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: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2441 Apr 1, 2013
ga_patriot wrote:
<quoted text>Thats roughly the number of people killed on the highway each year. Maybe we should not allow private sales of autos without a background check. Since over 10,000 of those deaths are caused by speeding maybe we should call for a ban on all cars that can go faster than 80MPH. After all...who would need a Mustang GT that does 155MPH. It's a good bet that of those 10,000 a large percentage were 6 and 7 year olds. Where is Chuck Schumer and oblunder??? What has the left done to get these killing machines off the road. It's funny how driving is a privelege and if you speed you just get some points on your license and get to try and kill someone again with your car. Break the law with a gun and you get it confiscated even though owning a gun is a right. How about a background check for voting.It's odd the left opposes E-Verify to ensure those applying for a job are LEGALLY in the country or opposes having to present a picture ID to vote but wants background checks making AMERICAN CITIZENS proove they are eligible to own a gun. One more thing asswipe....59% of AMERICANS oppose oblunder care...so I guess the dems will work on repealing that next...
6 Things That Kill More People Than Guns

http://simplefactsplainarguments.blogspot.com...

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#2442 Apr 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! You don't even have an idea of the discussion son.
Your spin spin spin does not change the fact that you are wrong..........LOL

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#2443 Apr 1, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Drunk Drivers Cause More Deaths Than Firearms
http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/article/85...
Correct

But moron liberals dont want the facts..........LOL

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#2444 Apr 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>What claim would that be son? You keep saying it without any proof.
Why is that?
Any of your claims..........LOL

On post # 46912 here http://www.topix.com/forum/us/politics/TKPEED...

The moron yea claimed that the burden of proof falls on the defense even after I had posed a link from a legal law library showing what everyone else knows that the burden of proof falls on the prosecution……


Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Please post a link that shows that???
Would you like the link again that proves you wrong???
Burden of proof is on the prosecution.........
http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_p ...

Moron yea wrote:
lol! Nope. Don't need to son.

That's the defense's job. Even a dumb person would know that!

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2445 Apr 1, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct
But moron liberals dont want the facts..........LOL
Right, these Modern Liberal don't like the Facts just like the fact that there is nothing Liberal about their Modern Liberalism.
Spocko

Oakland, CA

#2446 Apr 1, 2013
ga_patriot wrote:
<quoted text>Have you been a fuc*ing moron your whole life? What about the auto industry??? In a nation where the speed limit is 70MPH the auto industry has been on a quest to provide more horsepower than ever. The corvette Z1 640HP. The car can do 205MPH. Tell us,in your feeble mind is that car designed for transportation???? Or is it designed for speeding??? Hell...our own goverment bailed out GM so they could continue to produce such a vehicle. Are you saying that those who kill would have never thought about killing except that the guns have become more lethal???? Are you serious? Thats like someone saying they never wanted to be a criminal but because there are so laws to break it made it easier to choose that lifestyle.
But cars kill people too!? A outrageously moronic and self-serving argument! Cars did not exist when the constitution was written - and neither did automatic and semi-automatic weapons (nor was there any conception that they ever would be). Cars are a huge part of our economy, driving is a privilege not a right – as guns ought to be! Considering that we have as many as 250 million cars on the road every single day (not counting trucks) with an average of fatal accidents of 150 per day is remarkable. The very reason this is possible, besides seat belts and air bags, is licensing and strict rules and regulations supported by strict enforcement. Clearly, the very same concept can be applied to safe and responsible private gun ownership. Not to mention that these are “accidents” not deliberate and intentional kills as is the case with guns!
If we were serious, for even a second, to truly consider the intentions of James Madison when he wrote the Second Amendment, one must reconstruct the environment in which he conceived it and recognize that it was a very, very different time, with very different circumstances, and very different weapons – the Musket! To put it in simple terms, all that is needed is restricting privately owned guns to ‘single shot’ and the entire controversy will disappear over night.
Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative Republican and strict judicial constructionist, said that the concept of a constitutionally-protected individual right to bear arms was, quote:“one of the biggest pieces of fraud perpetrated on the American public by a special interest group that I have seen in my lifetime.”
When it comes to protecting freedom, Americans, including those on the Supreme Court, recognize that personal liberties must often be modified for the safety and protection of others. Yet today’s gun rights advocates routinely cite the Second Amendment of the constitution ‘the right to bear arms’ when threatened by commonsense proposals to limit, but not eliminate, modern-day weaponry. Constitutionally protected freedoms are routinely curtailed in the name of public safety, morality, or even convenience.
2 posts removed
FormerParatroope r

