Fairfield County Moms Plan March To Fight Gun Violence

  • Comments (92)
Donna Dees Thomases and Linda Payne DiSarro, who founded the One Million Mom March following the Columbine shooting, are also members of One Million Moms For Gun Control. Photo Credit: Kara Nelson Baekey

FAIRFIELD COUNTY, Conn. – Kara Nelson Baekey, a Norwalk mother of two, was shocked, saddened and outraged after the Newtown school shooting and decided to make sure a tragedy like that never happens again. She launched a Fairfield County chapter of One Million Moms For Gun Control and plans to fight until legislators listen.

“I shed a lot of tears about it and came to terms that the same thing could happen at my kids school,” Nelson Baekey said. “I decided that I was going to do everything in my power to make sure that doesn’t happen.”

One Million Moms For Gun Control was founded by Shannon Watts, a mother of five from Indiana, the day after the Newtown tragedy and now has more than 100 chapters across the world. The group plans to hold a March for Change at the state capitol in Hartford on Feb. 14, the two-month anniversary of the tragedy, to demand that legislators do something about gun violence, she said. Although the group is demanding legislation be passed, they are not calling for an all-out ban on guns.

“We’re not opposed to sensible gun laws,” she said. “We’re not opposed to people owning guns, and we actually have members that are licensed gun owners.”

The group supports reinstating a ban on automatic weapons, reducing the number of clips allowed in magazines and closing background check loopholes that allow nearly 40 percent of gun sales to take place without background checks, Nelson Baekey said.

The group uses social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to encourage members to contact their local representatives, she said, but realizes the push from their opponents is difficult to overcome.

The influence of gun rights lobbyists in Washington, D.C., is so powerful that gun control advocates can’t compete with them, Nelson Baekey said. But her organization is focused on drawing attention to its message to bring about change and won’t waste time debating the issues, she said.

“There’s been a lot of dialogue and a lot of debate throughout the years and it’s got us nowhere,” she said. “We’re done talking about it. We are about bringing about change.”

For more information about One Million Moms For Gun Control visit the group’s website or Facebook page.   For more information about the March For Change in Hartford, click here

  • 92
    Comments

Comments (92)

lwitherspoon:

I'm looking for something to agree on with the anti-gun control folks posting on this thread.

Can we agree that if someone allows his or her guns to fall into the hands of a mentally-ill person, who then commits massive slaughter, the original owner of the guns should be held criminally responsible?

Can we agree that if you yourself don't secure your weapons, and bad things happen as a result, you'll be held accountable?

Broad River:

Agreed !

Blabbermouth68:

Spoon: I think the solution is to keep your firearms locked in a safe, with the exception of one "go to" gun that you are comfortable with, and hide it in a place that is accessible to you QUICKLY in the middle of the night, when you hear the glass break, or the door forced open. Fumbling with combinations or trigger locks when someone is in your house is a death wish. And there are special rounds that will make a mess of an intruder, but not penetrate walls. Glazer makes them, and they are expensive, but worth it. Dialing 911 can be done after you take care of the intruder, but guaranteed the police will be there too late to save you. It is YOUR responsibility to protect your family and yourself. Don't listen to the saps. Think of Cheshire.

MSDanbury:

They make bedside safes just for this purpose. You can get a combo bus as you said, in a stressful situation this could be deadly. They make a nice biometric safe where you swipe your finger and it pops open with an internal light and the firearm is in a position to just grab at the ready. All firearms need to be locked up and secure when out of your control. This is safety 101.

Blabbermouth68:

Interesting. I have a bedside safe with a fairly simple pushbutton combination device, but I don't trust it under stress, and in the dark. Keep it very handy, but hidden. I don't have little kids, however.

john.real.965:

I believe CT laws do NOT require gun owners to secure their guns in their homes, unless they have a juvenile (18 or younger) around. In case of a juvenile around, you still don't need to have your guns secured in a safe, as long as the guns are in your person or near you.
I personally don't recommend having a gun in a safe when you're asleep. Just have your gun under the bed, one round in the chamber, ready to shoot You will need to grab the gun quickly in SHTF situations.

