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.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#976 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't specifically say you don't have the right to kill someone. Does that mean you DO have the right to kill someone?
It doesn't specifically say a lot of things.
If that person is putting my life or the lives of my family in jeopardy, I have EVERY RIGHT to defend myself and them up to and including taking that person's life if necessary.

And you're correct, it doesn't specifically say a lot of things. YOU are the one who made the argument.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#977 Mar 18, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
It did Pal that is what the SCOTUS case of Mcdonald Vs Chicago did
Nope, it only affected the Chicago law.

I did nothing to overturn other bans in other states, nor the HUNDREDS of laws both federal and state which restrict gun ownership, like permits, bans on guns in schools, background checks, etc, etc, etc.

NONE of those other laws were overturned.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#978 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why didn't the SCOTUS overturn every gun ban and every restriction across the country?
Sorry pal, but the 2nd amendment isn't absolute.
Because they are not allowed to legislate from the bench. That is NOT their job. They can only address the specific cases brought before them and determine their constitutionality.

Go take a class or something.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#979 Mar 18, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, that first paragraph sounds exactly like the gun rights argument you liberals refuse to accept.
You can't prove it until you try it. Plus fraud is one of those things that may not jump out in statistic form because of the nature of it. How do you prove someone that would have voted fraudulently, did not, because of voter ID laws?
Nice side step. But, there is no constitutional right to vote more than once, or to vote as a made up individual, and last I checked, that right ended at death.
Of course the obvious difference being no one is killed by someone voting.

Again, if YOU are looking to restrict a constitutional right, then then onus is on YOU to prove those restrictions actually DO what you CLAIM they do.

So YOU have to prove it somehow prevents fraud like you claim. It's your problem to figure out how you're gonna prove that.

That's why the courts stopped the 4 state laws last year; the proponents couldn't prove the law would do what they claimed without preventing or discouraging otherwise eligible citizens from voting.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#980 Mar 18, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they haven't been brought before the courts....yet. Bills don't have to pass a constitutionality check beofre they are made into laws. It happens all too frequently. And saying that.....unconstitutional gun laws are being overturned with more frequency over the last few years, also. VCDL is a prime example of a group making this happen.
Many of these state & federal restrictions have been on the books for decades or even centuries.

Just how long does it take to challenge them if they are so obviously unconstitutional?

Of course the fact that even Scalia who wrote the lastest majority opinion in the Heller case specifically states that the 2nd amendment CAN be restricted kinda blows your whole theory out of the water.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#981 Mar 18, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
If that person is putting my life or the lives of my family in jeopardy, I have EVERY RIGHT to defend myself and them up to and including taking that person's life if necessary.
And you're correct, it doesn't specifically say a lot of things. YOU are the one who made the argument.
No, YOU claimed a right to own an AR.

I asked you to show me where it that is specified in the constitution.

You couldn't.

Yes, you have a right to own A gun, but not necessarily ANY gun you want or EVERY gun there is.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#982 Mar 18, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they are not allowed to legislate from the bench. That is NOT their job. They can only address the specific cases brought before them and determine their constitutionality.
Go take a class or something.
They could have ruled the 2nd amendment is absolute and can not be restricted in any manner by anyone at any time anywhere anyhow.

That would have had the effect of overturning every ban an restriction nationwide.

Just as they've done in past cases where the ruling on the specific case ended up overturning similar bans in all states, like they did with abortion bas or marriage bans or sodomy bans etc.

It's called the scope of the ruling. The SCOTUS can choose to limit their ruling to the specific individuals in the specific case before them, or include all similar individuals affected in a particular state, or include all similar individuals affected in a specific appeals court circuit, or include all similar individual affected nationwide.

