.
Feedback

Connecticut Citizens Speak Out in Hartford

Many voices were heard in Hartford on Monday, below are some of those who do not get mentioned elsewhere on The Patch or in the general media.

I spent 14+ hours in the Capitol on Monday listening to and then finally giving testimony after 11pm. Of those testifying, there were at least 10 supporting gun rights and/or opposition to current proposals for every one calling for tighter/more Draconian restrictions. Attendance was more like 5:1 but it seems those with more to lose were willing to wait many more hours to be heard. 

However, our Media and certain Patch contributors have highlighted only one aspect of this debate, either through reporting or their own opinions. Should you find yourself here, please take the time to view these 4 minute videos of some of the better testimony given. 

Powerful testimony from a father of one of the Newtown victims

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0xLbhWsUfE  

 

Serious words from a naturalized American

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXqzUu8SyEY  

 

Professional forensic firearms points out how little “assault weapons” and “hi-cap mags” have to do with crimes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaS2zM9rc1w

 

African American man on the efficacy of gun control legislation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtZjUcze-k0  

 

Strong statement by a woman gun owner who calls out panel members for ignoring speakers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbJmlz40su4  

 

The last guy to speak at sometime around 2:30 AM, 12+ hours after the citizen testimony started and he calls out the politicians for not paying attention

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx60VC4T018  

I spent an hour on line with this guy waiting to clear the newly installed metal detectors in the Capitol; he addresses many of the suggested “solutions” from a practical perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZXwzAeTTTg&NR=1  

