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: Nov 11

United States

#4768 May 10, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>Good Lord, or even better I wonder what would happen if you had a brain!?
I bet you Liberal do not have a gun!!!

I will pray you become a victim!!!

For me, I am armed and loaded with my second amendment that no even your clown Muslim president can take away!!!

Since: Nov 11

United States

#4769 May 10, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>And you'd be from which planet again - Troglodyte?
Oh! I just noticed you are from Oakland!!!

No wonder!!!!

2,000 Liberal leaving California every week!!!
good

Huntsville, AL

#4770 May 10, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
<quoted text>
lord, what a hateful, ignorant unamerican post.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4771 May 10, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know what "treason" means, any more than you know what common sense is. You're a noisy Rightie asshat and gun-nut. You have no credibility.
"I will not go to the gentleman's State, or to any other gentleman's State, to find laws that I do not approve. We have plenty of them in my own State. And the gentleman ought to feel highly blessed if he has none in Indiana that he disapproves. We have a great many in Georgia I do not approve. There is one in particular which I fought in the legislature and opposed before the courts with all the power that I had. It was a law making it penal to bear concealed deadly weapons. I am individually opposed to bearing such weapons. I never bear weapons of any sort; but I believed that it was the constitutional right of every American citizen to bear arms if he chooses, and just such arms, and in just such way, as he chooses. I thought that it was the birthright of every Georgian to do it. I was defeated in our legislature. I was defeated before our courts. The question went up to the highest judicial tribunal in our State, the Supreme Court*, which sustained the law." [*Nunn v. State, 1 Ga.(1 Kel.) 243 (1846).]

- Hon. Alexander H. Stephens, June 28, 1856, U.S. House of Representatives.(Mr. Stephens served as a U.S. Representative from Georgia,(before and after the Civil War). He was also Vice President of the Confederate States of America, and the 50th Governor of Georgia from 1882 until his death in 1883).

And here is the Georgia Supreme Court decision to which Mr. Stephans referred:

""The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation!"--Chief Justice Collier, Nunn v. State, 1 Ga.(1 Kel.) 243 (1846).

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4772 May 10, 2013
good wrote:
<quoted text>
lord, what a hateful, ignorant unamerican post.
Yeah, everything >you< and >your< multiple personalities post is.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#4773 May 10, 2013
Socialism is for Sissies wrote:
<quoted text>Whatsa matter? Can shovel out your compassionate little insults but can't take 'em? Typical helpless little parasite on American society.
I'm glad you're pissed. Folks like you give America a bad name.
Today just got a lot happier as I leave work early to engage in consumerism to boost the Capitalist dream!
You get what you put out there, turdblossom. I'll never back down to punks like you, and you'll find I have very little "compassion" for the Right. I regard most of them as vermin, in fact.

I've worked all my life, if anyone here's the "parasite" it's you, boy. And you have no place in America, as you'll be finding out in the upcoming years.

Now FOAD...

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#4774 May 10, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"I will not go to the gentleman's State, or to any other gentleman's State, to find laws that I do not approve. We have plenty of ..EDITED.....
Plenty of irrelevant twaddle is all you have to offer, loser. Quit wasting bandwidth with your cut n' pastes.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4775 May 10, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Plenty of irrelevant twaddle is all you have to offer, loser. Quit wasting bandwidth with your cut n' pastes.
Isn't it interesting however, that >you< can post NOTHING which refutes the FACTS?

Talk about LOSERS....

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#4776 May 10, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it interesting however, that >you< can post NOTHING which refutes the FACTS?
Talk about LOSERS....
"Refute the facts?" You present only irrelevant historical cut n' pastes. What's to "refute?" They say nothing about MODERN gun laws, death statistics, the experiences of OTHER countries in gun control, etc.

Just irrelevant twaddle, as I've said. You've got nothing.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4777 May 10, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
"Refute the facts?" You present only irrelevant historical cut n' pastes. What's to "refute?" They say nothing about MODERN gun laws, death statistics, the experiences of OTHER countries in gun control, etc.
Just irrelevant twaddle, as I've said. You've got nothing.
You don't even understand what a Constitution is, do you traitor-troll? Especially a WRITTEN CONSTITUTION, like that which We The People have here in our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

"The national government is one of enumerated powers, and a power enumerated and delegated by the Constitution to Congress is comprehensive and complete, without other limitations than those found in the Constitution itself...."