Poplar Bluff, MO

#2449 Apr 1, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
But cars kill people too!? A outrageously moronic and self-serving argument! Cars did not exist when the constitution was written - and neither did automatic and semi-automatic weapons (nor was there any conception that they ever would be). Cars are a huge part of our economy, driving is a privilege not a right – as guns ought to be! Considering that we have as many as 250 million cars on the road every single day (not counting trucks) with an average of fatal accidents of 150 per day is remarkable. The very reason this is possible, besides seat belts and air bags, is licensing and strict rules and regulations supported by strict enforcement. Clearly, the very same concept can be applied to safe and responsible private gun ownership. Not to mention that these are “accidents” not deliberate and intentional kills as is the case with guns!
If we were serious, for even a second, to truly consider the intentions of James Madison when he wrote the Second Amendment, one must reconstruct the environment in which he conceived it and recognize that it was a very, very different time, with very different circumstances, and very different weapons – the Musket! To put it in simple terms, all that is needed is restricting privately owned guns to ‘single shot’ and the entire controversy will disappear over night.
Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative Republican and strict judicial constructionist, said that the concept of a constitutionally-protected individual right to bear arms was, quote:“one of the biggest pieces of fraud perpetrated on the American public by a special interest group that I have seen in my lifetime.”
When it comes to protecting freedom, Americans, including those on the Supreme Court, recognize that personal liberties must often be modified for the safety and protection of others. Yet today’s gun rights advocates routinely cite the Second Amendment of the constitution ‘the right to bear arms’ when threatened by commonsense proposals to limit, but not eliminate, modern-day weaponry. Constitutionally protected freedoms are routinely curtailed in the name of public safety, morality, or even convenience.
The Founders could very well envisioned semi and auto weapons. There were many attempts in the 1600,1700 and early 1800's to create multi barreled flintlocks and repeating weapons. Ben Franklin considered the use of soldiers coming from the sky to meet the enemy in battle. These men were thinkers, inventors and philosopher's, they were not ignorant of technology.
These same men recognized rights as pre-existing and not granted by government and they created a system that made it difficult to restrict rights.
The gun control debate is an example of where emotion has overshadowed facts.
There can be reasonable controls on rights, such as it is unlawfully to yell fire in a crowded area where fire does not exist. That limitation does not infringe on the right of free speech because doing so can create a hazard. That does not equate with the right to bear arms by banning certain firearms, because the mere possession does not in itself create a hazard. To restrict firearms from violent people, the mentally unstable or the like is acceptable because the possession of a firearm in their hands does pose a hazard.
Tray