MSDanbury:

This one is not biometrics but has very friendly access.
http://tinyurl.com/b3qgg8r

I have this one and am very pleased with it for the price.
http://tinyurl.com/awg65pd

This is the one I want.
http://tinyurl.com/bb632km

Tim T:

Spooner
if I were you i would read the post towards the end of this thread from your little friend Pagie as she doesn't agree with you on this as she feel the mother of the killer in Newtown if she lived did not commit any crime ..I think you would even agree that Pagiie is nuts on this one.

Ken P Jr:

She didnt commit a crime, since as of right NOW there is no requirement to lock up guns, its a tragedy but not a crime. Had he not taken her car he couldnt have done this either, maybe we should start locking people up for leaving car keys where people can get them? The ONLY relevant statute requires locking up LOADED guns if kids under 16 are in the house. I'd support a safe storage statute if its reasonable.
The key is reasonable.
Would anybody be acting like this if he had shot a cop, taken the officers unsecured guns from the patrol car & committed this atrocity? I seriously doubt it but its a very similar situation.

john.real.965:

Looking for something to agree with 2nd amendment supporters? How about this for starter:
1. Gun Free Zones are stupid.
2. Banning guns based on their cosmetic features is stupid.
3. Limiting the capacity of magazines is stupid. With a little practice anyone can replace magazines in less than 5 seconds.

MSDanbury:

1. Gun free zones
Agreed, all they do is create a defenseless target. If someone can explain how a gun free zone would be affective, please enlighten us.

2. Banning based on cosmetic features.
I have nothing, it pretty much speaks for it's self. Makes no sense. A scary looking weapon does not make it any more dangerous.

3. Limiting Magazine size.
This is a feel good law and all it does is criminalize the innocent. This law will never keep a 30 round mag out of the hands of the bad guy. There are just far too many out there. It's like trying to keep drugs out of the hands of the druggies. All this law will do is make the law abiding citizen more vulnerable to an attacker who may have a 30 round magazine of to multiple attackers. Besides, a magazine is a very simple piece of hardware and can be made anywhere.

My take on the 3 items.

lwitherspoon:

Saying that proposed measures you don't agree with are stupid doesn't really add much to the discussion, regardless of whether or not you're right. For the record, though, I agree that you're probably correct in saying that few of the above items contribute much to our safety.

So what changes to the law or existing practice would you make to reduce the likelihood of similar tragedies in the future? Do you think it's reasonable that gun owners be responsible for securing their weapons, and accountable for the consequences of failing to do so?

Ken P Jr:

If Lanzas mom survived what good would prosecuting her do? While I certainly think all responsible gun owners should secure their guns when not in use I dont think holding them liable for the actions of somebody who steals them will ever saqve a life.

The change I would and am advocating is a repeal of gun free school laws. The federal law can be left standing because it has an exception for permit holders. There are many things we can consider, but the first thing we should address is the helpless position we put every student in, every teacher in, every single faculty member in, by retaining a law or policy that obviously contributes to these killings.

MSDanbury:

Well said Ken, All Gun Free Zones don't work. By logic, they don't work. Statistics show they don't work. They are dangerous.

john.real.965:

"Do you think it's reasonable that gun owners be responsible for securing their weapons, and accountable for the consequences of failing to do so?"

OK. Done. CT law requires gun owners to have their guns within reach or have them secured when there is a person under 18 in the house.

lwitherspoon:

Thank you. It's nice to agree on something. I'm not really interested in debating the fine points of constitutional law and various supreme court rulings, ultimately the most urgent question is how do we keep weapons out of the hands of people like Adam Lanza in the future without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Gun owners taking responsibility for securing their weapons is a great place to start. I think we can agree that much of what was in the NY state legislation seems like window dressing, we would be better served if all gun owners simply took a moment to make sure that their guns are secured at all times. Some strengthening of background checks is in order, but after that I think the priority should be laws aimed at gun safety and accountability. Remind gun owners that failure to secure their weapons can lead to awful consequences such as the Newtown tragedy, and see to it that gun owners are aware they'll be held liable for criminal negligence if their guns fall into the wrong hands.

norwalkspends4:

I hope no one ever steals your car....