“OBAMA SET THIS TOXIC TONE”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#983 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, YOU claimed a right to own an AR.
I asked you to show me where it that is specified in the constitution.
You couldn't.
Yes, you have a right to own A gun, but not necessarily ANY gun you want or EVERY gun there is.
Show me the word privacy in the Constitution. You can't find it. If you give up the AR-15 platform, where will it stop? It is a slippery slope we don't need to take because we don't know where it will stop.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#984 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, YOU claimed a right to own an AR.
I asked you to show me where it that is specified in the constitution.
You couldn't.
Yes, you have a right to own A gun, but not necessarily ANY gun you want or EVERY gun there is.
National Firearms Act of 1934

Background

The purpose of the NFA was to regulate what were considered "gangster weapons" such as machine guns and short barreled shotguns. Originally, pistols and revolvers were to be regulated as strictly as machine guns; towards that end, cutting down a rifle or shotgun to circumvent the handgun restrictions by making a concealable weapon was taxed as strictly as a machine gun.

Conventional pistols and revolvers were ultimately excluded from the Act before passage, but other concealable firearms were not: the language as originally enacted defined an NFA "firearm" as:

A shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length or any other weapon, other than a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machinegun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such a firearm is included in the foregoing definition.

Under the original Act, NFA "firearms" were machine guns, short-barreled rifles (SBR), short-barreled shotguns (SBS), any other weapons (AOW or concealable weapons other than pistol or revolver) and silencers for any type of firearm NFA or non-NFA. Minimum barrel length was soon amended to 16 inches for rimfire rifles and by 1960 had been amended to 16 inches for centerfire rifles as well. In recent years several SBRs, Winchester and Marlin "trapper" rifles made before 1934 with 14 or 15 inch barrels, were removed from the NFA (Title II), although they are still subject to Gun Control Act of 1968 (Title I).

In 1938 Congress recognized that the Marble Game Getter, a short .22/.410 sporting firearm, had "legitimate use" and did not deserve the stigma of "gangster weapon" and reduced the $200 tax to one dollar for the Game Getter. In 1960 Congress changed the transfer tax for all "any other weapon" (AOW) category to $5.[4] The transfer tax for machine guns, silencers, SBR and SBS remained at $200.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearm...

Categories of Regulated firearms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearm...
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#985 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?
All rights are retained by the people except those specifically granted to the government. No where in the Constitution is the power to regulate AR's given to the government.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#986 Mar 18, 2013
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>You said you were a registered Republican.
Why have you not contacted your party about your complaints.
Easier to bitch on Topix ?
You certainly seem to think so...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#987 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, it only affected the Chicago law.
I did nothing to overturn other bans in other states, nor the HUNDREDS of laws both federal and state which restrict gun ownership, like permits, bans on guns in schools, background checks, etc, etc, etc.
NONE of those other laws were overturned.
Nope Mcdonald vs Chicago was a SCOTUS Case and if the SCOTUS rules & makes a decision on a lower court decision which it did with the 7th US court of Appeals it affects the Whole United States in every US courts of appeals & Federal District Courts throughout the United States which is with all SCOTUS Cases which become the law of the land and the SCOTUS is the highest court in the United States you can take a case.

Constitutional Gun Rights Apply Nationwide, Supreme Court Rules

Updated 12:09 p.m.

The Supreme Court delivered a victory to proponents of gun ownership rights Monday, ruling that Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" applies nationwide.

The narrow 5 to 4 decision in McDonald v. Chicago follows the court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller, in which the same narrow majority ruled that Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership violated the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Heller decision applied only to federal laws - the McDonald ruling applies the right to own a gun for defense to the entire country.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/06/c...

http://fedbar.org/Image-Library/Public/Map-of...
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#988 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
A law making slaves legal may pass but in no way removes the rights of blacks. Yes those rights can be infringed, suppressed, violated, but in no way removes those rights. Just because a few control freaks like yourself wants to control others does not in any way remove my rights. Rights are absolute and can not be removed by the government of the day. Rights have existed since man began long before governments and will last long after this government no longer exists. Anytime any group is given power over another the infringement and violation of rights always happens. As history proves, once that group exceeds the acceptable limits of infringement the people always have the right to abolish or alter that relationship. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#989 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course the obvious difference being no one is killed by someone voting.
Again, if YOU are looking to restrict a constitutional right, then then onus is on YOU to prove those restrictions actually DO what you CLAIM they do.
So YOU have to prove it somehow prevents fraud like you claim. It's your problem to figure out how you're gonna prove that.
That's why the courts stopped the 4 state laws last year; the proponents couldn't prove the law would do what they claimed without preventing or discouraging otherwise eligible citizens from voting.
Liar. Governments kill millions. Those in government get there by idiots like you who give them unlimited power by voting tyrants into office. Being as SOME violate or mis use voting rights then wouldn't it by your own logic make sense to ban elections? You can't use the argument of abolishing one right without that same argument used for abolishing other rights.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#990 Mar 18, 2013
The Constitution was WRITTEN by men, it can be CHANGED by men. That was the deal, the Founders made it possible because they knew things would change over time and need to be updated, etc.