Sandra February 3, 2013 at 10:17 pm
Marty- some other reasons why Japan is a safe country
http://www.examiner.com/article/an-unarmed-utopia-japanese-gun-control-a-model-for-america
Thomas Crafts February 3, 2013 at 10:21 pm
They have not experienced the societal decay that we have following the left.
Sandra February 3, 2013 at 10:27 pm
Thomas -Great observation!
Perhaps if we had the death penalty for drug trafficking, murder rates would go down.
Thomas Paine February 3, 2013 at 11:01 pm
Marty - Are you suggesting you believe there are no benefits to society at large of some citizens choosing to be armed? None?
Why don't you go look up "Hard Targets" published by Cato? The , why don't you find some back issues of the NRA's American Rifleman monthly and read the column about armed citizens defending themselves and other innocent citizens. Then go research the role of an armed citizen in the Oregon mall shooter situation, one recent situation that is not discussed much today. Oh, and the rifle used in that event was stolen. Lastly, since you foolishly placed the eventual costs to Newtown of the Sandy Hook massacre at an improbable $1 BILLION, the security costs you discuss should be small change in comparison, irrespective of who pays it.
Jlo February 3, 2013 at 11:06 pm
That sounds nice in theory but it won't do anything to stop killings and I'm sure the last thing the victims families care about is hush money. Oh sorry your school got shot up, here's a million bucks, have a nice life. This would just kick the blame down the road some more and fuel more government waste.
Thomas Crafts February 3, 2013 at 11:34 pm
Stop and frisk.
COSMO P February 4, 2013 at 12:21 am
If the gun is used to intentionally commit a crime, to kill or injure someone, the court will not impose civil liability on the gun owner for the acts of a third person. Again, under the proximate cause doctrine, the actions of the thief would supersede the negligence of the gun owner, cutting off his liability
COSMO P February 4, 2013 at 12:27 am
The firearm itself doesn't commit a crime, someone using it does; so if your weapon is stolen you have no more liability for its use than if someone stole your car to rob a convenience store...
COSMO P February 4, 2013 at 12:35 am
And the insurance company should have charged her more if she had no gun safe, and less if she kept the guns at the range.
Got it keep the guns at the range. Then the bad guys will break in and have all the guns they need. WOW what a PLAN. Any other dumb ideas!!
Thomas Paine February 4, 2013 at 12:44 am
Marty - Regarding Japan, I just love when folks pull out one-dimensional statistical comparison and ignore all manner of cultural or demographic explanations.
So how about you provide us with a comparison between the USA and Japan on the following: % majority ethnic vs total population % breakdown of all minority citizen groups % population living below the poverty level % population with high school education % main minority population without high school education % population dependent on govt welfare systems % of children born to unwed mothers % of minority male population under or unemployed Suicide rates among those under 25 Suicide rates among those under 65 Birth rate surplus or shortfall relative to level required for stable population When you have those statistics Sebastian, we can make a proper comparison between two very different cultures.
Thomas Paine February 4, 2013 at 12:53 am
Thief steals car, goes on joyride, kills a pedestrian in a crosswalk and then causes a multi-car collision killing himself and others leaving several critically injured. The legal owner of the vehicle has no culinility nor does his insurance company.
Sandra February 4, 2013 at 01:32 am
Marty are you an insurance agent?
http://ifawebnews.com/2013/01/28/would-requiring-gun-owners-to-have-liability-coverage-reduce-crime/
Marty Busdodger February 4, 2013 at 01:54 am
No, I have no vested interest in seeing gun owners insure their guns against liabilities caused by their use. None that is, except wanting to see a compromise where those relying on the Second Amendment don't do so by infringing on others' rights to life and the pursuit of happiness, which I believe are more basic.
I believe cost/benefit of guns is heavy on public costs and private benefits. Seems we are heading toward a showdown on this and other important issues in the next several election cycles. Let's keep the debate peaceful.
Marty Busdodger February 4, 2013 at 01:57 am
What will the bad guys need the guns for, Tom?
Are you telling me that your shooting range doesn't have adequate safe storage for the firearms of its client/members?
Thomas Paine February 4, 2013 at 02:13 am
Marty - why should I store my firearms anywhere other than in my home? I own firearms primarily for self-defense which would be totally defeated by my storing them anywhere else. Also, have you visited many gun clubs or ranges? Most are not high security facilities nor do they have the room to store hundreds of firearms. Also, look up statistics for gun store thefts, they are not infrequent. Thus, why should I trust a less-secure site for storing my equipment?
Lastly, will the Government, if they mandate such a thing, insure my firearms as they do consumer bank deposits against repository failure as they do with the FDIC? But back to self-defense, your idea dies there for me and many owners of self-defense firearms. Last thing, one of the steps toward the full disarmament of Brisitsh civilians was mandate storage of firearms at gun clubs. The precedent there does not bolster your case.
Thomas Paine February 4, 2013 at 02:28 am
Well, I like Cory Booker as a man and would never see us as ideological kinder spirits but at least we agree on this much:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/02/02/mayor-booker-legal-gun-buyers-arent-causing-murders-newark-and-chicag
Marty Busdodger February 4, 2013 at 02:51 am
