States with strict gun laws found to have fewer shooting deaths

Mar 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Reuters

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.

Comments
121 - 140 of 5,070 Comments Last updated Aug 27, 2013
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#124 Mar 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The same applies whether there is a "mandatory" gun law or not. Criminals don't know who's got guns & who doesn't. They often take the chance regardless. If criminals were that smart they wouldn't be criminals to start with.
Again, you're just using the "facts" which support your theory and ignoring all others.
http://forum.opencarry.org/for ums/showthread.php?48510-Inter viewing-Inmates-Do-you-avoid-a rmed-citizens

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#125 Mar 9, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> You are afraid of me having rights is what it looks like to me. I do love the fact you think anyone won the civil war. Thousands of American dead on their own soil by their own friends and family. A country in ruin. Years of rebuilding on both sides. Financial ruin. Food and products disrupted for years. Resentment on both sides over 100 years later. The commander in chief with a bullet to the head. Now just how is that a win? A real leader would lead the country to a better lifestyle and prosper, not destroy a country and kill it's citizens.
I don't fear anti-government nutjobs with guns; but I definitely don't trust them which is why I keep my own guns handy.

Btw, remind us all again which side surrendered at Appomattox? Is it the United States of America, or the Confederate States of America? That's your clue as to who lost.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#126 Mar 9, 2013
Tray wrote:
If that were true, then all they would have to do is post a sign at the Chicago city limits that everyone in the city owns a gun, and according to your logic there would be no more murders or other violent crime in Chicago.

Gee, you should tell Mayor Emanuel your brilliant plan......

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#127 Mar 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>The same applies whether there is a "mandatory" gun law or not. Criminals don't know who's got guns & who doesn't. They often take the chance regardless. If criminals were that smart they wouldn't be criminals to start with.

Again, you're just using the "facts" which support your theory and ignoring all others.
Odds of an individual being armed are better in a city requiring being armed, wouldn't you say?

Again, I'm using the one town I'm aware of, so far, that requires being armed. Compare it, per capita, to your beloved Chicago.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#128 Mar 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<>
Nope, still wrong.
Chicago has a LOWER per capita gun homicide rate than MANY other cities, including Richmond, St Louis, Birmingham, Atlanta, Kansas City, etc.
There raw numbers are high because they are the 3rd most populous city in the nation; but on a per capita basis (per person) their gun homicide rate is lower than many other cities.
So your point is Chicago is a safe, peaceful city because it has strict antigun laws ?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm60...

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#129 Mar 10, 2013
105
WeTheSheeple wrote:
I don't fear my govt.
Tory wrote:
You fear armed law-abiding gun owners.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Considering I own many guns myself, that's highly unlikely.
Why is it you have not turned in your guns ? This sounds suspicious.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Considering I own many guns myself, that's highly unlikely.
Are all of them registered with your master ?
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Considering I own many guns myself, that's highly unlikely.
You telling me you own an assault rifle or assault pistol ? Do you also own high capacity magazines ?

If this were true, you would be one big fk'ing hypocite.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Considering I own many guns myself, that's highly unlikely.
Every antigun cop and antigun nutjob says they own guns AND support the 2nd amendment. You're probably telling another lie about guns.
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Considering I own many guns myself, that's highly unlikely.
I just worry about the armed nutjobs who DO fear their own government.
This would be George Washington (first president), Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, and millions of other Americans. The three former presidents owned guns and publicly expressed fear of govt (a neccessary evil).

YOU are one fk'd up Americano.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#130 Mar 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
...Some cities have low crime rates and strict gun laws.
That fact of yours is where your lies begin.

Morton Grove Illinois banned guns AND had low crime, but so did every other higher income suburb. Before they ever banned guns they had low crime.

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Morton-G...

You're an antigun communist who supports communist politicians and communism. And that's why you want weapons banned. You want America to be like the Europe of 1750 (the Europe the Framers didn't want America to be like). You want to take America back 250 years.

Would it be ok if we were armed with swords or machetes (in public)?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#131 Mar 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't fear anti-government nutjobs with guns; but I definitely don't trust them which is why I keep my own guns handy.
Btw, remind us all again which side surrendered at Appomattox? Is it the United States of America, or the Confederate States of America? That's your clue as to who lost.
Right, the Progressives(North) won and the Conservatives(South) lost and what does that tell, not good in todays current political climate.
Tray

Saltillo, MS

#132 Mar 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't fear anti-government nutjobs with guns; but I definitely don't trust them which is why I keep my own guns handy.
Btw, remind us all again which side surrendered at Appomattox? Is it the United States of America, or the Confederate States of America? That's your clue as to who lost.
Considering the north lost twice as many young men as the south and the norths president got a bullet to the head. Today more northern areas ban rights than in the south, violent crime higher in the north. If you call that winning then I'll just stick with the "loser". Ha Ha Ha.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#133 Mar 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, still wrong.
Chicago has a LOWER per capita gun homicide rate than MANY other cities, including Richmond, St Louis, Birmingham, Atlanta, Kansas City, etc.
There raw numbers are high because they are the 3rd most populous city in the nation; but on a per capita basis (per person) their gun homicide rate is lower than many other cities.
Oh gosh and whoop-t-do. It always comes down to the way you rationalize percentages with spin. Five hundred were killed in Chicago last year. I would almost bet that you could take any three of the other towns and not come up with the same number.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#134 Mar 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>I don't fear anti-government nutjobs with guns; but I definitely don't trust them which is why I keep my own guns handy.

