Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Connectcticut gun laws among the toughest in the US but it didn't matter

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 18, 2012, 10:05 p.m. EST by Shayneh (-482)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Connecticut has one of the toughtest gun laws in the country but it didn't matter. Why is that? Think maybe it's the mental health of our society.

Here is a link to the law:

http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/law/firearms.htm http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/Chap943.htm

21 Comments

21 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

"NRA : No Rational Answer - Firing Back at Extreme Gun Nuts", by Brian Foley :

Shootings are now a slice of Americana, bringing out SWAT teams, burly police chiefs, grief counselors, media speculation about the usually-20-something-year-old-male shooter’s motive, and impromptu flower pile memorials. They also bring out the peculiar logic of the NRA and extremist gun nuts. I’m not talking about responsible gun owners here. I’m talking about the ones who claim that guns and the wide accessibility of them have nothing to do with shootings, ones who cry that we shouldn’t blame the gun and make our right to bear arms another victim of the tragedy.

Let’s fire back:

Gun Nut : “Guns Don’t Kill People. People Kill People.”

This argument just makes the obvious point that some events have multiple causative factors. A tool alone can’t do anything. Hammers don’t build buildings. People build buildings.

True, a little old gun minding its own business in a gun locker never harmed anyone. Neither did Hitler’s Panzer divisions when they were simply parked in Germany.

Point out that people are more likely to kill people by using guns than other tools because guns are easy to get and oh-so convenient. Unlike with knives or clubs, you don’t get all messy when you shoot someone. (Clean up is easy!) Also, it’s hard to commit a mass killing with a club or knife. Eventually the crowd will fight back and probably kick your ass.

If you really want to show the stupidity of this argument, just fire back, “Guns don’t cause school shootings. Schools do.”

Gun Nut : “Banning guns won’t prevent mass killings. Evildoers will just find another way to kill people.”

This is the “If there’s a will, there’s a way,” or, the “Let’s just throw up our hands/I give up!” argument. You can’t always stop someone who’s committed to doing a particular act. It’s also a general/specific argument: You can’t prevent a general harm by eliminating one of the specific things that can cause it.

Fire back, saying that while we can’t completely eliminate the possibility of mass killings, we can lessen their likelihood and magnitude by banning or limiting access to guns, or certain kinds of guns. If the gun nut disagrees, tell him to try committing a mass shooting with a musket.

Or fire back with satire: “Locking your house is not the answer to preventing theft; bad guys will always find a way to steal your stuff. Banning pedophiles from schools is not the answer to protecting children; sickos will always find a way to harm kids.” I mean, why ever bother with preventive measures?

Gun Nut : “I have a constitutional right to bear arms!”

You don’t need a law degree to fire back here – trust me on that, I’m a law professor. Tell the gun nut that constitutional rights aren’t absolute. There are times when the government can infringe upon them. Some speech is outlawed. Some discrimination is OK. And so on.

Point out that the second amendment doesn’t even mention guns. It’s about “arms.” Ask the gun nut if he believes we have a right to bear grenades, tanks, bazookas, bombs, and anthrax. If you get the gun nut to agree that any of those should be banned or controlled, bang, you win. Because you’ve been arguing all along that the right isn’t absolute; it’s about line-drawing. Argue that assault rifles cross the line into the very dangerous weapons your friend agrees should be banned.

If the gun nut says he interprets the constitution according to “original intent,” never fear. Fire back, “I support your right to own a musket, hatchet, and horse-drawn cannon. “

Gun Nut : “I need a gun to overthrow the government if it violates our rights.”

I used to like this argument – I’m a huge civil libertarian. But a few years ago, I noticed a funny thing when our government started violating our rights by using torture, detaining people indefinitely, and spying on us: None of the gun nuts I knew overthrew or even tried to overthrow the U.S. government. They didn’t even talk about doing it.

The only right they care about is their right to own a gun.

Gun Nut : “Just arm everyone – mass shootings won’t happen!”

True that some would be prevented. But fire back by pointing out that arming everyone would cause more harm than good. There would be a lot of … little shootings.

I’ve confessed to many a gun nut that there have been times when it was very good that I wasn’t armed. I’d have blown away some prick who cut me off in traffic or stole my parking space – slights that don’t deserve the death penalty. I’ve even bonded with some gun nuts over such anger – a good way to end an argument.

Gun Nut : “If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.”

This claim is just wrong, because POLICE will still have guns. (Ask the gun nut: “Are you calling POLICE outlaws?! They’re heroes!)

But let’s take on a more generous interpretation of this claim. The argument capitalizes on fear: If only outlaws (evildoers) have guns, they’ll take advantage of us non-outlaws (inlaws?).

