Rick - I am a 20+ year resident of Greenwich and am looking quite seriously at TX, TN and the Carolinas (Florida has its issues). And I know I am not alone.
What you did not observe is that this slow but voluntary migration of law-abiding gun owners and freedom lovers will skew the demographics such that legal gun owners will,become a dwindling part of the NUSA population. Now the gun haters will say good riddance and cheers, but what they miss is that this creates entire states which are "gun free zones". And as we have learned, criminals and crazies love GFZs because they know they won't be challenged.
What gun haters miss is that there is a deterrent effect of some portion of the population in any are being armed, especially concealed carry. Criminals and crazies want to hit vulnerable targets with little to no chance of running into an armed citizens.
If migration "disarms" the towns of Fairfield County, how long before criminals understand that and become more brazen in these areas?
Gun haters may cheers when another knuckle-dragging bitter clinger leaves the area to be replaced by a gun hater, but they might at some point rue that they got exactly what they wished for - a legal gun free Fairfield County that will still harbors all the illegal guns in the big cities. View Comment
94% Against - quick someone call Frantz, Floren, Camilo, etc.
Stanley, your point about watching how the mass of people act rather than the way we hear the loudest voices:
70million BGCs since Obama election which, if you assume that is one gun per BGC (likely an underestimate) that is 70mm firearms added to estimates from 2011 of there being 300-320mm firearms in civilians hands.
That makes the President the greatest gun salesman in history.
And here in CT:
Borrowing a comment from a friend in Sandy Hook:
"This is what happens when the uninformed electorate hires otherwise unemployable buffoons to run the daily affairs of the state. These are insurance salesmen, real estate agents and bureaucratic administrators who are now 'experts' because they garnered more votes than the other insurance salesmen, real estate agents and bureaucratic administrators."
Even nominally gun-friendly legislators need to be re-elected in blue-purple Connecticut and are choosing political expediency to defending their truest principles.
This "bipartisan compromise" is a poop sandwich that both sides of the debate hate because neither side believes it will do anything material to reduce the two principal causes of gun injury/death: suicide and criminal use of illegal handguns (90%+ of all gun violence).
Ironically, I would have preferred the Dems had rammed through their no-grandfathering language on a party-line vote, as was the risk less than two weeks ago. Then there would have been a Fifth Amendment "takings" challenge to go along with challenges based on the right to bear arms in both the State and Federal Constitutions. Instead, the GOP thinks they did good which they may have in the short run but not the long term.
And now all the left-wing Voice crazies can commence with their ad hominem attacks.
Where's Timmy? View Comment
Actually, Jackie, I believe it is Malloy who asked that question of Cafero. Obama has laid low on gun-taking laws once he realized that he was going to lose the AWB battle in Congress. Sending out Joe "a shotgun is all you need" Biden was not his brightest mood either.
But Jackie, what do you propose? That the state pass possibly unconstitutional laws in the height of an emotional moment ensuring that a "crisis does not go to waste"?
That the Legislature ignore that rifle bans and mag limits have a history of being ineffectual wherever they are introduced? You know, like in Chicago or DC?
That the Legislature ignore the Obama/Holder Justice Department's summary that rifle bans and mag limitations have little to no impact on neither routine crime nor rampage killings?
Are you in support of Gov Malloy who originally wanted the Legislature to take their time and do things "right" but then lost his temper and released a tantrum of a proposal of his own? The same Gov who has held back details of the Sandy Hook Massacre because they would show that this was more about a twisted and deranged young man who the system ignored and/or missed? The same Gov who has WH aspirations in 2016 and feels he has to be stronger on gun control than Cuono, a Gov who has shed 17% in popularity since he helped ram through the problem-plagued NYSAFE Act?
And let's not forget that this is the same gov who tried to lure the Freedom Group's Bushmaster manufacturing to Connecticut for the added high-skill manufacturing jobs. That is, before "Bushmaster" became a rhetorical 4-lettered word.
So what do you really want Jackie, an ideological win by the intellectual superior Left against the bitter clingers of the Right? Be honest with us....
But details in is case would focus on the months if not years of planning, how it was not a spontaneous act and how violent video games mental illness was front and center in this case. You know, mental illness and violent culture that the Legislature is ignoring in their law-making machine tons!
Or, maybe the details of the shooting like the killer dropping half empty mags doing repeated tactical reloads that obliterate the uninformed "Why does someone need 30-round magazines?" arguments.
Or that the kids who escaped were able to do so for reasons that had anything to do with the killer reloading?