New Albany, MS

#2450 Apr 1, 2013
Spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
But cars kill people too!? A outrageously moronic and self-serving argument! Cars did not exist when the constitution was written - and neither did automatic and semi-automatic weapons (nor was there any conception that they ever would be). Cars are a huge part of our economy, driving is a privilege not a right – as guns ought to be! Considering that we have as many as 250 million cars on the road every single day (not counting trucks) with an average of fatal accidents of 150 per day is remarkable. The very reason this is possible, besides seat belts and air bags, is licensing and strict rules and regulations supported by strict enforcement. Clearly, the very same concept can be applied to safe and responsible private gun ownership. Not to mention that these are “accidents” not deliberate and intentional kills as is the case with guns!
If we were serious, for even a second, to truly consider the intentions of James Madison when he wrote the Second Amendment, one must reconstruct the environment in which he conceived it and recognize that it was a very, very different time, with very different circumstances, and very different weapons – the Musket! To put it in simple terms, all that is needed is restricting privately owned guns to ‘single shot’ and the entire controversy will disappear over night.
Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative Republican and strict judicial constructionist, said that the concept of a constitutionally-protected individual right to bear arms was, quote:“one of the biggest pieces of fraud perpetrated on the American public by a special interest group that I have seen in my lifetime.”
LIAR! Cars are responsible for millions of deaths. Directly by the operation of the driver,(drunk driving, distracted driving, road rage, ect. ect.) Then indirectly. Car jackings where the owner is killed just for the glorification of a car. Then of course the creation of the massive oil industry which would not exist except for cars. The massive pollution spewed from the millions of cars cause massive heath problems and yes deaths. The massive cancer risk involved in just the exposure to oil products related to cars including innocent non car owners or drivers, including children who must inhale the carcinogen packed exhaust. Then of course the massive death count from wars over oil. ALL because of cars. Now back to the other lie. Car ownership or driving is not a PRIVILEGE. The operation of it on government built roads is a privilege but no where else is a license or registration required. Now own to the next lie. The founding fathers just like us saw everyday advances in every aspect of their lives INCLUDING weapons. Do you not think that major advances will continue 200 years from now? Do you not realize that weapons will continue to advance even to the point you can not conceive in this point in history? You do realize their term was "ARMS" not firearms. They did not limit their acknowledgement of a right to be limited. Man had the right to self defense before firearms and that right will still exist after firearms as you know them are made obsolete by some other weapon. Notice the right of a free press is not limited to quill and paper. If some in the press lie should that right be removed from ALL the press? If some people use free speech to mislead the public should the right be removed from all in fear of the abuse of a few? Remember the founding fathers just acknowledged the rights, not created them. The Bill of Right is just a list of important ones but by no means is the limit of them. The SCOTUS like everyone else can have an opinion but that in no way grants them the power to make law or infringe on the Constitution, even the parts they personally don't like.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#2451 Apr 1, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Any of your claims..........LOL
On post # 46912 here http://www.topix.com/forum/us/politics/TKPEED...
The moron yea claimed that the burden of proof falls on the defense even after I had posed a link from a legal law library showing what everyone else knows that the burden of proof falls on the prosecution……
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Please post a link that shows that???
Would you like the link again that proves you wrong???
Burden of proof is on the prosecution.........
http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_p ...
Moron yea wrote:
lol! Nope. Don't need to son.
That's the defense's job. Even a dumb person would know that!
lol! Are you saying I've never responded chief?

Oh wait! And there's your version of "legal law library" too! Funny how you've never proven that despite your vigorous claims, eh chief yellow tail?
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#2452 Apr 1, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I can see how spineless and cowardly sycophant boot-lickers would feel that way. Fortunately, there are enough of us that DON'T. So the fire of liberty hasn't completely died out.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
- Benjamin Franklin
Why don't you freaks go create your own socialist paradise somewhere else?
Clearly, you believe selective quotes is your way of "proving" something that doesn't exist.
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#2453 Apr 1, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Who have collections of guns? I agree. Do you have a list?
WHY do YOU bitch about anyone having a 'collection' of guns?

What's YOUR beef over their possessing that collection?

Spell it out, COMPLETELY, i.e., leave NO stone unturned.
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#2454 Apr 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>Clearly, you believe selective quotes is your way of "proving" something that doesn't exist.
Do tell: PRECISELY WHAT is it —according to yourself— that doesn't exist?

PROVIDE PROOFS, if you might, in order to sustain ANY degree of 'credibility' on YOUR part.
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#2455 Apr 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! Are you saying I've never responded chief?
Oh wait! And there's your version of "legal law library" too! Funny how you've never proven that despite your vigorous claims, eh chief yellow tail?
YOU speak 'broadly,' but when put to the test, you're 'facts' are so narrow that not even a sub-atomic particle may pass!

The corollary is akin to just this: YOUR 'alligator mouth', speaks louder than your 'canary arse' may support!
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#2456 Apr 1, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
Do tell: PRECISELY WHAT is it —according to yourself— that doesn't exist?
PROVIDE PROOFS, if you might, in order to sustain ANY degree of 'credibility' on YOUR part.
You obviously haven't read son.

So clearly you can't understand how circular your question is.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#2457 Apr 1, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU speak 'broadly,' but when put to the test, you're 'facts' are so narrow that not even a sub-atomic particle may pass!
The corollary is akin to just this: YOUR 'alligator mouth', speaks louder than your 'canary arse' may support!
lol! You speak but it's clear you have no idea what you're saying.
food for thought