Fire back by saying that if guns were outlawed, there would be fewer bad people using guns against good people. Beef up police forces to catch these outlaws. Or don’t bother – with fewer firearms out there, we might not need so many cops.

Have fun by using an “If there’s a will, there’s a way” argument against the gun nut: “Banning guns won’t prevent good people from defending themselves. Good people will always find a way to defend themselves and their families.” Ask the gun nut: What’s your problem?

Continue your rhetorical jujitsu by saying, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” Tell the gun nut that he doesn’t need a gun to kill an assailant.

When the gun nut whines, “But it’s way easier to kill with a gun!” well, bang: you got him. He just agreed with your main argument.

~

verum ex absurdo ...

~

{Brian J. Foley is a law professor and humorist. He’s the author of the satirical financial self-help book, "A New Financial You in 28 Days! A 37-Day Plan." Email him at brianjfoleyinc@gmail.com This article was originally posted at Counterpunch}

[Item copied verbatim under 'Fair Use' from : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33358.htm ]

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Well I would think that if the people of this country weren't so inecure about our government the attitude about types of guns that are now being manufacturered would be different.

I don't ever remember when I was growing up anyone owning a AK-47, nor an AR-15 let along extended magazines for pistols.

But society has changed - the mentality of our society has changed - that is where the issue is - why has it changed.

I think government plays a big role in this and with it comes the rest. So how do we solve the problem of people thinking that owning a AR-15 or an AK-47 is a must.

I don't think these people are "gun nuts". I think they are people who feel this country is going down the tubes and they feel that that may be the only defense they have when the SHTF -

Look on Youtube and you will find lots of people with this attitude and they aren't bad people - they are citizens of the United States.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

"How the GOP Promoted Gun Madness", by Robert Parry :

"When looking at the faces of the six-year-olds butchered in their Connecticut classroom, you should also see the faces of the politicians who pandered to the NRA and its obsessive opposition to commonsense gun control, the likes of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush."

If you think that that anyone who wants an AK-47 / AR-15 / Uzi etc. as something which "is a must" and owning such weapons is going to stop the US "going down the tubes", then : a) They are a 'Gun Nut' ; b) You are their apologist & ergo, c) You are part of the problem you seem to care about. Good luck with resolving all the paradoxes there.

nosce te ipsum ...

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

I don't know if you subscribe to NRA - but it's not all about owning assault rifles - it's about the 2nd amendment and you know as well as I when people aren't told to own something they want it.

The "mentality" of society has to change - that's where the problem is - the government is part of that problem along with children that need attention because of their deficiency.

So, we could talk about banning assault weapons all day long and it still isn't going to change the minds of millions of gun owners who think that they need to have them when the SHTF - that's the perception the government has given to these people.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

The Second Amendment was all about facilitating the formation of peoples militias in the absence of a standing army at a time of flintlock weapons but things have moved on since then. Fear & Paranoia and ASSault weapons are a bad combination and further reflect upon :

  • "6 Ways to Replace Violence With a Culture of Caring", by Alison Rose Levy :

The Newtown tragedy compels Americans to consider the ways that both our society and our attitudes contribute to creating a more violent society. Much has been written about gun control, but we also need a focus on the widespread attitudes and beliefs that contribute to violence and how we can identify and change them. Here are six ideas.

1. Beware of Media Traumatization.

After I heard the news about the Newtown school tragedy, I decided to avoid the news media's inevitable, obsessive, insight-void replays of footage. Neuropsychological science has discovered that either seeing, or imagining actions directly impacts our neurology. Repetitive viewings of violent occurrences can install trauma triggers, even inducing nightmares and flashbacks typical of post-traumatic stress. While it’s important to follow trustworthy news sources to serve as a well-informed citizen, repeated viewings of violent scenes without any clear purpose engraves terror into the neurology of the populace. There’s a difference between getting the information you need and getting traumatized.

2. Steer Clear of All-Knowing Cops and Detectives.

Changing channels to get to a viewing of Les Miserables, I heard a snippet of commentary in which a local police officer promised, "Don't worry we'll find out why this happened."

To which my response was: "Really? How? The shooter is dead." Commercial television—both news and entertainment -- depicts criminal procedural methods as the universal panacea. The programming of crime dramas encourages the belief that finding the criminal, reaching for guns, and confining folks to lockups are the solutions to a culture of violence. Although crime dramas love to portray detectives as a fantasy blend of enforcers and trustworthy confessors for those driven to acts of violence, it's not a cop's job to heal a broken heart or a broken life. But that is precisely where healing is needed if violence is to be avoided. Dusting for fingerprints can never account for the pile of pain and lack of caring that drive people into the stew of trauma, numbness and hurt that prompt recurring incidents like Newtown. Neither can the erosion of a society's ethical fiber and caring be arrested by a pair of handcuffs. Law invites the populace to heave a sigh of relief when the designated bad apple is indicted (literally or figuratively). But when lawmakers and regulators lack the moral courage to contain powerful lobbies that create mass damage, we shouldn’t be tempted to affix a label to one person. Instead when each of us notices and checks the belief that designating a villain makes us safe, we begin to seek out and address systemic contributors.