Or maybe that the tox screen will show the killer had a less-than-therapeutic level of prescribed mess in his system at the time of the attack indicating the need for enforced med regimes?
Or maybe they would discuss something about the father who abandoned the his son and ex-wife, married a younger woman and moved 30+ miles away when the killer was a vulnerable teen?
Sadly, what I think will be released will be many details about the firearms,, the brutal nature of the mode of the individual deaths, how the killer's mother procured and stored the firearms and all manner of details that bolster the focus on guns and not on root causes.
THAT is what I would expect from this agenda-driven, White House-aspiring governor and his minions. View Comment
So will Malloy allow the State's attorney to release more details than already disclosed in the Lupica article? Would this "official" disclosure be coming if not for a disgusted LEO spilling the details the State's authorities have been hiding from Connecticut residents? would this information have been helpful to know as the legislature debates onerous gun restrictions?
Page, One point, you will no longer find that 85% figure on the current CAGV website as it has been scrubbed. It was there for years but they pulled it and other stats down when their own stats were being used against their arguments for rifle and magazine bans which might only be observed by the law-abiding owners. Someone, likely one of the ladies from March for Change, pointed out to Marty and Ron at CAGV that is was self-defeating for them to call for gun restrictions that their own stats suggest would be useless.
Why did they use the 85% and other stats previously? Because CAGV's old mantra was that illegal guns were the biggest problem and they sought to reduce the illegal gun trade and to reign in gun dealers involved. I have no issue with that actually. CAGV, hacing lost the gun-taking argument in e 2000s, started to argued that the preponderance of gun violence is due to illegal guns hence the 85% talking point. But now, in the post-Newtown hysteria, CAGV has gone back to its gun-banning roots which has to make the argument that black rifles and certain magazines are the problem to solve. Thus, it was inconvenient that an organization seeking to mitigate all forms of gun violence was now arguing for change that has little to nothing to do with 85% of gun violence. Presto, chango, they scrubbed their former arguments out of the public eye.
Fortunately for us and unfortunately for CAGV the older versions of their website are archive on the web and they have used those stats in former testimony that is also available online. So while they have attempted to hide the incredibly sad truth, we can beat them with their own information.
CAGV is a professional gun-taking entity who is using the Newtown tragedy to gain new support for their old ways. The ladies at March put a pretty female face on their efforts and bring a social media sophistication that Ron lacks. But in the end, the restrictions they pray for will do little to nothing to make our communities safer. View Comment
Paige - Rough populations
CT = 3.5mm
Chicago = 2.7mm
According to CAGV: Of 367 gun homicides committed in CT during 2008-2011, 269 or 73.3% occurred in the state’s three largest cities, Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven.
Wikipedia: Populations Bridgeport 144,229, New Haven 129,779, Hartford 124,775
So 73% of CT gun homicides or ~73 in 2011, took place within a population of 395,000 people or a rate of 0.0183%.
If Chicago in 2011 had 411 gun murders, its rate was 0.0152% using 2.7mm people.
Interesting the difference between the state of CT and just its three big cities. And then the implications for CT excluding those three cities are very different.
Some other statistics courtesy of CAGV’s website:
2011 Connecticut firearms deaths totaled 216 with 102 homicides (47%) and 114 suicides (53%).
The homicides affected mostly minorities given 70 victims (68.6%) were African American and 16 (15.7%) were Latino; total of 84.3%.
The suicide data was very different as Caucasians accounted for 92.1% of the 114 suicide victims.
CT 2011 homicide victims were 93 male and 9 female.
CT 2011 suicide victims were 108 male and 6 female
“Most violent gun crimes are committed by people who cannot legally own guns, usually because they are felons or because they are underage.”
“… in Connecticut, more than 85 percent of gun crimes are committed by people who cannot legally purchase guns.”
For any owner of a traditional shotgun, rifle or revolver who thought they would be immune from new gun restrictions:
Yeah, and two summers ago a good chunk of London and other cities burned to the ground because the punk anarchists had no fear of reprisal from an armed citizenry.
Contrast that to the LA riots after the Rodney King trial where dozens died and LA burned except for the Korean town area. Why? Because the Korean shop owners protected their neighborhood with their handguns and evil black rifles. They did not shoot anyone but fired warning shots over the heads of the rioters that were approaching their locations. Funny thing about "warning shots", they are easy to expend when you have 30-round magazines. When local laws limit you to 10-round mags, the "warning shots" might be a warning to the others in the group when the first aimed round makes its target.
Funny thing is, as ineffectual as "gun free zones" might be, folks like stevie want to turn the entire state of CT into one big gun free zone, except for the criminals. I will live in Texas when that time comes so good luck with that! View Comment
"weakest outlaws" = "need gun control" ?