"...The Constitution is a written instrument, and, as such, its meaning does not alter. Its language, as a grant of power to the national government, is general and, as changes come in social and political life, it embraces all new conditions within the scope of the powers conferred.

"In interpreting the Constitution, recourse must be had to the common law and also to the position of the framers of the instrument and what they must have understood to be the meaning and scope of the grants of power contained therein must be considered...."---U.S. Supreme Court, South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905).

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".
spocko

Oakland, CA

#4778 May 10, 2013
After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, 01, congress passed a bill known as the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act, among other things, called for the formation of a Homeland Security Department, what is basically a permanent federal police force. The Patriot Act greatly increased the governments, and thus the department of Homeland Security’s, ability to conduct surveillance. It has expanded the government’s ability to look at records on an individual’s activity that is held by third parties. It has expanded the government’s ability to conduct searches without the owners consent or knowledge. The Patriot Act also expanded a narrow exception in the Fourth Amendment that was used for the collection of foreign information, allowing it to be used on U.S. citizens, infringing on citizens rights – where is the outcry?

The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) reports that, excluding 9/11, fewer than 500 people died in the U.S. between 1970 and 2010.

In contrast 30,000 people die every single year of gunshot wounds – where is the outcry?

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4779 May 10, 2013
spocko wrote:
After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, 01, congress passed a bill known as the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act, among other things, called for the formation of a Homeland Security Department, what is basically a permanent federal police force. The Patriot Act greatly increased the governments, and thus the department of Homeland Security’s, ability to conduct surveillance. It has expanded the government’s ability to look at records on an individual’s activity that is held by third parties. It has expanded the government’s ability to conduct searches without the owners consent or knowledge. The Patriot Act also expanded a narrow exception in the Fourth Amendment that was used for the collection of foreign information, allowing it to be used on U.S. citizens, infringing on citizens rights – where is the outcry?
The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) reports that, excluding 9/11, fewer than 500 people died in the U.S. between 1970 and 2010.
In contrast 30,000 people die every single year of gunshot wounds – where is the outcry?
"Another charge is, that the President has violated the Constitution of the United States in this: that he has disarmed citizens; refused them the privilege, under the Constitution, of bearing arms. Sir, it is true that he has refused traitors the privilege of using arms against the Government of the country. General Lyon, of Missouri, and the gallant Frank Blair, and their associates, did disarm some fifteen hundred rebels at Camp Jackson, near St. Louis; and for that we are told they are violators of the Constitution. What other instance does the Senator from Kentucky remember in which the right to bear arms been refused to any citizen? The President has not only guarantied, by his action, the right to bear arms, but he has invited the patriotic citizens of the United States to bear arms for the only noble purpose for which men can take arms--in defense of the Constitution and liberties of people. Is the right to bear arms in Kentucky so sacred that it may never be violated? Then, why do you not bear arms in defense of the Constitution and liberties of the Republic? There is a right to bear arms that is worth something. Does Kentucky stand upon the right to arms? Why is she not bearing arms upon the battle-field to-day, beside Massachusetts and Indiana and Ohio, and the loyal States? Why does she not insist upon her right to bear arms, when traitors are seeking to tear down the Government under which we live?"

- Senator James H. Lane, of Indiana, July 16, 1861, The Congressional Globe, Pg. 143.(James Henry Lane also known as Jim Lane,(June 22, 1814 – July 11, 1866), served as a United States Senator and as a general who fought for the Union).
1 post removed
spocko

Oakland, CA

#4781 May 11, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"Another charge is, that the President has violated the Constitution of the United States in this: that he has disarmed citizens; refused them the privilege, under the Constitution, of bearing arms. Sir, it is true that he has refused traitors the privilege of using arms against the Government of the country. General Lyon, of Missouri, and the gallant Frank Blair, and their associates, did disarm some fifteen hundred rebels at Camp Jackson, near St. Louis; and for that we are told they are violators of the Constitution. What other instance does the Senator from Kentucky remember in which the right to bear arms been refused to any citizen? The President has not only guarantied, by his action, the right to bear arms, but he has invited the patriotic citizens of the United States to bear arms for the only noble purpose for which men can take arms--in defense of the Constitution and liberties of people. Is the right to bear arms in Kentucky so sacred that it may never be violated? Then, why do you not bear arms in defense of the Constitution and liberties of the Republic? There is a right to bear arms that is worth something. Does Kentucky stand upon the right to arms? Why is she not bearing arms upon the battle-field to-day, beside Massachusetts and Indiana and Ohio, and the loyal States? Why does she not insist upon her right to bear arms, when traitors are seeking to tear down the Government under which we live?"
- Senator James H. Lane, of Indiana, July 16, 1861, The Congressional Globe, Pg. 143.(James Henry Lane also known as Jim Lane,(June 22, 1814 – July 11, 1866), served as a United States Senator and as a general who fought for the Union).
Yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Is this like the same spam you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then maybe you change the quotes to another group of dead guys whose quotes don't even apply and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4782 May 11, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
...
“The best definition of citizen, according to European writers, which I have been able to find, is a "native or inhabitant of a city vested with its freedom and liberties." The "freedom and liberties," or "privileges and immunities," essential to a citizen, were those I have mentioned; and although the name was original confined to the inhabitant of a city, yet when these principles were diffused among, and conferred on, the inhabitants of the country, they, having the same attributes, took the name. The rights of an American citizen are essentially the same: to elect, be elected, and bear arms in his defence; they are essential, for, divest him of these, and you divest him of his citizenship. He has other essential rights, those of property and personal security under the protection of laws fairly administered; but he has these in common with foreigners, and in some respects with slaves."