What if some robs a bank and uses your cash to do harm to another. By your logic, you are responsible.

Sturm44:

Where do you draw the line? Do we hold auto owners responsible if someone steals their car for use in a crime? What if they left it unlocked with the keys in it? I've never read about a prosecution regarding that.

lwitherspoon:

So it's your position that if a gun owner leaves his guns unsecured, and his teenage son brings them to school and kills 15 people, the gun owner should not have any liability for that? You don't think the gun owner's irresponsibility constitutes negligence?

I am not in favor of banning all guns, but I think there are some very sensible steps that can be taken to reduce the likelihood of these sorts of tragedies in the future. It's very disappointing that we can't even agree that gun owners must be responsible for securing their guns, and held accountable when they don't.

If the NRA wants to advocate for armed guards in every school, and for every teacher to have a gun, that's all well and good. Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not that's a good idea. But what would be the harm in also talking about the need for gun owners to secure their weapons, lest they fall into the hands of someone mentally ill? To me, that's an obvious takeaway from this incident and I haven't heard a single gun owner talk about it. It would be nice to hear some pragmatic, constructive suggestions rather than just defensiveness and negativism about any attempts to reduce gun violence.

The responses to my suggestion above are mostly clever analogies which seem aimed at evading responsibility. I support your right to own a gun, but with that right should come the responsibility for securing that gun. If you fail to act responsibly, you should be held accountable.

MSDanbury:

Witherspoon, I don't think you will find a single responsible gun owner that would disagree with you regarding the security of their firearms when not in their control. As well as being held responsible for their negligence.

My thought on arming schools is that it shouldn't be all teachers. I feel it should be voluntary. Being forced would serve no purpose at all. As well, I feel there would be an overwhelming number of teachers and/or staff that would be willing to be trained. Respectfully, I agree this is a very sensitive topic, but with a little education I think some could see it differently.

As for banning all guns, this tells me you have no need for the second amendment and place way too much trust in our government.

lwitherspoon:

MSDanbury,

I respectfully disagree, some but not all gun owners on this thread have already resisted the idea of being held responsible for negligence arising from failure to secure their guns.

Also, I never said I was in favor of banning all guns. What I wrote was that "I am NOT in favor of banning all guns". I do support the second amendment, but I have doubts about whether or not it should extend to semi-automatic assault rifles such as those used in Newtown and elsewhere.

Ken P Jr:

You cant really say you support the 2nd amendment but not these misnamed assault weapons. Thats like saying you support the first but not in regard to violent religion or that you support free speach but only as it was back then, from the mouth or in print. The reality of the matter is that the 2nd amendment more directly protects these rifles in question than most other guns. Its intent was to ensure that the PEOPLE could raise an effective fighting force armed with their own weapons suitable for military service. Not to ensure we had shotguns & deer rifles, but that we had any firearm we chose, just as we can use any venue, from a soapbox on the corner, to national television, to speak our views.

To the founders flint locks were assault weapons.

MSDanbury:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo&feature=youtu.be
Ask the victims of Katrina if they know the 2nd amendment. They were disarmed by the National Guard. Look at the weapons they had. You can't defend against them with only a pistol of shot gun. That was wrong on so many levels. This was an example of why the second is there.

MSDanbury:

My apologies, I miss read. my bad.

I think the opposition to the responsibility is more towards requiring insurance. If there was a wide spread issue with accidents among CCW holders I would reconsider but this is very rare from what I understand.

I personally have no desire to own a "assault rifle" but I do not want them banned. Simply because they are not a major contributor to the death toll. In fact the percentages are small. Its a law based on looks. It is no more deadly than a hand gun. In fact a single shot from a .45 will do way more damage than a .223 Plus, regarding the 2nd, it is about the public defending against a tyrannical government. This would require the citizens to me armed equally to the state.

I want to see laws based on facts and statistics not based on emotion and misguided fear. This is why I am in favor of laws regarding background checks and mental health.

