Because some "people" deserve to be killed. Gun control advocates for instance, the politicians who cater to them by legislating and enacting gun control and gun bans, and the "law enforcement" agents at the federal, state and local levels who enforce such "laws" (and who wear body armor as a matter of routine during their violent no-knock raids).

Appeals to authority will get you nowhere with me, and even more worthless are "awards" given to commies by pinkos.

Exactly.

As I said, they no doubt think that Stalin was too soft on the Kulaks, thereby making them to the left of Stalin. Stalin represented the more moderate wing of the Bolsheviks.

Those are not "in-depth and more balanced" reports about Chavez, those are propaganda articles written by murder-crazed totalitarians who think Pol Pot was a moderate and that Stalin was too soft on the Kulaks.

For the good of humanity, you ought to be shot.

I can't prevent their "law" enforcement agents from infringing on my rights, but I only need a pistol to punish them for doing so.

Nobody knows what "sentiments" Loughner or Oswald harbored. In the case of Oswald, nobody will ever know.

Give us some quotes from him. Even if he did, it still does not negate my point, or make it wrong in any way.

Both those men only did something the State deemed to be "crimes". They harmed no one.

Some "people" deserve to die in mass shootings - gun control advocates and the politicians who legislate and enact gun bans, for instance.

Kill them at their meetups and rallies.

You can't even define "assault weapon". It's like Potter Stewart on obscenity; "I know it when I see it!".

Funny, I use my AR-15 for home defense just fine.

Gun control advocates do not deserve to live.

It's the right that guarantees all the others. Rights belong only to those who can defend them.

Sheeple who have disarmed themselves and use violence (the State) to force others to do the same have no rights.

...along with every state legislator who voted for this expanded gun ban.

The summary claims, in standard politically-correct fashion: "The U.S. health disadvantage cannot be attributed solely to the adverse health status of racial or ethnic minorities or poor people, since recent studies suggest that even highly advantaged Americans may be in worse health than their counterparts in other countries."

And of course, they don't tell us where these "studies" are. The authors take official statistics reported by governments at face value, statistics which are likely manipulated, as is famously the case for infant mortality. That, and the fact that they blame guns, indicates that this paper is nothing more than politically-motivated propaganda.