Repeal the 2nd Amendment and create 21st-century gun laws. We're tired of being stuck with these from the 18th century.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#991 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, YOU claimed a right to own an AR.
I asked you to show me where it that is specified in the constitution.
You couldn't.
Yes, you have a right to own A gun, but not necessarily ANY gun you want or EVERY gun there is.
It says it right there in the 2nd Amendment. You know....that whole "keep and bear" thing. And I particularly like the part saying "shall not be infringed". Telling me I cannot own an AR-15 (which is nothing more than a semi-auto varmint gun that just so happens to LOOK LIKE a full-auto M16) just because some psychotic maniac used one to kill a bunch of people (may they rest in peace) IS an infringement on that right.

Where are all your protests about banning chemical fertilizer, gasoline, kerosene, diesel fuel, blue tip matches, short sections of pipe, shoe laces, ammonia, bleach, cargo vans, jet aircraft, etc.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#992 Mar 18, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
It says it right there in the 2nd Amendment. You know....that whole "keep and bear" thing. And I particularly like the part saying "shall not be infringed". Telling me I cannot own an AR-15 (which is nothing more than a semi-auto varmint gun that just so happens to LOOK LIKE a full-auto M16) just because some psychotic maniac used one to kill a bunch of people (may they rest in peace) IS an infringement on that right.
Where are all your protests about banning chemical fertilizer, gasoline, kerosene, diesel fuel, blue tip matches, short sections of pipe, shoe laces, ammonia, bleach, cargo vans, jet aircraft, etc.
Where's your ability to stay on subject? Guns have no purpose but to kill.

And a number of "psychotic maniacs" have used assault rifles to kill. They seem to attract that kind of person, strangely. Since no one NEEDS that sort of weapon, why not just outlaw them?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#993 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>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.
The present law. Are you saying you need to change the rules to continue in debate?

Because The People won't let them.

Try to twist it any way you want. You are wrong. The problem in this is who is considered The People first and foremost. I contend that felons and children have partial coverage.

Try it! See what happens! I venture to say 150+million people will convince the government that it is absolute.
Gstspkr

United States

#994 Mar 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So a convicted felon should be able to have a gun in prison? If not, you are infringing on their right to keep and bear arms.
And before you even try it, being convicted of a crime does NOT mean you forfit all your constitutional rights. You don't lose your right to free speech or freedom of religion or the right to counsel or the right to a speedy trial or the right to remain silent or even the right to marry. That SOME rights CAN be restricted because you've committed a crime is proof that no right- including the 2nd amendmet- is absolute.
My interpetation is the same as every SCOTUS that has ever ruled on the constitution: no right is absolute, and reasonble restrictions can be made to any right.
Felons aren't considered unrestricted citizens, law abiding people are. Felons can't vote, law abiding citizens can. Felons are only allowed to be Democrats. That's why you're one.

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

#997 Mar 18, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
The Constitution was WRITTEN by men, it can be CHANGED by men. That was the deal, the Founders made it possible because they knew things would change over time and need to be updated, etc.
Repeal the 2nd Amendment and create 21st-century gun laws. We're tired of being stuck with these from the 18th century.
what parts do you wanna change harv?

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) 11 min Incognito4Ever 1,375,769
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 14 min Dr Guru 213,302
News Obama Attends Memorial for Grandmother (Dec '08) 36 min Joe Balls 73
News Obama says failure to pass immigration reform o... 38 min tomin cali 5
News Donald Trump, pictured, was labelled 'divisive,... 43 min serfs up 83
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 48 min NTRPRNR1 381,762
News Today in history: Hitler commits suicide (Apr '15) 1 hr John Wilkes 33
More from around the web