Again, accept my apology for the miss read.

right wing are wackos:

If anyone would like to see a reason for gun control I would suggest you read the posts on this thread from the right wing wackos..They are so obsessed with keeping the same guns on the street that just slaughtered 20 innocent children and 6 adults. Hopefully Obama care will cover the mental disease of the right wing wacko.

kybrdplyr:

Don't you know? Haven't you learned yet? Anyone who disagrees with a pro-all-out-gun stance is "ridiculous", or threatens a beating while waiting at the DMV (or anywhere else, I expect, that shows a tad of disagreement - so peaceful, forgiving and life affirming, these people), "dishonest", "stupid", "very afraid", overly "emotional" and that is just what I have quickly gleaned off this forum in about two minutes. So, the pro-gun-no-control camp seems to think that anyone who does not think like them is the enemy. This does sound like excessive paranoia and an invitation to arm ourselves against bigotry, ignorance and lack of compassion at the very least. It is precisely why I disagree with their stance. When they start citing cases from Supreme Court decisions, watch out! Such hubris to believe that this 2nd Amendment situation is settled. Hardly. But, then, I should be careful because I do not agree with their obsessions. Reading their diatribes just reminds me that they have no clue at all about what guns really do when pointed at another human being. Thank you for reminding us, "right wing are wackos" what this is really all about: the slaughter of innocents.

Queequeg:

When I'm waiting in line for mental screening under ObamaCare, just like at today's Motor Vehicle Dept., I only hope that I'm sitting next to you. I will demonstrate how the damage done to a man stripped of his liberty will enrage him and drive him to take matters into his own, bare hands. It could be a bad day for you, guns or no.

john.real.965:

Watch out. There are dishonest people who make stupid arguments like this: "Country X bans guns, and their number of GUN CRIMES is very low" Duh!
Honest argument should be: "Country X bans guns, and their total number of CRIMES is .....".

john.real.965:

Supreme Court has ruled that Militia is just one of the reasons for the right to bear arms. Read this carefully:
"Milk being necessary to enjoy a bowl of cereal, the right of the People to possess and drink milk shall not be infringed."

Clearly the framers were thinking of individual right when they wrote the 2nd amendment:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." - John Adams
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry

Loveithere:

1. Please don't bring a woman's right to choose into this debate.
2. Don't assume I belong to the left. I am a registered republican
3. Here we go with the blaming Hollywood , video games. Etc. make sure you have your facts because the NRA, who publically spoke about blaming, in part, video games, just released an App where the player gets to shoot shoot shoot...... And The Netherlands, who consumer 20 times the violent video games than the US, had less than 10 gun deaths. So keep fooling yourself about that argument!

I bring up Jon Stewart because his video intelligentally summed up my feelings on this issue. The problem with people like you? Not willing to open your ears to BOTH sides of the argument and ever admit that, perhaps, you could be wrong. I suggest you google the videos to which I am referring, and listen with an open mind, you might learn something. Really. You might :)

Tim T:

The 2nd amendment says: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Each state has a militia today. They are called the National Guard. There is no authority under the constitution for individuals to have guns. If the founding fathers wanted us to all have guns — particularly guns in schools — don’t you think they’d be smart enough to say that? That’s not what they said. Grammarians would note that the amendment has a subject and a predicate. If you pull out the clauses, the basic right reads “A well regulated militia… shall not be infringed.” Up until President Bush, no president in history had the audacity to re-write the Constitution through interpretation. Every other president had defined the Second Amendment to apply to the “people” as the people’s rights, in the same way that the Tenth Amendment applies to the “States” or to the “people.” The Second Amendment doesn’t apply to individuals. To believe this you would have to concede that the Founding Fathers, who were clear and careful throughout the document, erred

Queequeg:

@ TimT: See the two recent Supreme court decisions, Chicago v. McDonald and District of Columbia v. Heller. The right to bear arms IS NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT held by the state. The court stated that it is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. The "militia" is legally defined as ALL able bodied adults. You are unfamiliar with recent landmark decisions. Your claim that "The Second Amendment doesn’t apply to individuals." is simply wrong. In fact, RIGHTS never accrue to the state, they are the legal domain of individuals. POWERS are granted to various parts of the government by law. Tim, it is you that has erred. The clause ..."a well regulated militia" is the subordinate clause. The subject is "the People." Go to the blackboard and write..."shall not be infringed" 100 times!