3. Don’t Apply Psychological Stigmata.

In order to assuage the sorrow, dread, terror, and outrage evoked by this tragic incident, people rush to assign a "reason why," hoping that laying on a psychological or medical diagnosis or designating someone as "just evil" will protect oneself, or help make sense of an act that transgresses the boundaries of what we wish to believe about ourselves and our society.

But all too often, the band-aid diagnosis displaces true understanding. One available label is that one who performs a heinous act must be "mentally ill." Someone asked me, "Well, if he wasn't mentally ill what would you call it?"

"One among the many, many people who are hurting or angry or traumatized, who could get his hands on a gun," I responded.

Counselor and mental health professional Fred Erwin writes, "Spent the day with mentally ill folks whose lives, already hard, will be made harder by the association of this recent shooting with an autistic man, who killed because he was angry and could not control his emotional life, not because he had autism."

From his long experience working with traumatized populations, Erwin adds, "There is no more link between mental illness and violence than there is between red hair and violence, or green eyes and violence, or being tall, or short, or white, or black, or communist, or capitalist."

4. Face Up to a Violent Culture.

Wanting simple answers so they can return to normal, people fail to ask whether "normal," as this society defines it, may in fact be part of the problem. Societal norms themselves combine to contribute to a culture of violence.

As we mourn the senseless loss of young life in this horrible incident, can we stop to consider how many ways our choices as a society harm the well-being of the young and future generations— through unleashing toxicity, or through destabilizing the ecological balance of the earth? Biochemical interventions into the population, whether through poor quality, obesogenic food, endocrine disruption, pharmaceuticals in the water supply, pharmacology to control the behavior of young children (without studies to determine the long-term effects on neurology, cognition and behavior), and then later SSRI use, have compound effects we fail to tally.

Violent cultural attitudes, including neglecting to provide for the ill, needy, elderly, impoverished, or suffering, also contribute. Even in seeking spiritual solace, some undertake the necessary inner work of self-healing, but all too often fail to give priority to healing social ills. Unresolved acts of war, violence, perpetration, or abuse, both individual and collective, tend to repeat and perpetuate. The victims of violence are at risk to becoming the perpetrators of violence. Who is ready to bear witness and intervene in the cycle, rather than condemn after the fact?

5. Banish Belief in the “Bad Seed”.

It’s time to take a long, hard look as to whether attitudes that demonize some people as "evil" or innately a "bad seed" lessen or contribute to the tendency toward violence in a society. When I believe or act as though someone is different than me, beyond help, beyond the reach of caring and kindness, and should simply be locked up so I can feel protected, do I increase (or decrease) my community's store of compassion? Doesn't barricading oneself either emotionally or physically from people in pain reinforce the sense that a person in trouble has nowhere to turn and nothing to help himself but a gun?

As Fred Erwin writes, “So much condemnation, fear and loathing directed at these souls who are already beset enough without burdening them with America's shadow-- your shadow, by the way, and my shadow. And if you think yourself in any way less capable of such a thing than this poor young man was, then you have not reckoned deeply enough, perhaps never met your own shadow. The time would be now.”

Before distancing ourselves from those who suffer by wrapping ourselves in a self-conferred mantle of purity, goodness and righteousness, let’s first do as Erwin suggests, and take responsibility for our own stuff. Perhaps it would be fruitful to ask, Who in their heart has never entertained a moment of anger towards a loved one, the most frequent targets in violent episodes, as in the Newtown case?

Anyone honest with themselves can take inventory of their own relationship to their own more painful feelings. Further, from what you personally know of family life and group dynamics, is it likely that the young man, who acted out through senseless killing, was the first and only member of his extended family (or his community) to ever be angry, neglectful, dismissive, hurtful, insensitive, harsh, or abandoning? While it’s not our business to fix a label on other individuals, living or dead, what we can do is understand the context for such a terrible act, in order to mitigate going forward.

6. Care More, and Mean It.

My friend, Valerie Kean Staab writes, “We are failing our children!! Wake up America. Our babies are turning into killers. Our babies are committing suicide at unbelievable rates. We can't even get past the blame game. Something is wrong and it starts and ends with us. Take the time to be a better parent today. Take the time to be a better friend to someone else's child today.”

