a "restriction" on the gov't. That was so the gov't couldn't infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms...so that the States interest in the "security of a free State" could be maintained by forming a militia IF ever required to do so for their "security".
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#5630 Jun 27, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Not YET it's not.....LOL
Never will be.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#5631 Jun 27, 2013
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The 2nd Amendment involves arms available at the time, and is now outdated.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.
Well then you had better stop posting on topix, because the first amendment clearly applied only to the tools available at that time. Apparently it is outdated, and you do not need freedom of speech.

Really? Where does the second amendment say it was for fighting Indians and British? The founding fathers clearly came from a place where their government had become tyrannical. Read the Federalist Papers. Their intentions are clear.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#5632 Jun 27, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
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.
Lmao!!! What a coincidence, that's the same problem as Democrat run Big Government, tax and spend, Welfare, Food Stamps, Government Housing, Free Cell Phones, and Government retirement programs present.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#5633 Jun 27, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Go back and read my post and try to comprehend that I'm not basing opposition to the 2nd Amendment, or unregulated possession of firearms, solely on a technological argument.
I know...after I posted my Heller reference as the argument "bordering on the frivolous"...you are now trying to link the right to keep and bear arms to the militia.

DC v Heller;

"Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Please note the part of the finding that states "...unconnected with service in a militia...".

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5634 Jun 27, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
DC v Heller;
"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 modernforms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (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."
Repeated for emphasize;
"...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."
if you want to piss off the gun grabbers the District of Columbia v Hellers is meaningless and is a deflection because District of Columbia v Heller SCOTUS case dealt with Washington DC which is a Federal Enclave and is not a state which is why the Ruling had no affect on rest of the US on rights of Federal Enclaves dealing with the US constitution, and the case you want to drive into the gun grabbers or the Anti 2nd amendment loons head is the 2010 SCOTUS case of McDonald v Chicago which pretained to the states and is what incorporated the 2nd amendment down to state and local level.

McDonald v. Chicago

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Initially the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas. The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale. The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.

The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010. On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments. It then remanded the case back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chic...

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to 1925, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments.

Amendment II

Right to keep and bear arms

This right has been incorporated against the states.

See McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...

“Sharia, NOT!”

Since: Jul 10

Chesapeake, VA

#5635 Jun 27, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
The founding fathers clearly came from a place where their government had become tyrannical. Read the Federalist Papers. Their intentions are clear.
How about the Declaration of Indepedence? I think it makes the point on the intent of what those that forsook all they had to engage in a battle for liberty:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.(Today's SCOTUS)

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.(EPA, IRS, DHS and the list goes on. BTW, translate eat out substances as TAXES)

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.(No suppose to have a standing army that was what militias were for)

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.(Using soldiers/DRONES against the People)

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:(UN and World Court come to mind)

These libbies are so hell bent on America's destruction and too damn blind by emotions to see it.
Anti-Fascism

United States

#5636 Jun 27, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not talking about random collections of right-wng nuts, racists, and White Supremacists who get together to play in the woods on weekends, doofus. Those aren't real "militias."
My opinion is that a right to bear arms based only on the formation of militias is outdated, yes. Try refuting it instead of spluttering and babbline.
It's not outdated; you're just too much of a simpleton whop trusts government so much, you think that We The People should give up force of power and let them do whatever they want, whenever they want; as if they will never become tyrants? History (within the last 100 years alone) has proven the right of the people to keep and bear arms is logical; too bad many other groups of citizens in other countries didn't use that right, since they were disarmed and then enslaved, slaughtered and/or invaded by tyrannical governments.

I don't care what you say many are not doing today; that doesn't make it outdated. Simply because many've been lulled into trusting the government, or brainwashed into becoming so idiotically complacent, even in light of history, doesn't mean we give up our rights. Sorry, sheep, but you can do that if you like; I'll be damned if you try forcing me to become the same simpleton that you are.

You're so clueless, it's almost beyond comprehension. Go to a topic that you can at least win the debate in; you're seriously outgunned here.:-)
Anti-Fascism

United States

#5637 Jun 27, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then you had better stop posting on topix, because the first amendment clearly applied only to the tools available at that time. Apparently it is outdated, and you do not need freedom of speech.
Really? Where does the second amendment say it was for fighting Indians and British? The founding fathers clearly came from a place where their government had become tyrannical. Read the Federalist Papers. Their intentions are clear.
His comment was so ignorant and incorrect, I'm almost tempted to believe tha Professor is actually a pro-gun rights person just making another nickname in order to embarrass anti-gun people intentionally.