Sturm44:

Sorry Tim T, your understanding of the 2nd Amendment is outdated & incorrect. The collective view of the amendment has pretty much been given up even by progressive legal eagles like Laurence Tribe. Scholarly research performed over that last 30-40 years shows that an individual right was what the founders had in mind. I suggest reading some of the research done by David E. Young, Stephen P. Halbrook, Clayton Cramer & David T. Hardy.

The Supreme Court in DC v Heller (2008) agreed 9-0 that the amendment guaranteed an individual right to own a firearm. The 5-4 split came with where to draw regulatory lines. Note that several of the authors listed above are mentioned in the ruling.

You understanding of the militia is also flawed. The National Guard did not exist until 1903, so they certainly weren't referring to that in 1791. If you check federal code (which state code is similar to) you will find how the militia is defined:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Basically every able bodied adult is a member of the unorganized militia.

kybrdplyr:

Gun owners who want more guns have the illusion that life is safe, that solving gun issues using guns is a way to stay secure. News for you: life is change and life isn't safe. More guns will not make this world safer. I hope I never meet one of you who walk around with a loaded and concealed weapon "at all times." You are the ones I am afraid of: I do not trust that your judgement is not in some way altered by the vigilance you feel in keeping yourself safe first will not in some way hurt me even as an innocent bystander. All of these reasons? All of the percentages with no citations? You all sound as though you have been brainwashed by the NRA. When someone questions the efficacy of guns in schools? All kinds of answers about why teachers should be armed and how, if they had been at Newtown, those poor, dead children would be alive today. So deluded, all of you - your gun protects you from nothing. If anything, maybe it makes you take more chances by putting yourselves in dangerous situations. Why not? You've got a gun! You're protected! So deluded, so sad and so scary.

Queequeg:

"Your gun protects you from nothing." That statement is ridiculous on its face.
If that assertion were true, why would we arm every arm of security in our society...the military, the police, the penal system, private security contractors, and body guards? Being armed sets one above those who are disarmed when coercion becomes the last mode of negotiation. Frankly, I couldn't care less if you are uncomfortable with my exercise of my rights. I have never abused my liberty and make no apology to the likes of you for being armed. Just as when one votes, speaks one's mind, or chooses to attend a particular place of worship, it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. It's a natural right. Deal with it.

kybrdplyr:

Actually, it is not "ridiculous on its face." We all die - are you saying guns protect you from that? I have made the distinction on another post about who I believe is trustworthy with guns. Perhaps you did not read that. You are so very afraid and I feel sorry for you: "Being armed sets one above those who are disarmed when coercion becomes the last mode of negotiation." When are you "coerced?" At the grocery store? When do you find yourself in "the last mode of negotiation?" When speaking with your children? You are so quick to tell people on this forum to "deal with" whatever it is you consider your inviolate right. I, too, have rights, Queequeg. To disagree with you and your viewpoint and to make mine known. Poor thing. Deal with it.

john.real.965:

kybrdplyr, you must be very afraid of cops for they carry loaded guns all the time. And you must also think cops take more chances by putting themselves in dangerous situations. I bet you find police stations are the scariest places on earth, with all those cops walking around with their guns. Scary.

You are one misguided soul.

kybrdplyr:

Oh john.real.965, You just hit upon my very favorite thing. The assumptions made about a person with an opposing viewpoint.

I come from a military family and count among my relations quite a few policemen. They go through extensive training in handling weapons and threat assessment. Far more, I am sure, than any person off the street who can purchase a gun at a gun shop or gun show or through private means.

Remember Mario Andretti? One of the greatest auto racers of all time. Know what scared him the most? Driving on the freeway. The analogy is exactly the same: You all sound so "crazy for bear" , slathering at the mouths, afraid, afraid, afraid of your maligned security.

You don't even know my personal beliefs about this situation yet you believe I am misguided. I know quite a bit about yours and say the same exact thing: when every gun owner in America has to go through the training and respect thereby garnered because of the thorough knowledge of what guns can do that the military or policemen have to then you can speak to my "misguided soul". We ALL don't NEED guns. And we certainly don't need them out of your misguided need to feel secure in a world that is not.