I couldn’t agree more. If you care about any child, open your heart to all who suffer. It’s not simply that children you care about could become the victims of violence within a culture of violence. It’s also that they could become the perpetrators. When you close your heart, you perpetuate a social context that increases that risk. Love, not lockups—that’s the answer.

~

amor vincit omnia ...

~

{Alison Rose Levy @alisonroselevy writes on health, food and the environment. Her Web site is healthjournalistblog.com and her weekly radio program on Progressive Radio is 'Connect the Dots'.}

[Item copied verbatim under 'Fair Use' from : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33359.htm ]

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Bring back the ban on assault guns.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Why? Did it like, go somewhere? Much of the NY Metro area still bans assault weapons, there was no "sunshine clause." Our existing laws are far more restrictive than the Fed's have ever been.

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Bringing back the ban on assualt guns won't solve the problem. I will bet you $1000.00 that if the ban was put in place we would still see mass murders - it's the violence and society that's the problem.

If you could figure out a way to stop violence then gun ownership wouldn't be an issue - as a matter of fact if violence was stopped copmletely and people were assured of this people woiuld turn their guns in.

But lets not forget - the government is stroking the problem too - as I stated above - people are insecure about todays government and "don't trust them" and for that reason alone people are buying weapons regardless of what kind.

The mere fact that there is talk about banning assault weapons has caused the sales of those weapons to go up in the past week.

What does that tell you - people don't trust the government.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Bring back the ban on assault guns. You have something very convoluted going on there. You aren't going to alter society so bring back the ban.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (26333) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

These post's/threads are a distraction. There is no meaningful change that can be made by changing gun laws - the guns are out in the public - stopping the manufacture and sale of high ammunition capacity clips and semi-auto weapons will keep the numbers down ( in legal hands anyway ). But gun laws/rights will not stop mass murderers. Healing societies ills will reduce the number of murders - but will not do a thing to cure a mass murderers intents/reasoning/atrocities.

[-] 1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

Agreed.

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Why should we even have to - our country is turning into a "police state" - violence is the main cause - I don't ever remember "swat teams" going to a persons house - our violent society is causing this to happen.

What does all this violence tell you about our society - like I stated early on - if there wasn't any violence there wouldn't be a need for firearms.

This country has changed because of the mentality of our society - there is no respect for ones self, let alone respect for anyone else or anything they own.

So, that kind of mentality leads people not to "give a shit" about anyone or anything.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

This gun control thing is getting complicated. I'm going to get a better bow and arrow cause the one I found in the trash a few years ago kind of sucks. There's even some places to shoot where I live. Guns are for lazy people but whatever floats your boat.......

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Look at it from a "psychological" frame of mind and you will have a better outlook as to why people do what they do. These people who own assault weapons aren't crazy - they are citizens of the United States and their thinking when it comes to owning assault weapons is different then yours or mine.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

He's not much of a law professor; nor is he well informed of gun control issues or he'd know that the term "arms" has been constitutionally defined via the courts.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

Here is also a link from the same web site dealing with "youth gun violence".

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0341.htm

[-] 0 points by BloodInBloodOut (0) 1 year ago

if you restrict gun laws the only people it will effect is the citizens who follow the laws and dont use our weapons in such ways. Mean while the criminals and mentally unsatable people who commit these acts will still have guns and methods of getting their hands on them. If you want to kill people and slaughter children and you set your mind too it. That person will find a way regardless of his weapon. In a way at least it was a quick death for those kids and it wasnt a sword or some brute object he just beat them to death with. Death is death to people living but id think for the person dying a quick death and slow painful death WILL make a difference. As demented as that is. Oh and by the way OCCUPY if you ever want change or the men who control this country go talking sitting marching screaming and crying will do nothing. Too much money for anyone to walkl away blood only pays for freedom and until your ready to bleed your cause is only a pretty dream that always ends. Revolution is needed but your road will only bring faulter until our generation pays the needed price. like any tyrant in history you must force them to go.

[-] 0 points by toyotabedzrock (11) from Bordentown, NJ 1 year ago

There is a big loophole in there law, in the way they define what an assault weapon is.

And the mother obviously did not have her guns locked, and there is no magazine size limit.

[-] 1 points by Shayneh (-482) 1 year ago

So if the mother did have the guns locked up I doubt that would have stopped this individual - he would have gotten the key one way or the other - because his intent was to harm - he would have been determined to do whatever he needed to do to get those keys.

So that's a mute point

[-] -1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

Excellent point and I'm sure completely lost on the anti-gun,anti-freedom,anti-American members that populate this OWS dungeon of Leftists group think.