Btw, remind us all again which side surrendered at Appomattox? Is it the United States of America, or the Confederate States of America? That's your clue as to who lost.
Lmao. Nobody won.
But if you want to be accurate, the North lost way more soldiers than the South. Both sides were out of new weapons, ammo, and rations. It came down to, the North had a better poker faced bluff.
In the end, the North won the war, the South won reconstruction.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#135 Mar 10, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
Odds of an individual being armed are better in a city requiring being armed, wouldn't you say?
Again, I'm using the one town I'm aware of, so far, that requires being armed. Compare it, per capita, to your beloved Chicago.
There's no way of knowing for sure, since the requirement isn't tracked nor enforced.

Putting a sign in your yard that you have guns would likely be just as effective, whether you actually have a gun or not.

It IS notable that so many gun-rights nutjobs squealed like stuck pigs when the list of gun owners was published in that Connecticut town. Apparently they didn't think everyone believing they had a gun was a good thing.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#136 Mar 10, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
Odds of an individual being armed are better in a city requiring being armed, wouldn't you say?
Again, I'm using the one town I'm aware of, so far, that requires being armed. Compare it, per capita, to your beloved Chicago.
Chicago has a bit more impoverished areas than Kennesaw, which has a lot more to do with the amount of crime than anything else.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#137 Mar 10, 2013
Tory II wrote:
<quoted text>
So your point is Chicago is a safe, peaceful city because it has strict antigun laws ?
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm60...
No you moron, my point is Chicago has a lower per capita gun homicide rate than many cities with much more lax or pro-gun laws.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#138 Mar 10, 2013
Tory II wrote:
105
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>Why is it you have not turned in your guns ? This sounds suspicious.
<quoted text>Are all of them registered with your master ?
<quoted text>You telling me you own an assault rifle or assault pistol ? Do you also own high capacity magazines ?
If this were true, you would be one big fk'ing hypocite.
<quoted text>Every antigun cop and antigun nutjob says they own guns AND support the 2nd amendment. You're probably telling another lie about guns.
<quoted text>This would be George Washington (first president), Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, and millions of other Americans. The three former presidents owned guns and publicly expressed fear of govt (a neccessary evil).
YOU are one fk'd up Americano.
Yes, I own guns.
Yes, my handguns are all registered with the local sheriff as required by law.
No, my rifles aren't registered because there is no means for doing so.
Yes, I support ALL firearms being registered; I have nothing to hide.
Why would I turn in my legal firearms?
No, I don't own any assault weapons or high capacity magazines, because I don't need them for hunting or home defense.
No, I don't own an assualt weapon or high capacity magazine.
Yes, you are free to believe whatever you want about me.
No, I don't fear my government.
No, I don't fear my fellow citizens; but I do keep a close eye on the crazy ones.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#139 Mar 10, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Chicago has a bit more impoverished areas than Kennesaw, which has a lot more to do with the amount of crime than anything else.
Poverty is a poor excuse for crime.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#140 Mar 10, 2013
Tory II wrote:
<quoted text>That fact of yours is where your lies begin.
Morton Grove Illinois banned guns AND had low crime, but so did every other higher income suburb. Before they ever banned guns they had low crime.
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Morton-G...
You're an antigun communist who supports communist politicians and communism. And that's why you want weapons banned. You want America to be like the Europe of 1750 (the Europe the Framers didn't want America to be like). You want to take America back 250 years.
Would it be ok if we were armed with swords or machetes (in public)?
So then my facts were correct as you noted. Some cities have low crime rates and also have restrictive gun laws.

Thank you for proving my point that crime has more to do with poverty levels than with gun levels. So in low income areas it certainly makes more sense to restrict guns so that less of the crimes are committed with guns than otherwise would be.

Where did I ever say I wanted all guns banned? Oh that's right, I didn't; that's just the narrative you want to tell in order to ensure I fit your "communist" profile.

Feel free to carry sword or machette; doesn't bother me a bit.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#141 Mar 10, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Considering the north lost twice as many young men as the south and the norths president got a bullet to the head. Today more northern areas ban rights than in the south, violent crime higher in the north. If you call that winning then I'll just stick with the "loser". Ha Ha Ha.
You can stick with whatever you want, and spin it however you want.

The simple fact is the south lost.

Trying to claim otherwise just makes you look like a moron.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#142 Mar 10, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Oh gosh and whoop-t-do. It always comes down to the way you rationalize percentages with spin. Five hundred were killed in Chicago last year. I would almost bet that you could take any three of the other towns and not come up with the same number.
I realize statistics aren't your strong suit, but the only accurate comparison of crime rates is on a per capita basis.

Of course Chicago had more homicides than the other cities; they have 10 times the population of those cities.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#143 Mar 10, 2013
Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
Lmao. Nobody won.
But if you want to be accurate, the North lost way more soldiers than the South. Both sides were out of new weapons, ammo, and rations. It came down to, the North had a better poker faced bluff.
In the end, the North won the war, the South won reconstruction.
If nobody won then we'd have 2 separate countries right now.

Again, those pesky facts prove otherwise.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Ukraine Says Russia Has Invaded 4 min Pro Ukraine 13
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 min SpaceBlues 46,324
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min No Surprize 1,100,251
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 8 min woodtick57 256,265
Teen's Shooting Highlights Racial Tension 12 min Who 1,394
Longtime GOP Texas Gov. Perry wins another term (Nov '10) 29 min Defiant1 22,294
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 43 min Jacques from Ottawa 177,399
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Barack Obama People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••