Sturm44:

kybrdplyr: If gun free zones worked, why did they just pass a law that gives the all current & past Presidents lifetime protection by the secret service.... who are armed with firearms?

You want citations? Download the pdf at the link below & behold the well researched & footnoted documentation:

http://gunfacts.info/

kybrdplyr:

gunfacts.info is supported by and created by Guy Smith, a person with absolutely nothing to recommend him except his desire to be a "provocateur", "song writer" and "writer." What gives him any kind of authority to make all of you gun owners so comfortable? Because he is a libertarian? Please. He claims Barack Obama is a former employee of the "gun industry." How does he define THAT? He is as bad as all of you in his self-righteous "debunking" of "Gun Shows, Assault Weapons, Gun Dealers" and, my favorite, "Social Cost of Guns." You all just keep feeling safe with half-baked ideas and people who consider themselves "experts" because they know how to read and, apparently, write, again, without any real substantiation. Gun owners are gullible because they want to be - they live in fear and make it unsafe for the rest of us. Information here is from his entry in Wikipedia, his own WEB Site and "Snopes."

Sturm44:

Clearly, you didn't even look at the document. All he has done is assembled facts into a single document for reference. He is not doing his own studies or even writing opinion pieces.

All you are doing is an ad hominem attack on the person not on any of the information contained therein.

We/'re not the ones with half-baked ideas, you are the ones that are completely ignorant of firearms, have never purchased one & have no idea what the process is.

If so-called 'assault weapons' are so dangerous, why hasn't the percentage of firearm homicides caused by long arms (rifles & shotguns) gone up in the last 20 years as they've become more popular? Why has there been an 80% increase in the # of firearms in the country yet violent crime has dropped by 50%?

kybrdplyr:

Actually, Sturm44, Guy Smith does claim to be a writer, does opinion pieces (several in various papers in Northern California) and has a book on sale, "Shooting the Bull", on his WEB site, that is all about his opinions. He has a team of 600 he acknowledges from around the world in the introduction to this document you say I did not look at that he uses to assist in assembling this "data". (It is sitting as a .PDF file this very moment on my desk top for further examination.)

While I see many fine institutions and journal references, his "facts", that is, interpretations of this data seems to do what a lot of "facts" do, support Guy Smith's one-sided viewpoint. If these "facts" got published contextually and did not represent his viewpoint, I do not believe he would publish them. If that is an ad hominem attack, so be it. I do not know the man and do not have to agree with his viewpoints and certainly do not have to agree with the constant references to his "data" to support his argument. (Just like you do not have to agree with me in your ad hominem attack of my knowledge base of firearms as commented above.)

I never purchased firearms because I have not had to: I grew up on a farm where a 22 and 12-gauge shotgun were at our disposal not to shoot another human but in the course of our farmwork. I have skeet-shot at a facility in Northern California. All of this was law-abiding use of guns that I don't disagree with. Your assumptions do you no justice as I consider your comments, on the whole, to be fairly well thought out. Not concerning me, however.

I don't understand your reference to "assault weapons" as I have not expressed an opinion about that in that I have only a generalized understanding of what they are as defined by Federal Legislation and what kind of action they employ. I would not attribute an 80% increase in the number of firearms (over what period, when?), however, to violent crime dropping by 50% as this is illogical: not all violent crime is gun crime.

MSDanbury:

Sturm44, it is the way of the libs, they are ignorant of firearms, they don't like them therefore nobody can have them.

I am seeing this with every anti gun person in this thread. They want an all out ban on guns. No 2nd and no guns whatsoever. No compromise.

They obviously don't know what this country was founded on. The people rule the government not the other way around. They are supposed to work for the people. The 2nd is there to ensure it stays that way.

I will wait for the comment that we are all afraid bla bla bla. That's OK.

kybrdplyr:

You are so wrong it is funny (except we are talking about objects that kill people, so maybe not so much.) I have never wanted an all out ban on guns. Ever. I believe that those who are trained to have them and use them wisely would be the best candidates for gun ownership. Your insistence that we "libs" do not compromise is just hogwash. Your absolute position that we "libs" have no concern for the 2nd Amendment is, again, just hogwash. You are all rigid people who insist that we have to think exactly like you which is the definition of paranoia. And, that, MSDanbury shows a real lack of confidence and lack of ability to see the other side, another profound principle upon which this country is based. D-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y - perhaps it is time you reexamine exactly what that means including the ENTIRE constitution and Bill of Rights.