I'm sure a responsible guy with a gun safe and alarm system in a neighborhood with strong police presence would likely get insurance at only a small premium to someone keeping the guns off-site. But how many "responsible" guys use their guns to murder or abuse their girlfriends/wives? http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2012.pdf
When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2010 Homicide Data Quoting from introduction: Intimate partner violence against women is all too common and takes many forms. The most serious is homicide by an intimate partner.1 Guns can easily turn domestic violence into domestic homicide. One federal study on homicide among intimate partners found that female intimate partners are more likely to be murdered with a firearm than all other means combined, concluding that “the figures demonstrate the importance of reducing access to firearms in households affected by IPV [intimate partner violence].”2 Gun use does not need to result in a fatality to involve domestic violence. A study by Harvard School of Public Health researchers analyzed gun use at home and concluded that “hostile gun displays against family members may be more common than gun use in self-defense, and that hostile gun displays are often acts of domestic violence directed against women.”3
COSMO P February 4, 2013 at 03:20 am
Are you telling me that your shooting range doesn't have adequate safe storage for the firearms of its client/members?
NOPE and why would a gun owner do such a dumb thing. Maybe you should keep your car at the DEALER. This way it will not be stolen and involved in a crime. Fascinating how dumb some people think. Or better yet keep our husbands in a jail so they don't hurt there spouses. Any other dumb ideas.
Sandra February 4, 2013 at 03:30 am
Marty you are suddenly starting to sound like you would like to ban guns in general. Are those domestic cases using assault rifles? Most likely not. Seems we are witnessing the slippery slope here. We can exchange stats all night long proving our points but the bottom line is you cannot take away my right to defend myself in my home by requiring I lock guns in some storage facility. That makes no sense at all. Guns should be taken away from males who have been charged with domestic abuse or have multiple restraining orders against them. If those males commit gun violence with an illegal gun he should be severely punished by the`law. More and more women are taking control and owning guns. Stories of women defending themselves from intruders or attackers do not make the headlines.
http://articles.courant.com/2012-07-09/community/hc-women-with-guns-20120706_1_gun-industry-metacon-gun-club-new-gun
Thomas Paine February 4, 2013 at 03:36 am
Marty - Where in that report do they break out those incidents where a legally owned gun was used and an illegally owned one?
Number where legal pistol permit holders were involved versus those disqualified from having a permit? Number where undocumented immigrants were involved? Gross statistics like that used in the way you are using them are somewhat disingenuous when they do not breakout data based on legal ownership and illegal ownership. Beyond this, tell me how more restrictive assault weapon laws and/or a magazine capacity limit is going to have an impact on domestic gun violence, whether shots are fired or just in brandishing? Seriously, please tell me this!
Marty Busdodger February 4, 2013 at 03:58 am
No I don't want to ban guns.
But you know that, because you have read that I am looking for a compromise where hunters and sportsmen and responsible people who want to protect their families are able to do so. But it seems that the benefits of these activities accrue mostly to the gun owners, while the costs of violence (whether intended or unintended by the gun owners) are borne by society. I didn't suggest that there be a mandate for guns to be held for safekeeping away from the home ... I suggested that an insurance company would likely provide a discount to those sportsmen willing to do so. Likewise, there would likely be a smaller discount for someone who uses a gun safe at home.
COSMO P February 4, 2013 at 10:34 am
Likewise, there would likely be a smaller discount for someone who uses a gun safe at home.
You Don't know the law. In the Heller case the Supreme court ruled a locked gun is not mandatory and would hamper it's designed purpose as a self defense TOOL. (another words if it is locked away it is basically useless) Read the LAW. Second CT requires all your firearms to be within your control at all times. Another words if you have a shall issue permit you cant put your gun in the glove box of your car and go to DD for breakfast. So beforer blabbing on better know the laws and what they say. So rehash 1 The guns were stolen 2 The shooter broke many laws 3 The owner broke CT law 4 The shooter was denied the ability to legally buy a gun from a gun store 5 And people want more laws on top of the ones NOT USED AND NEW ONES THAT DON'T WORK 6 All the proposed Garbage i have read by people that want to grab guns from honest people are hell bent on making getting guns more expensive and almost impossible. 7 The proposed new laws are a smoke screen and not one of them would have prevented this shooting 8 So name one law that can be passed that would have prevented this shooting. Other than that all the posts ar useless and none of them are productive other than to satisfy the GUN GRABBERS LUST to ban all guns. Either by back door tricks or useless other scams. So to all the gun grabbers don't hide behind your sensible gun laws. Because that is a scam and a LIE.
COSMO P February 4, 2013 at 10:57 am
But you know that, because you have read that I am looking for a compromise where hunters and sportsmen and responsible people who want to protect their families are able to do so.
