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: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2668 Apr 2, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
Was it not you posting that speed limits do not prevent speeding?
I understand this too hard for you to understand, "Dr" Deflection.

I cannot use smaller words or shorter sentences - dumb it down for you any further.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2669 Apr 2, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia
And the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, and Scalia has made it clear to people who speak the English language that there are restrictions to owning, carrying, buying, selling and possessing firearms, Melon Head.

And no matter how hard the NRA cries, this will at long last include restrictions on your efforts to sell deadly weapons to anyone you please including felons and your fellow mental defects.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2670 Apr 2, 2013
Marauder wrote:
"3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied toself-defense) violate the Second Amendment.)
"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.

(real) US Supreme Court Justice Scalia
This century
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#2671 Apr 2, 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.
(real) US Supreme Court Justice Scalia
This century
Nice of you to quote a passage from a decision with SHOOTS DOWN ALL of YOUR contentions.

However, since the quote above appears in the 'obiter dictum' and CANNOT be used to make ANY decision in an inferior court, then it serves little purpose other than to illuminate one possible reason for the court having reached its decision.

In other words, it is NOT BINDING.

That quote by Scalia, above, is NOT to found in the ratio decidendi, i.e., the decision itself.
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#2673 Apr 2, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And the sun rises in the east and sets in the west,
The Sun does no such thing, unless you're a subscriber to the 'flat-Earth' theory.

The more you post, the more evident it becomes that you're not only a charlatan, but an extremely poor one at that!
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#2675 Apr 2, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
If that were actually true, then WHY do you keep responding to my posts?
I know the answer to that: Being the masochist he is, he loves the pain issued forth with your every riposte!

In fact, I think that he lives for them!
;-)

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#2676 Apr 2, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>It doesn't take much to make a moron laugh, Dr-Deflection.

PS: don't ask for people to criticize your poor spelling and bad grammar if you are going to cry about it when they point them out to you.

Just between you and me, dear: it isn't hard.
Insults and deflection. What a shocker.
You would have to point out examples of my poor spelling and grammar before accusing me of crying about it.
You sure do avoid backing your claims.

No, it's not hard for everyone to figure out why. You are quite pathetic. Yes, everyone on topix knows it.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#2677 Apr 2, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>I understand this too hard for you to understand, "Dr" Deflection.

I cannot use smaller words or shorter sentences - dumb it down for you any further.
"You understand this too hard"? Really? And you criticize my spelling and grammar and typos? Without proof I might add. Nice!
You really do enjoy humiliation don't you?
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#2678 Apr 2, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
Insults and deflection. What a shocker.
You would have to point out examples of my poor spelling and grammar before accusing me of crying about it.
You sure do avoid backing your claims.
No, it's not hard for everyone to figure out why. You are quite pathetic. Yes, everyone on topix knows it.
"You are quite pathetic. Yes, everyone on topix knows it."

But he revels in such!
You see? Celebrating willful ignorance is a communist trait.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2679 Apr 2, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms
Every time you post this lie, it costs Melon head $100.

He doesn't believe that there is someone so stupid he keeps repeating the wrong thing.

Cah ching!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2680 Apr 2, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
< He knows more about REAL American law than Scalia EVER will.
The thing is, Davy, everyone in this forum knows more than you and there are some pretty stupid people here.

And Scalia's opinion matters.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2681 Apr 2, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
"You understand this too hard"? Really? And you criticize my spelling and grammar and typos?
AS long as I am in front of you, Dr-Deflection.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2683 Apr 2, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
Mr. Tucker was a lawyer and professor of law at the College of William and Mary;
Not a supreme court justice.

Wipe your chin.

PS: Scalia is still alive and still on the Supreme Court.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2684 Apr 2, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
Insults and deflection. What a shocker.
Don't dish it out if you can't take it, you lying wussy-azzed crybaby.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#2686 Apr 2, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
You would have to point out examples of my poor spelling and grammar before accusing me of crying about it.
No, I wouldn't and you are crying about it now after insisting you were educated and at the same time didn't know what "alias" meant.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#2687 Apr 2, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
We all know the second amendment. You repeating it over and over does nothing to prove your point.
Are you implying one must be active militia to keep and bear arms? Let us set aside the fact the SCOTUS has already ruled that to be untrue.
Common sense tells us, with common sense, that, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", is simply explaining why "The People" should have the right to keep and bear arms. Not stating a requirement to be active militia to keep and bear arms.
Really? Seems no matter how many times I repeat the ENTIRE article, you idiots want to be selective and cut, parse, and interpret it the best you can.

What you're doing is taking away from the Amendment. What the SCOTUS did was to establish that people the right to bear arms. In its creation, there was no real standing army at the time. And nearly everyone was armed. So it only made sense that the people were the major source of arms. Funny thing is, even the Romans were the same way.

I've heard you people use the term "common sense" whenever you want to make your opinions true. Well, I can only tell you it's common to your train of thought.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#2688 Apr 2, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>You should have quit while you were behind.
Since you're the one behind, I'm sure that's your feelings son.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#2689 Apr 2, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Was that a row, column or diagonal...?
In your case, it was just empty son.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#2690 Apr 2, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it even more amazing that you can type such a nonsensical sentence. Off your meds again, eh?
lol! Then clearly you have no idea what you wrote, son!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#2692 Apr 2, 2013
Sir Bucking Fastard wrote:
<quoted text>"You are quite pathetic. Yes, everyone on topix knows it."

But he revels in such!
You see? Celebrating willful ignorance is a communist trait.
Precisely!

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.

Barack Obama Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min John Galt 1,618,256
News Trump warns 'I fight back' after McCain hits fo... 50 min Cordwainer Trout 21
News DACA recipients question future 2 hr Quirky 302
News Trump to halt subsidies to health insurers 2 hr CodeTalker 253
News Trump: Drug czar nominee pulls his name from co... 5 hr hawaiian punch 53
News White House will override Obama's climate plan 6 hr GIGO 240
News US Army's Bowe Bergdahl pleads guilty to desert... 8 hr Red Crosse 19
More from around the web