MSDanbury:

So you only think police and military should be able to own them? This is how I am reading it. It sounds to me that you don't think that the average law abiding citizen is capable of owning a firearm. How does this support the 2A?

Not sure where the paranoia comes in.

Yes it is hard to see the other side. The other side always seems to use these tragedies to jump on gun rights. They are now calling for a 50% tax on ammo and requiring liability insurance. This make it hard for me to see the other side. It's always the guns. The other side wants to address the problem by attacking law abiding citizens. How does this work? How does this save lives? It's hard not to be rigid. I get attacked because of the actions of the mentally unstable.

I have still yet to hear argument as to how these regulations are going to save lives and prevent these shootings.

kybrdplyr:

I am saying that those who are well-trained in not only operating a firearm but in threat assessment should be allowed to own guns (unless it is for strictly recreational use on a firing range, e.g.) I think.

To tell you the truth, I haven't yet decided this question - in part because of Nancy Lanza. According to news reports I have read, her firearms were registered and secured with ammunition kept separately from the guns. She was, in every way, a law-abiding gun owner yet somehow she grossly miscalculated the threat of her own son to kill so many. It is hard to trust that everyone would be so responsible who owns guns (after all that is not included in the 2nd Amendment, i.e., what makes a responsible gun owner and how is this defined.)

I would think those things that would increase the security for gun owners who are responsible, like the 50% tax on ammo and requiring liability insurance, would be welcomed. How much ammo do you need? If gun ownership is about recreation then it has become more expensive, just like smoking and the taxes on a pack. I am not yet sure how liability insurance would work but if it would secure the idea of the gun belonging to you and only you until a transfer of liability was made, wouldn't that make your ownership automatically more responsible? If your gun mistakenly ended up on the street, you could report it and there would be another way to track its illegal use and get it off the street. Again, I don't know the precise details of this.

So, with those two examples I am not sure how it is "attacking law abiding citizens." I see it as securing law abiding gun owners while segregating the unlawful ones. And, I would think, the mentally unstable. Again, I qualify this with full disclosure that my knowledge on the liability issue is minimal.

I see these regulations as a, excuse the pun, "shot in the dark." People are very, very upset about the mass shooting in Newtown and, in particular, the mass killing of children. How this problem will be addressed seems far more complicated than I can understand. What I do know, however, is I would like to see far fewer guns in the hands of those that are mentally unstable (who should not have guns in the first place) and those that commit crimes using guns (ditto.)

MSDanbury:

I think we all can agree that we need to get the guns out of the hands of the ill. Stiffen background checks and close nation wide loopholes.

With respect...

My major problem is the the politicians making all these regulations towards the people who do not commit the crimes. I get the impression they think a gun in our hands makes us killers. This will not get the guns out of bad hands.Banning a particular rifle will not stop the crimes, Limiting mag size will not reduce shootings. They are all directed to the innocent not the guilty. I said it before, show me a bill that will make a difference and I am on board. What I have no use for is feel good laws. This is how I feel attacked.

The tax and insurance, another feel good bill directed at the innocent. The bad guy will not get insurance and will not care about the tax. It will have no affect on the problem. What it will do is just cost the innocent much more money.

What really makes me rigid on the topic is the government using these deaths to fuel their agenda. You can't deny it's an agenda.

As for me being unsafe, I take gun ownership extremely serious. I continue to educate myself on safety and practice. I take classes when I can to learn from the best.

Police are properly trained but you can be sure that they have no idea how they will react and handle themselves until they experience the situation.

The thought of taking a human life weighs very heavy on my mind, make no mistake about it. But if someone breaks into my home and it's their life or my family's I will do what I have to do and I only hope I can do it without hesitation. I say hope because to be honest I do not know how I will handle it. What I can say is that when I carry a firearm, I am a much more calm and less irritated at he crap that goes on around me. I avoid confrontation and am much more aware of my surroundings. The more I learn about those who carry the more I see that an armed society is a polite society. People with guns are not what you may think. It does not turn them into ego maniacs with a chip on their shoulder.

kybrdplyr:

MSDanbury, I very much appreciate your thoughtful reply. Thank you.