Lets put this to rest right now! The second amendment does not say anything about Sportsmen or hunters. And to say this is beyond the intent of the amendment. When the Liberal democrats and gun grabbers use this it is a scam. Example what would a hunter need with a 30 round MAG. Or what would a hunter do with an AR 15. Answer is not what the hunter or sportsmen need or want. The constitution does not cover that nor does it have any thing to do with the amendment.
COSMO P February 4, 2013 at 11:12 am
@ Sandra
Thanks for your rational discussion but please do not refer to the TERM assault weapon. A GUN any Gun or object for that matter used in a killing is then an assault weapon NOT BEFORE. Other than that keep up the good work . You are very sensible from what i am reading. The federal definition of an assault weapon is as follows. Any gun capable of FULL SEMI OR BURST FIRE AT THE OPTION OF THE USER. Another words none of the guns used in NEWTOWN. So the gun in the shooters trunk the guns he used by definition is not an ASSAULT WEAPON. Only after he used the guns do they become an assault device. Also Sandra the numbers of Women applying for gun permits has exploded. Up by 68% and climbing. Women do not want to be victims any more. And want GUNS.
COSMO P February 4, 2013 at 11:22 am
California gun sales have steadily risen from 350,000 in 2002, to last year's record. Recently, some gun owners became worried that President Obama's reelection and the Newtown shooting will lead to more gun control. Military style weapons have become popular for target practice and self-defense.
Yet despite the rise in gun sales in California, there has not been a corresponding rise in gun deaths or gun injuries. Hospitalizations for gun injuries have actually dropped nearly 28 percent and gun deaths by 15 percent. Conclusion More Guns Less Crime.
Thomas Paine February 4, 2013 at 01:09 pm
Brother Cosmo - You and I are on the same sie of this issue but I try to stay away from "correlation means causation" arguments which are on the fans of the gun control crowd.
Factcheck.org, a left leaning org IMO, put out "Gun Rhetoric vs Gun Facts" back in December and the conclude there is no CAUSAL relationship between the number of guns and the level of gun violence. They can finds CASUAL relationships but point out that theses are faulty because a controlled study is impossible. In their own critique of the work, they also fail to observe that the studies that exist do not break down gun statistics by legal owners vs illegal owners. "But studies haven’t been able to show a causal relationship — that the mere presence of guns, as opposed to other factors, caused the higher rates of gun violence. It’s doubtful, however, that a study could ever beyond-a-doubt prove a causal relationship." "...scientists can’t conduct a random experiment. So, instead, researchers are left with statistical models, which are “very fragile,” .... These models are subject to what control variables researchers use. “Everyone knows there’s other things than guns that cause crime,” ..... So these models become very complex and slight changes can cause very different results" Of course, this allows the statistical arms race to continue. But the flaw in most of the data is a lack of distinction between legal and illegal guns and/or owners. Important that is.
Rambo February 4, 2013 at 04:25 pm
More guns, do you think that this ex-Marine should have had a gun?
AMIE STENGLE and CHRISTOPHER SHERMAN , The Associated Press POSTED: Sunday, February 3, 2013, 3:26 PM STEPHENVILLE, Texas - Authorities say a 25-year-old military veteran used a semi-automatic handgun to kill former Navy SEAL and "American Sniper" author Chris Kyle and his friend at a Texas gun range. Capt. Jason Upshaw with the Erath County Sheriff's Office says the handgun was found at Routh's home. Routh is accused of killing 38-year-old Kyle and 35-year-old Chad Littlefield at the Rough Creek Lodge shooting range Saturday evening. Authorities say Routh had come to the range with Kyle and Littlefield. Police say that after the shootings, Routh drove to his sister's home in Midlothian and told his sister and brother-in-law what he had done. After he left, his relatives called the police. Upshaw says Routh has not made any comments as to what his motive was. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. A 25-year-old man was charged with murder in connection with a shooting at a central Texas gun range that killed former N
COSMO P February 4, 2013 at 05:35 pm
http://www.largo.org/Lott.html
COSMO P February 4, 2013 at 05:39 pm
Combating the argument "If gun control works, Chicago ought to be the safest place in the US bar none. But it is not it is one of the most dangerous because people cant protect themselves.
Momma Martha February 4, 2013 at 08:44 pm
More gun sickness...................................
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/justice/texas-sniper-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Weston-Redding-Easton Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Thomas Paine June 18, 2013 at 01:43 pm
Why is it the panel for this event does not include a single advocate for gun-owners' rights? WithRead More all due respect to Chief McNamara, why does the panel no include a person who can speak to gun safety from a gun-owning civilian's perspective? ML, you claim that the assembled folks "do not offer judgements about gun ownership" but they are not including a single voice that can offer perspective on gun ownership. I have been to "education" sessions sponsored by Meg's March for Change and they are one-sided indoctrinations into gun control advocacy. >>>> I was in Hartford for the public hearings in January when both Meg and March co-founder Nancy gave their personal testimonies and they all but threatened the legislators on the panel with election day retribution for all those who did not tow the gun-control line of thinking (i.e. March and CAGV). To suggest that Meg "does not offer judgements" if fallacious at best, disingenuous at worst.