I'm not kidding, either. I'd not be *too* surprised if I turned out to be correct. lol!:-)
Anti-Fascism

United States

#5638 Jun 27, 2013
Please tell me he's a troll! lol! I don't want to think even some humans lack this much intelligence out there voting, driving vehicles, handling food or reproducing?

PLEASE be a troll, tha Professor! I beg of you! lol!:-D

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5639 Jun 27, 2013
Besame Culo wrote:
<quoted text>More fecal-tainted ranting from the smelly fleabagger. Do continue making a fool of yourself.
Feces, pedophilia, gay sex....the favorite topics of your average Rightie poster. I wonder why?

Some might say you're all just mean scumbags, but I think it's much worse than that. I think you post what you know best, just projecting it onto other people as a defense mechanism...

Phew. Ugly.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5640 Jun 27, 2013
Anti-Fascism wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not outdated; you're just too much of a simpleton whop trusts government so much, you think that We The People should give up force of power and let them do whatever they want, whenever they want; as if they will never become tyrants? History (within the last 100 years alone) has proven the right of the people to keep and bear arms is logical; too bad many other groups of citizens in other countries didn't use that right, since they were disarmed and then enslaved, slaughtered and/or invaded by tyrannical governments.
I don't care what you say many are not doing today; that doesn't make it outdated. Simply because many've been lulled into trusting the government, or brainwashed into becoming so idiotically complacent, even in light of history, doesn't mean we give up our rights. Sorry, sheep, but you can do that if you like; I'll be damned if you try forcing me to become the same simpleton that you are.
You're so clueless, it's almost beyond comprehension. Go to a topic that you can at least win the debate in; you're seriously outgunned here.:-)
'I don't CARE what you say, I don't CARE what you say, it's not outdated, it's NOT, it's NOT, it's NOTTTT.....waaaaaaaah!'

That sums up almost all of your posts. Unable to defend yourself or your views, you simply get more and more angry, pretending that I'm the one who's "clueless" or "doesn't get it" or whatever, when it's simply you who refuses to accept that someone else has different opinions than you.

And then the usual closing, where you pretend you're "winning" and "outgunning" me or whoever else you're raving at.

Hysteria doesn't win debates...you're not winning this one. You simply disagree, and have no traction.

Have fun blustering and turning red while pretending to laugh...:)
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#5641 Jun 27, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>if you want to piss off the gun grabbers the District of Columbia v Hellers is meaningless and is a deflection because District of Columbia v Heller SCOTUS case dealt with Washington DC which is a Federal Enclave and is not a state which is why the Ruling had no affect on rest of the US on rights of Federal Enclaves dealing with the US constitution, and the case you want to drive into the gun grabbers or the Anti 2nd amendment loons head is the 2010 SCOTUS case of McDonald v Chicago which pretained to the states and is what incorporated the 2nd amendment down to state and local level.
McDonald v. Chicago
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
Initially the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas. The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale. The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.
The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010. On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments. It then remanded the case back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chic...
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to 1925, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments.
Amendment II
Right to keep and bear arms
This right has been incorporated against the states.
See McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...
Aware of that and have used it many times...but thanks.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5642 Jun 27, 2013
Incidentally, I don't "trust the government," either. Most of us on the Left don't. We just aren't stupid enough to think that a couple of rifles and Glocks in the hall cabinet are going to protect us from tanks and aircraft.

We know what guns are REALLY out there doing: killing tens of thousands of Americans a year for NO GOOD REASON.

Explain your half-assed ideology to the parents of kids killed by nuts with assault rifles, or in suicides, or by a friend who was cleaning their weapon when it went off. Don't waste time on me, explain it to THEM.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#5643 Jun 27, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then you had better stop posting on topix, because the first amendment clearly applied only to the tools available at that time. Apparently it is outdated, and you do not need freedom of speech.
Really? Where does the second amendment say it was for fighting Indians and British? The founding fathers clearly came from a place where their government had become tyrannical. Read the Federalist Papers. Their intentions are clear.
More strawmen and lies. Borrrrrinnnngggg...
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#5644 Jun 27, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
'I don't CARE what you say, I don't CARE what you say, it's not outdated, it's NOT, it's NOT, it's NOTTTT.....waaaaaaaah!'
That sums up almost all of your posts. Unable to defend yourself or your views, you simply get more and more angry, pretending that I'm the one who's "clueless" or "doesn't get it" or whatever, when it's simply you who refuses to accept that someone else has different opinions than you.
And then the usual closing, where you pretend you're "winning" and "outgunning" me or whoever else you're raving at.
Hysteria doesn't win debates...you're not winning this one. You simply disagree, and have no traction.
Have fun blustering and turning red while pretending to laugh...:)
ROTFLMAO...thanks prof...good laugh before lunch.
Anti-Fascism