So if the Chicago outlaws would go to the gym and get stronger, we would reduce the gun violence and need fewer gun laws? Sounds like Rahm Emanuel should be giving out free gym memberships. View Comment
LAP - Since when do politicians allow facts to drive sound policies or bill writing? In 2011, nearly 70% of all gun homicides took place in Bridgeport, New Haven or Hartford, all by means of a handgun, most illegally possessed. Also in 2011, there was only a single gun homicide due to a rifle and that was not an evil black rifle with military features.
As far as I have been able to ascertain, in the first 11 months of 2012, there were NO gun homicides committed with rifle of any sort. Of course, Newtown will change the full year statistic but absent the lanza madness (mother and son), rifles are not a threat to Connecticut residents.
Further, according the the State's Office of Legislative Research, of the 69 national massacres by gun they identified, only four of 69 were committed with a firearm of enArmalite Rifle design (the AR in AR-15) and that includes Newtown and Aurora.
Thus, our intrepid Democratic majority in Hartford is seeking to ban and confiscate a rifle of a type at plays not identifiable role in suicides and street crime, the leading causes of gun death. And a rifle design that has never been used in a mass killing in CT prior to Newtown and in only two instances prior to that. They are also ignoring e Obama/Justice Department findings that such bans will have little to no impact open gun crime and can not stop future rampage killings.
So, why pass such an ineffectual law? Because right-of-center, white, independent-minded, suburban men own more modern sporting rifles than any other class of owner and this is their chance to stick it to us.
This is not about gun control, it is not bout mitigating the most common causes or implement of gun injury/death, it is about power and control, sans guns. It is about an emboldened Left not letting a good crisis and emotional moment "go to waste".
What will they say when they pass their draconian restrictions and that does not prevent the next rampage killer's carnage?
Put another way, if Adam Lanza were actually Ahmed Muohamed and was yelling Aluha Akbar as he killed those kids, would we be having this discussion now or arguing how many armed guards should be in each school? View Comment
John, If I presume you are suggesting that the Democrats have matter policies, then please explain how Chicago, a city ruled by Dems for decades and has some of the strictest state and local gun controls, is the murder capital of the USA?
If gun restrictions are so effective, please explain the gun crime stats for LA, Stockton, Compton, New Orleans, DC, Philidelphia, Detroit, Newark, Camden, Hartord, Bridgeport, New Haven, etc, etc, etc.
You seem to be a man of strong opinions, why don't you provide a lucid defense of gun control's efficacy against street crime in those cities? View Comment
The sad empirical truth is that of Connecticut's approx 3.5mm residents, only about 500,000 are gun owners. Thus, about 80% of residents have little to know experience with firearms and are this "low information" voters in regards to firearms, the history of firearms and the actual use of same. I have had many conversations around he state and I am saddened by how little people know and how susceptible they are to misinformation, misguided opinions and "reform" ideas that do not work.
For all of you gun control advocates, maybe you would trust a review of common gun control,measures written by Eric Holder's Department of Justice, no friends of gun rights.
If you are still confident in the efficacy of gun control laws as promulgated by the Democrats in DC and Hartford, then you are an ideologue and not a realist. View Comment
John - Maybe you should become better informed about history and take a look at the Connecticut State Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 15 which process citizens of the state with a right to bear arms for "defense of self and state". You do know that, right?
Written in 1818, more than 25 years after the Second Amendment was adopted, the CT state right is simple and I encumbered with issues of militia, etc. it was adopted well after the initial debates about the 2A were had and after a coupe of actual rebellions were squashed by the federal government. That right was upheld in the 1965 version of the State's constitution as well.
More importantly, in 1818, the CT drafters had an opportunity to see a quarter century of advancement in firearms technology and they understood that things change and advance in both function and lethality. And yet, they used the generic "arms" with no limitation by design. You see John, these fols who were far smarter than you or I knew citizens would need to be sufficiently protected against whatever "arms" (i.e. long guns and handguns) might be carried by those against whom they might have to "defend self or state".
So John, even if you and your ilk could somehow bring up an attempt to repeal the 2A (you do know how that works, right?), you would also have to repeal the CT right to bear arms as well. Got money? Got time? Got personal security detail for the times when criminals are the only ones armed?