- Senator John Holmes, of Maine, Dec. 9, 1820.[Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856. FROM GALES AND BEATON'S ANNALS OF CONGRESS, FROM THEIR REGISTER OF DEBATES; AND FROM THE OFFICIAL REPORTED DEBATES, BY JOHN C RIVES. Pg. 681.(John Holmes (March 14, 1773 – July 7, 1843) was an American politician. He served as a U.S. Representative from Massachusetts and was one of the first two U.S. Senators from Maine).

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#4783 May 12, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
It'sh a CONSHPIRASHY!! Isn't it, Jimb...er, I mean Chicago?:)
Naw, it's a backlog, law abiding citizens are arming up.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4784 May 12, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Is this like the same spam you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then maybe you change the quotes to another group of dead guys whose quotes don't even apply and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias and then you copy over and over and over every day across many threads until Topix gets annoyed and makes you change your alias
CRIMINALS prefer unarmed victims. Both the CRIMINALS in our governments. As well as the CRIMINALS on our streets. Cowards desire to have only their 'masters' in government to be armed. WHICH ONE ARE YOU?
One Who Knows Stuff

Ashburn, VA

#4785 May 12, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
CRIMINALS prefer unarmed victims. Both the CRIMINALS in our governments. As well as the CRIMINALS on our streets. Cowards desire to have only their 'masters' in government to be armed. WHICH ONE ARE YOU?
Davey you been boring topix readers for years with your copy/paste and your paranoid delusions. Do you really think you've helped America by showing everyone what a broken down goon you are?
Longstreet

Payson, AZ

#4786 May 12, 2013
America is shattering demographically and socially.
No confidence in the ability of Congress. A dreary
economy with wages flat costs up. At this time
Hispanics are attacking Blacks in several west
coast cities. Prudent persons are armed or arming.
These gun control attempts will be crushed in
the House.
more

Huntsville, AL

#4787 May 12, 2013
Longstreet wrote:
America is shattering demographically and socially.
No confidence in the ability of Congress. A dreary
economy with wages flat costs up. At this time
Hispanics are attacking Blacks in several west
coast cities. Prudent persons are armed or arming.
These gun control attempts will be crushed in
the House.
race-based paranoia

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#4788 May 12, 2013
One Who Knows Stuff wrote:
<quoted text>
Davey you been boring topix readers for years with your copy/paste and your paranoid delusions. Do you really think you've helped America by showing everyone what a broken down goon you are?
ALL of the current 'gun control laws' are UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

For direct evidence:

Why were there NO 'gun control laws' from 1791 all the way up to 1934?

WHY would it take the government that long to pass a 'gun control law', if it actually felt it had the 'power' to?

Even after a CIVIL WAR?

After which the 14th amendment was passed in order, among other rights, to give the freed slave the Right to Keep and Bear arms?

EXPLAIN THAT, you treasonous pos.

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 Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 min Brian_G 60,665
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 min Just Think 14,987
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min Grey Ghost 1,405,649
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 11 min Brian_G 391,568
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 22 min District 1 219,716
News 'Jill not Hill' - Green Party's Stein seeks San... 24 min God bless the USA 13
News New York AG refuses to comply with U.S. House s... 41 min haha 10
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 1 hr Bakker 5,696
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 hr Abe 233,550
News The Latest: First lady calls out Trump, - hatefula 11 hr LoveTRUMPHate 86
More from around the web