States with strict gun laws found to have fewer shooting deaths

There are 20 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.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3968 Apr 15, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Obama demolishes the value of life by supporting partial birth abortions
If you could only prove anything you have ever said (your or your aliases).

Perhaps when you managed to post on topic?
Boston Marathon Tragedy

Piscataway, NJ

#3969 Apr 15, 2013
People please if you want to make a difference help us spread the word for our Boston Marathon Runner's!!

www.facebook.com/BostonMarathonTragedySupport Click support share like donate anything It's my turn to do something right

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3970 Apr 15, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
I am ready to die for my country
You lying sack of sh!t, you aren't willing to get off your fat azz and never have: and if you were willing to die for this country, the best thing you could do is put a plastic bag over your head next time you fondle yourself in the closet.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3971 Apr 15, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
Supreme Court declines to hear gun rights case
5
Ahhh, shucks, AnalOriface, gun owners wanting special rights lose another one.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#3972 Apr 15, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The defence of one’s self,
We need a type of patriotism that recognizes the virtues of those who are opposed to us..... The old "manifest destiny" idea ought to be modified so that each nation has the manifest destiny to do the best it can - and that without cant, without the assumption of self-righteousness and with a desire to learn to the uttermost from other nations.~Francis John McConnell

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3973 Apr 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhh, shucks, AnalOriface, gun owners wanting special rights lose another one.
barefoot2626 the AnalOriface its not dead yet if you read the article they are waiting to see what congress does which is going to be nothing which Harry Reid has already watered down the senate version.
serfs up

Kissimmee, FL

#3974 Apr 15, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
We need a type of patriotism that recognizes the virtues of those who are opposed to us..... The old "manifest destiny" idea ought to be modified so that each nation has the manifest destiny to do the best it can - and that without cant, without the assumption of self-righteousness and with a desire to learn to the uttermost from other nations.~Francis John McConnell
Just words in a system that has stolen the wealth of neighbors to pay for pothers and getting worse. The patriotism is by force now.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#3975 Apr 15, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
'Background checks' are a form of "prior restraint". Which is EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN in We The People's Constitution.
“Both Heller and McDonald suggest that First Amendment analogues are more appropriate, see Heller, 554 U.S. at 582, 595, 635; McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3045, and on the strength of that suggestion, we and other circuits have already begun to adapt First Amendment doctrine to the Second Amendment context.”--Diane S. Sykes, July 6, 2011, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit,[RHONDA EZELL, et al., v. CITY OF CHICAGO]
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".
If true, we do it all the time son.

Your problem is it's now being applied to something you feel it shouldn't.

If you're law abiding, you shouldn't fear it.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#3981 Apr 15, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."
"I mean, sir, the county of Bristol; the cloud rose there, and burst upon us, and produced a dreadful effect. It brought on a state of anarchy, and that led to tyranny. 1 say, it brought anarchy. People that used to live peaceably, and were before good neighbors, got distracted, and took up arms against government."
- Mr. William Widgery, Friday, January 25, 1788.(ca. 1753 - July 31, 1822) was a U.S. Representative from Massachusetts.(Mr. Widgery served in the Revolutionary War as a Lieutenant. Member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives 1787-1793 and 1795-1797. Delegate to the State constitutional convention in 1788. He served in the State senate in 1794. And served as member of the executive council in 1806 and 1807. Widgery was elected as a Democratic-Republican to the Twelfth Congress (March 4, 1811-March 3, 1813). Served as judge of the court of common pleas 1813-1821).
The only person you're convincing by repeating yourself is... yourself!
Eric

Jamestown, NY

#3983 Apr 16, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
The overwhelming majority of women hurt in their own homes are the victims of their live-in husband or boyfriend; NOT from an intruder.
Without a gun in the house the woman can easily defend herself with a good long kitchen knife. All she has to do is let him know that if he ever lays a finger on her she'll kill him in his sleep.
Brilliant idea. IF she lives through the subsequent beating (big if),the kitchen knives get locked up at night. Not to mention that defending yourself with a knife takes training. The average 200+lb man could easily take a knife away from a 110lb woman.

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#3984 Apr 16, 2013
States with strict Bomb laws have fewer explosions, LOL!!!

Liberal logic 101 !!!

The scary thing is that they really think they are right!!

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#3985 Apr 16, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

"If the whole country be in arms, the prosecutor for the commonwealth can get a good jury, by challenging improper jurors. The right of challenging, also, is sufficient security for the person accused. I can see no instance where this can be abused. It will answer every purpose of the government, and individual security."

- Gov. Edmund Jennings Randolph, Saturday, June 21, 1788. DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.[Elliot's Debates, Vol 3].(August 10, 1753 – September 12, 1813.Gov , Randolph was an American attorney, the seventh Governor of Virginia, 2nd Secretary of State, Delegate to the Virginia Convention, and the first United States Attorney General).
If EVERY person is armed there will be no criminals alive!!!

No mental health cases, no bullies and therefore no Liberals.

It will be an utopia. No need to lock your car or house!!!

And therefore

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#3986 Apr 16, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

"If the whole country be in arms, the prosecutor for the commonwealth can get a good jury, by challenging improper jurors. The right of challenging, also, is sufficient security for the person accused. I can see no instance where this can be abused. It will answer every purpose of the government, and individual security."

- Gov. Edmund Jennings Randolph, Saturday, June 21, 1788. DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.[Elliot's Debates, Vol 3].(August 10, 1753 – September 12, 1813.Gov , Randolph was an American attorney, the seventh Governor of Virginia, 2nd Secretary of State, Delegate to the Virginia Convention, and the first United States Attorney General).
Ah, no rapes, no child killing, etc...

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#3987 Apr 16, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Justice Scalia
Speaking for the SCOTUS majority
Heller
this century
not needing illiterate dolts like you to speak for him
53rd posting of this dumbospam cut and paste.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#3989 Apr 16, 2013
Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
<quoted text>You still don't argue in the proper context. The Second allows the regular citizen one way to overthrow a repressive government. Gee Whiz little boie, you better read more about the U.S. Constitution.
Nothing in the 2nd has anything to do with "overthrowing the government." You're simply a liar, and you can't even spell "boy."

Dumbass.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#3990 Apr 16, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite.
Quite. Just more hot air and wasted bandwidth from Davy the Quote Queen.

LOL
August

United States

#3991 Apr 16, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing in the 2nd has anything to do with "overthrowing the government.".
Lol! You're funny!

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#3992 Apr 16, 2013
August wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol! You're funny!
Thanks, but was there something you wanted to question about my statement?:)

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#3993 Apr 16, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing in the 2nd has anything to do with "overthrowing the government." You're simply a liar, and you can't even spell "boy."
Dumbass.
Once again you prove your ability to not comprehend what's in front of you. Poor pookie, still in a tailspin of stupidity.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#3994 Apr 16, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing in the 2nd has anything to do with "overthrowing the government." You're simply a liar, and you can't even spell "boy."
Dumbass.
You are truly one of the under-educated masses, Boie? You better start reading books on the U.S. Constitution, so you don't continue to make an asp of yourself...

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Ben Carson confirms presidential campaign 3 min Lawrence Wolf 107
Loosing Innocent Lives In An Airstrike: Do the ... 3 min Ura dingleberry 299
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Nuculur option 1,224,484
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 4 min woodtick57 326,417
News 5 Reasons The American Dream Is Eluding Black P... 5 min coretta 1,158
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 min Jay 180,394
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 7 min Silent Echo 662
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr LMAO 162,038
More from around the web