Oak Ridge, TN

#2458 Apr 1, 2013
How many of you people know that that gun control was introduce to keep blacks from owning guns? That the 14th Amendment (civil or state given rights - not God-given rights) and the United States citizenship were used to give newly freed black slaves some privileges/protections that have been WRONGLY DEFINED AS CIVIL RIGHTS today. Look up the definition in a dictionary if you don't believe me. Random House College Dictionary says "The rights to personal liberty ESTABLISHED BY THE 13TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND CERTAIN CONGRESSIONAL ACTS - NOT ESTABLISHED BY OUR FOUNDERS OR GOD, but by the federal government in the mid-1800s.) You see "civil" means "state" and the state has NO AUTHORITY TO GIVE ANYONE "RIGHTS". Rights come from our creator/God. The state can only give "PRIVILEGES" THAT THEY MISNAMED RIGHTS.[NOTICE THAT THE TRAITORS IN OUR GOVERNMENT LOVE TO REDEFINE CONSTITUTIONAL TERMS TO FIT THEIR SOCIALISTS AGENDAS.] If you look hard enough on the internet, you will find websites showing the LAW TO BACK UP THESE CLAIMS HERE. How do I know? I have looked at some of them in the past, but I don't have their addresses in front of me now.

P.S. I have pages and pages and pages, etc. of founding father quotes I found on the internet proclaiming the right to keep and bear arms belongs to every single human being in this country. I have posted some of the quotes before only to have them censored on the internet in the USA. NOT CHINA, NOT RUSSIA, ETC. HERE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE. ISN'T THAT AMAZING? SOMETIMES IT SEEMS LIKE there are more traitors to our republic in this country than overseas. Don't you agree?

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#2459 Apr 1, 2013
food for thought wrote:
How many of you people know that that gun control was introduce to keep blacks from owning guns? That the 14th Amendment (civil or state given rights - not God-given rights) and the United States citizenship were used to give newly freed black slaves some privileges/protections that have been WRONGLY DEFINED AS CIVIL RIGHTS today. Look up the definition in a dictionary if you don't believe me. Random House College Dictionary says "The rights to personal liberty ESTABLISHED BY THE 13TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND CERTAIN CONGRESSIONAL ACTS - NOT ESTABLISHED BY OUR FOUNDERS OR GOD, but by the federal government in the mid-1800s.) You see "civil" means "state" and the state has NO AUTHORITY TO GIVE ANYONE "RIGHTS". Rights come from our creator/God. The state can only give "PRIVILEGES" THAT THEY MISNAMED RIGHTS.[NOTICE THAT THE TRAITORS IN OUR GOVERNMENT LOVE TO REDEFINE CONSTITUTIONAL TERMS TO FIT THEIR SOCIALISTS AGENDAS.] If you look hard enough on the internet, you will find websites showing the LAW TO BACK UP THESE CLAIMS HERE. How do I know? I have looked at some of them in the past, but I don't have their addresses in front of me now.
P.S. I have pages and pages and pages, etc. of founding father quotes I found on the internet proclaiming the right to keep and bear arms belongs to every single human being in this country. I have posted some of the quotes before only to have them censored on the internet in the USA. NOT CHINA, NOT RUSSIA, ETC. HERE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE. ISN'T THAT AMAZING? SOMETIMES IT SEEMS LIKE there are more traitors to our republic in this country than overseas. Don't you agree?
What is your point.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2460 Apr 1, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
More gay sex fantasies.........
{click}

I understand, Homo One: for you, they are a lifestyle.
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#2461 Apr 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>You obviously haven't read son.
So clearly you can't understand how circular your question is.
Do tell: PRECISELY WHAT is it —according to yourself— that doesn't exist?

PROVIDE PROOFS, if you might, in order to sustain ANY degree of 'credibility' on YOUR part.
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#2462 Apr 1, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! You speak but it's clear you have no idea what you're saying.
YOU speak 'broadly,' but when put to the test, you're 'facts' are so narrow that not even a sub-atomic particle may pass!

The corollary is akin to just this: YOUR 'alligator mouth', speaks louder than your 'canary arse' may support!

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 min Jacques in Ottawa 225,581
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 min syamsu 209,588
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 min antipolicticalcor... 18,309
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Homer 1,432,012
News Trump calls on GOP to improve African-American ... 2 min Michel Montvert 1,279
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 5 min fubar 10,206
News Study finds 20M would lose health coverage unde... 6 min deplorable spud 68
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 7 min valerie 243,501
News Police in riot-hit Charlotte say shooting victi... 8 min okimar 577
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 17 min Cheech the Conser... 395,387
More from around the web