Anonymous Proxy

#5645 Jun 27, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
Incidentally, I don't "trust the government," either. Most of us on the Left don't. We just aren't stupid enough to think that a couple of rifles and Glocks in the hall cabinet are going to protect us from tanks and aircraft.
We know what guns are REALLY out there doing: killing tens of thousands of Americans a year for NO GOOD REASON.
Explain your half-assed ideology to the parents of kids killed by nuts with assault rifles, or in suicides, or by a friend who was cleaning their weapon when it went off. Don't waste time on me, explain it to THEM.
You don't trust the government but, you want them to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms? You simpleton, actions speak louder than words. You cannot fool me... fool.:-)

You on the "Left" supposedly "don't trust government"? Ah haha! That's priceless! Yet a vast majority of you "Lefties" are all for big daddy government socialism taking over this nation (National Socialists - thus you're literally Nazis)! Rigghhht! You "don't trust government"? Wow! That was comical to behold, indeed!:-)

There are anti-tank and anti-aircraft firearms out there too, and yes, we've a right to keep and bear those arms... too. I don't care how insane or crazy you think that is, We The People must change with the times as technology grows and, yep, if that means we must therefore arm ourselves with even stronger tools then, so be it. If the government, who claims to be of, by and for the people, can arm themselves with such powerful weaponry then they should have no problem with good, peaceable citizens keeping such arms, if they choose.

The balance of power is the key to peace. Once that balance is lost and tipped too far one way (in government power direction) then something bad can and most likely will happen one day; look at what happened with the Germans before the Nazis came into power - I'm sure they assumed nothing like that would have ever happened yet, lo' and behold... oops! By that time it was too late. Same with the Soviet thugs in Russia, the fascist thugs in North Korea, China, and many places around the world throughout history.

People never learned their lesson until it was too late.

The founders learned their lesson and they wanted to make sure the people of these States would not have to learn such a lesson in the future; that's why many of them wanted to make sure it was well-known in the law that we've a right to keep and bear arms in defense of our FREEDOM.

Don't like it? Move out of this country then.

Now you go into deaths which happened at the hands of the criminal or negligent numbskull. That's not the fault of gun availability, kid; it's the fault of the individual.

But again, if you blame guns for these things then you must also blame governments (including the one ruling over you now) having armed military, agents and police whenever one of those groups abuses their weapons negligently or criminally.

ARE YOU SEEKING TO BAN THEIR WEAPONS, TOO, tha PROFESSOR?!

Step up to the plate, kid, and be consistent or: be quiet and stop embarrassing yourself!

P.S. Your post above the one I quote here was such a waste of space and had nothing to refute my points. Again, what an embarrassment you are to yourself.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5646 Jun 27, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Aware of that and have used it many times...but thanks.
I thought so but I know the Pseudo Liberals intentionally avoid Mcdonald v Chicago SCOTUS case ruling because they know it pretains to the States where as the District of Columbia v Heller SCOTUS case pretains to Federal Enclaves only which is why the Pseudo Liberals focus on that SCOTUS ruling of District of Columbia v Heller because the Pseudo Liberals know it means nothing to the States is what I was getting at.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#5647 Jun 27, 2013
Wall Street Government wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
Much worse than commenting on a video that you didn't watch.
Much worse than commenting on a thread without reading it.
Poor teabagger.
If.. You don't want you're comments taken apart don't make them? Simple really, but then you're the little boy whose comments always are wrong.
sinic

Kerrville, TX

#5648 Jun 27, 2013
for background:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

"Circumstances rule men; men do not rule circumstances."
Herodotus

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 Treating Firearms Like We Do Cars? Yeaha Lets D... (Feb '12) 23 min Here Is One 21
Truth About Reloading 24 min Here Is One 56
News St. Louis Zoo Court Order against the Exercise ... Thu True facts 8
News Why assault rifle sales are booming Thu okimar 102
News Why are assault weapon sales jumping? Because t... Thu Here Is One 47
This is the NRA’s worst nightmare: Thu Here Is One 18
News No wedding for Bristol Palin Jun 30 General 39
More from around the web