The problem is: how do we assess who are the ill? Does the gun shop owner do this? What about the idea that was put to me recently by a doctor in the mental health field of providing affidavits from two "close" friends/relations who can vouch for the mentally ill person's safe use of a firearm? I can think of many ways around this. I can't figure out one thing that will secure guns from the mentally ill: privacy laws negate examination of health records (as they should), admittance to a mental healthcare facility does not guarantee anything as privacy laws protect such admissions from public knowledge. "Mental illness" admittance can be everything from rehab from drugs and alcohol to schizophrenia. I see this as a huge conundrum because mental illness should not be stigmatized. It is, after all, brain wiring problems that make a very few violent while the rest are probably just miserable and unable to harm another person. How is this discerned in terms of gun laws?

I agree with the background check and "loopholes" (people don't seem to agree about what that term means) being a nationwide effort. Fragmented by state, county or community these checks and purchases will adversely affect a neighboring, more strictly held, gun-law place. A federal law that sticks is required.

There are political consequences to all community acts especially those that are adverse. Think Prohibition or Hurricane Katrina. Gun owners are in the company of many who have been the subject of the political process including women, blacks, immigrants, finance companies and banks. It's the world we live in. There are many, many people in Congress and at least one former president who are gun owners and believe in that right. Removing certain weapons and reducing "mag size", I believe, is a regulation that is trying to rid good gun owners from bad ones. And, honestly, given the confusion about what makes a gun "automatic" or "assault", I have read the Federal Legislation that expired regarding assault rifles, I worry about their capacity to really harm a lot of people quickly. I can say I don't get the mentality that believes these are a necessity in our communities. (Full disclosure: I was not harmed but did experience the spray of gunfire from an Uzi years ago and have never quite recovered from the fear of these weapons. And, even without that experience, I don't understand the need for this type of capacity in a home.)

It's exactly the point that you make that would make a law possibly work: the bad guy won't get the tax or insurance and, without it, it clearly delineates him/her as an unlawful gun owner subject to legal prosecution. I think that is a good thing for law abiding gun owners who do the right thing.

Please don't be surprised that this has become a political agenda: of course it has! Newtown/Sandy Hook demands a response. Adam Lanza didn't just shoot a lot of kids and adults and himself, he shot the political system right between the eyes. The constituency is scared and is saying so, expressing it loudly, and demanding laws and, I think, an illusory protection from this type of situation ever happening again. (Thus, the Million Moms.) There are many agendas in the political process and this is one of them. Gun owners do not have to feel singled out.

I appreciate your consciousness about the ramifications of owning a gun(s). I believe yours is the first truly honest expression I have read about the kind of learning you are pursuing to stay safe. Unfortunately, what often comes across in these types of forums is the "ego maniacs with a chip on their shoulder." It feels very reactive and out of control and, thus, I think, makes anti-gun people very nervous and equally reactive about their position. What you have shared is, IMO, very valuable and insightful about at least one gun owner who carries and why. Thank you.

MSDanbury:

KYB, One of my issues with social forums and blogs is that we can not feel the emotion in a conversation. There is no way to show expression. As we type we can try to show calm and respect but it can be read completely different. I think you and have a little better understanding as to where we each stand and I appreciate that. I think we could have a very productive conversation if we were talking over a cup of coffee.

I know many gun owners can come across as very passionate, though with good reason. All the folks I have associated with regarding guns (with the exception of a couple) have been very responsible and respectful of their surroundings.

kybrdplyr:

A most satisfying interchange which I believe moved us from fear and suspicion to respect and better understanding. I know I feel better about gun owners as a result of "talking" with you and I do appreciate that. Thank you.

In Other News

News

Bundle Up, New Canaan: Weather Service Issues Freeze Warning

News

Charges Dropped Against Rob Morrison, Ex-News Anchor From Darien

Police & Fire

New Canaan Man Arrested On Drug Charges In Norwalk