Enjoy your fantasies. View Comment
LAP - You don't expect these people to care about crime and violence that is NIMBY. Street gun violence takes the life of one to two young black men each week in CT cities - you don't see the white moms from suburbia marching to stop that, do you? Young inner city kids are susceptible to all manner of violence involving guns, some as targets, others random, but the moms from the burbs aren't complaining about that slaughter. Has anyone noticeced just how WHITE March for Change is? Where are the African American moms marching along side of them?
The fun control measures be advocated by CAGV and March are designed to disproportionately impact suburban law-abiding gun owners in an erstwhile attempt to "protect" suburban kids. These gun control folks are not asking for greater policing of inner cities, they are not asking for funding for "guns off e streets" programs, they are not even targeting the existing stock of illegal handguns. Yet, the executive director of CAGV has said publicly that over 80% of all gun violence and death is due to illegal handguns used illegally.
As for their general knowledge of firearms or even gun laws, they are woefully uninformed. Ask any of these loud talkers about the legislative origins of their most often voiced concepts, "assault weapon" and "magazine capacity limits" and they will stun you with their silence. No clue.
Ask them why 10-rounds or even 7 is some magical threshold and you will not hear anything coherent.
Ask them how long it takes to swap a rifle or pistol mag and you will get a bewildered look as if they are wondering why that would be relevant.
Ask them why a ban on Internet sale of ammo would stop a deranged person from getting ammo at Walmart and they start dissembling about preventing the accumulation of mass quantities of ammunition. Then point out that most shooting require fewer than a couple of readily available 20-round boxes and then they will change the subject to something about James Holmes having 6,000 rounds of ammo..... So what, the vast majority of that was left in his apartment and he only needed an amount of ammo readily available at retail.
LAP, I have tired of trying to engage these people in thoughtful debate. Most often you bring up a reality-based comment and the replies are ad himinem attacks about right wing whackos or tea baggers or NRA automatons or paranoid fantasist. It is predictable and so classic of liberal scolds that they are long on snark but short on knowledge, research, reasoned response or just plain old courtesy.
Here's one for all you anti-gun folks out there: Suicides make up over 60% of gun deaths in the USA each year - how will a ban on black rifles or 7+ round magazines reduce the gun suicide rate at all?
If that one is too tough for you, then explain how a ban on black rifles or mags is going to impact crime-related shootings and deaths if rifles are rarely if ever used by professional criminals and criminals ignore handgun laws by definition? View Comment
Yes Mrs. N except pot smoke is more carcinogenic that tobacco, no?
And I am sure there have been "zero deaths, ever" from the drug cultivation and trafficking of pot and related illegal drugs.
Ad I am sure NO ONE has ever had a motor vehicle accident while stoned that has caused grievous injury or death.
And then there is the obesity, diabetes and colesterol complications from junk food binging due to the munchies.
Ad then there are those "Jackass" guys..... View Comment
Oh Niikk, that's a good one. Do you mean things like Obama's drone strike program with its 80% "collateral damage" kill rate?
Or do you mean the President's non-policy on Syria where 30,000 have died? The Arab Sring where thousands of innocents have died?
Or do you mean the Fast and Furious fiasco which has claimed the lives of 300+ Mexicans and at least two Americans?
Or do you mean the number of jobs killed by the Left's support of "green job" vapor ware that has absorbed billions in tax payer funds?
Or do you mean abortion which has stopped the hearts of 55MILLION fetuses since the Roe case?
Come on Niikk, which of the above supported by Republicans do you mean? Sorry, what's that voice-in-my-head, Republicans don't support any of these things that destroy?
Oh, never mind..... View Comment
K, congrats on sucking me back in here. So tell me, what is a "rare occurrence"? Home invasions followed up by rape, murder and arson? The same followed up by law enforcement waiting WAAAY to long before acting? Home invasions generally? I was in
Redding last Monday when Chief Fuchs said home invasion were rare - where, in Redding?
Over the course of an at-desk lunch I was able to compile the following list of media reported home invasions in CT since just August. And the list is not exhaustive but I am sure you won't peruse it since you are convinced I and others are paranoids. I am sure various police agencies, NBC and other Mdia outlets colluded with us in the preparation of this list.
As for paranoia about gun taking - have you read the CAGV/March for Change demands that include banned possession of black rifles and 7+ round mags with NO GRANDFATHERING. For the uninitiated, no grandfathering means current lawful owners will be forced to surrender, sell out of state or destroy items that are currently very common place and legal. That will include 3.5-5mm 7+ round pistol magazines with no replacements available. Not even the NYS law went this far. And for the intrepid, this means confiscation as the ultimate out come. So tell me K, is it paranoid to think the professional gun takers like CAGV are looking to be "sensible".
By the way K, do you believe in women's reproductive rights? View Comment