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.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#935 Mar 17, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>There is no right to own an AR.
Then there is no right to use anything beyond your mouth, quill pen, and parchment to exercise free speech.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#936 Mar 17, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>In Chicago Illinois that was said about all Hand guns too where there was no right to own or possess a Hand Gun and SCOUTUS said it was unconstutional and struck the Chicago Hand Gun Ban down in 2010.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chic...
Here we go, he's just going to come back with, it wasn't a 9-0 decision, so it means the second is open to interpretation.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#937 Mar 17, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>Yes.
Well, you will have to do better. I am not insulted at all by it. I do cling to guns and religion. I have no problem admitting it. If more people did the same, this country would not be in the downward spiral it is presently in.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#939 Mar 17, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go, he's just going to come back with, it wasn't a 9-0 decision, so it means the second is open to interpretation.
I believe it.

Since: Jan 13

Bozeman

#940 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, sure you would.......
And you're currently working on verifying those numbers? Or are you supporting passing more voter ID laws because your assumption is that not enough people will be denied their right to vote to matter?
Yeah, that's what I thought......
It isn't my job to verify their numbers. But I can certainly question them. Don't you recall the theory that any time a politicians lips are moving they are lying.

It isn't like people can't get an ID (other than those that are truly home bound) so I can't imagine anyone who really wants to vote not being able to. People could be denied the right to vote. But it would be because of their own failure to follow the rules. They knew or should have known to have an ID.

Since: Jan 13

Bozeman

#941 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why many self-employed have no insurance coverage and many small businesses don't offer health insurance; they can't afford it.
SO with Obamacare if they can't afford the insurance they get fined????? That makes sense. But we have to get it passed so we can see what's in it don't we?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#942 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no right to own an AR.
I'm pretty sure the 2nd Amendment doesn't end with ", but only the arms which we say you can keep and bear."

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#943 Mar 18, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
They can go get a ID..........
Just like they get food
If they don't have iD then they have never.....
Been in school
The military
Collected SSI or welfare
Never been in prison
Drove a car
Only morons like you are too stupid to get ID
Of course they may be able to get an ID, but that's not the point.

You were the moron who claimed voter ID laws don't prevent anyone from voting. If they don't have an ID then they are prevented from voting. If they're NOT prevented from voting because they don't have an ID then what's the point of a voter ID law?

Most school IDs do not meet the standard for a voter ID.
Most people haven't been in the military, aren't on SSI or welfare, and haven't been in prison.
Many city people don't drive, so they may not have a valid drivers license.

Btw, I have multiple IDs, including a Passport, a PassCard, my retired military ID, and my drivers license.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#944 Mar 18, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
It just proves that you are not after equal rights but just want to pervert the name marriage
Unless it's called marriage it can't be equal.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#945 Mar 18, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Have you ever visited the USA ?
Where is the constitution or a SCOTUS ruling on the issue does it specifically say you have a right to an AR?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#946 Mar 18, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>In Chicago Illinois that was said about all Hand guns too where there was no right to own or possess a Hand Gun and SCOUTUS said it was unconstutional and struck the Chicago Hand Gun Ban down in 2010.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chic...
Handguns in your own home? Yes.
Where in the decision did it say a right to own an AR?

It didnt'.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#947 Mar 18, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
Ironic! What is your stance on just one fraudulent vote being cast? Tell us why one is important and the other is not.
There likely has always been and always will be some minor voter fraud. There is no proof whatsoever that voter ID laws prevent what little fraud may be out there from occuring.

There IS proof that voter ID laws can prevent or discourage otherwise eligible citizens from voting, and disproportionately affect the poor & minorites; which is why courts in 4 states shot down the voter ID laws passed last year.

The difference is there is a constitutional right to vote.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#948 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is the constitution or a SCOTUS ruling on the issue does it specifically say you have a right to an AR?
Yes.

The Supreme court ruled that the guns that were protected were the ones that had a military use.

It is the same ruling where the short barrel shot gun ban was upheld but the USSC eroded on this one because this type of Firearm was known as a trench gun.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#949 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is the constitution or a SCOTUS ruling on the issue does it specifically say you have a right to an AR?
Where does it specifically say I don't???

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#950 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Handguns in your own home? Yes.
Where in the decision did it say a right to own an AR?
It didnt'.
Gun is a Gun.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#951 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Handguns in your own home? Yes.
Where in the decision did it say a right to own an AR?
It didnt'.
Heller did NOT say "ONLY" handguns in the home. It said for lawful purposes "SUCH AS" handguns in the home. HUGE difference there, Sheeple.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#952 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Handguns in your own home? Yes.
Where in the decision did it say a right to own an AR?
It didnt'.
Keeping an AR in the home for self-defense is a LAWFUL purpose. Keeping an AR for hunting is a LAWFUL purpose (exellent varmint gun). Keeping an AR just because feel like it and I can, is a LAWFUL purpose. Get it yet?

“I'm Watching YOU”

Since: Jan 09

Ft. Lewis WA

#953 Mar 18, 2013
You Know what they say..You can Lead Idiots(like MC pat) to the Truth but you can't make him Think.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#954 Mar 18, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol, you think prisoners have free speech? Lmao! Trial is limited. They do retain more rights than they should, however, and that is part of the problem with "rehabilitation".
That is absolutely juvenile. Is speeding a felony? Grow up! You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel grasping at straws.
Maybe you should stick to debating in Romper Room.
And who says it has to be a felony conviction to lose your right to own a gun? Hmmmmmm?

So if states can pass laws taking away your right to own a gun because of a felony conviction, whey can't they pass a law taking away your right to own a gun for a misdemeanor convction?

The point is that if the right to own a gun can be taken away for ANY reason, then the right isn't absolute and obviously CAN be "infringed".

If the constitution can be amended by a 2/3rd vote of Congress and ratification by 38 states to repeal the 2nd amendment (which it can), then it's NOT an absolute right.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#955 Mar 18, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
Here we go, he's just going to come back with, it wasn't a 9-0 decision, so it means the second is open to interpretation.
Correct.

If the 2nd amendment was unambigous an absolute, it would have been a 9-0 decision.

It would have also included clear right to own ANY gun with NO restrictions ANYTIME or ANYWHERE.

It didn't, it isn't.

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min VetnorsGate 1,644,176
News Diagnosing Trump: Did America elect a madman? 17 min HaH_HuH 316
News Many Christian conservatives are backing Alabam... 17 min Smackdown2017 244
News Racism and Nationalism Were Central to the Elec... 26 min 2all 22
News Roy Moore accuser says she was not paid to tell... 29 min PROUD EX LESBIAN 114
News Vladimir Putin denies meddling in the US presid... 50 min HaH_HuH 294
News Roy Moore accuser says she was not paid to tell... 53 min statute of limita... 38
News White House will override Obama's climate plan 1 hr Bill Dunning 1,236
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 1 hr Ice Man 42,605
News Sen. Al Franken accused of inappropriate behavi... 2 hr Chicagoan by Birth 166
More from around the web