HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Oddly enough Connecticut ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:03 PM

 

Oddly enough Connecticut has a rather high brady score

They apparently ban assault weapons

They ban any magazine of over 10 rounds capacity (which the shoot apparently got around by bringing more than one gun)

They prohibit carrying without a permit (may issue BTW)

If I read correctly they have "One gun a month"

They basically follow every law the pro control crowd thinks needs to be implemented and yet this tragedy still happened

Stricter gun laws will have no effect although stricter enforcement of the laws we now have may.

How about we try that first

40 replies, 2523 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply Oddly enough Connecticut has a rather high brady score (Original post)
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 OP
JustAnotherGen Dec 2012 #1
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #2
gejohnston Dec 2012 #3
JustAnotherGen Dec 2012 #4
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #5
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #6
JustAnotherGen Dec 2012 #10
Jenoch Dec 2012 #22
JustAnotherGen Dec 2012 #40
bobclark86 Dec 2012 #33
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #7
upaloopa Dec 2012 #8
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #12
upaloopa Dec 2012 #16
gejohnston Dec 2012 #17
Clames Dec 2012 #19
upaloopa Dec 2012 #21
Clames Dec 2012 #24
upaloopa Dec 2012 #26
Clames Dec 2012 #28
upaloopa Dec 2012 #29
gejohnston Dec 2012 #30
upaloopa Dec 2012 #31
gejohnston Dec 2012 #32
Jenoch Dec 2012 #23
upaloopa Dec 2012 #25
gejohnston Dec 2012 #27
bobclark86 Dec 2012 #34
AldoLeopold Dec 2012 #9
Glassunion Dec 2012 #11
Trunk Monkey Dec 2012 #13
Glassunion Dec 2012 #15
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #14
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #18
Clames Dec 2012 #20
Kennah Dec 2012 #39
Fearless Dec 2012 #35
gejohnston Dec 2012 #36
Fearless Dec 2012 #37
gejohnston Dec 2012 #38

Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:05 PM

1. And if the person who did this

Didn't live there . . . then that 'state' law wouldn't have stopped him anyway. So maybe Federal Gun laws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:07 PM

2. I'm not sure what you are trying to say could you elaborate? NT

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:10 PM

3. a federal law didn't stop this one

http://www.stratfordbeaconherald.com/2012/07/17/two-dead-19-injured-after-toronto-shooting-spree

the shooters did not have PALs, did not register their guns, and their magazines were illegal. So, the Toronto mayor's idea was to confiscate registered guns from PAL holders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:12 PM

4. Pointing out gun laws in CT

Doesn't help. If the person who did this (I think the media are saying it's someone from Hoboken) didn't reside in CT - then their laws wouldn't have prevented him from getting a gun in NJ and transporting it to the scene of the crime.


Unless - there is a law on CT books that says you can't bring any weapons in from outside of their state.

And then - they can't apply that law unless they have border check points. They'd have to search every car coming up 287.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:14 PM

5. I don't know if there is a law on CT's books prohibiting bring in out of state weapons

 

But I'm fairly certain they have one prohibiting murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:16 PM

6. NJ has even stricter gun laws than CT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:23 PM

10. I know

But it was easier for me to register my guns when I moved here from NY than it was to register my vehicle - and as a black woman? In America - it's getting to be easier for us to own guns than it is for us to vote - regardless of the state. Little snarky sarcasm there - but seriously . . . Lots of different types possess fire arms - just giving a little different perspective because it's true. The voting rights of minorities are in far greater danger than that of gun owners. I'm both. It's just the way I feel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:39 PM

22. I have to disagree with you.

In Minnesota, and most other states, a person can vote without any ID. Try buying a gun from an FFL without ID.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 09:14 AM

40. Then you weren't paying attention

This election. The John Birchers don't like ANY brown people - and they will do anything they can to send us back to 1896.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:16 PM

33. Yeah, he's not from CT...

...he's from New Jersey -- which scores a 72 (compared to CT's 57).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:17 PM

7. Could this be the backlash of years of bad gun control laws?

 

People so afraid to stand up for themselves?

The backlash of years of bullying by the anti-gun coalition?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:19 PM

8. Yes let's do nothing because nothing can be done.

I'm not so sure an intelligent society can't come up with some thing.
We just don't give up no matter how that worries you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:26 PM

12. I never said do nothing

 

But I don't think more gun laws is the answer.

My post was more an answer to the folks that are screaming that all gun owners Need to be burned at the stake because this one lunatic committed a horrific murder

How about we actually enforce title 18 of the US Code and start putting any prohibited person in possession of a firearm in jail for 10 years, no exceptions?

How about you commit murder you do life as in you leave the prison in a coffin?

How about better access to mental health care?

that's just a start

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:36 PM

16. How about we stop making gun access easier.

We did not have this many multiple killings before all our gun laws were thrown out by the SCOTUS.
I think you will be not meeting with much sympathy for gun rights today.
People all over the world are crying today.
I would leave it lay today if I were you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:56 PM

17. didn't have them before the Gun Control Act

but only a couple of bans have been thrown out and replaced with Kafkaesque registration and licensing schemes. That is a long ways from coast to coast Vermont.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:04 PM

19. Wrong.

 

Do your research (properly) and you'll know that the VAST majority of gun laws challenged post-Heller and others have been upheld.


Maybe you should leave it lay today too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:16 PM

21. No I am on the right side of history today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:48 PM

24. Wrong.

 

Facts are still facts, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Fact is the SCOTUS rulings had little overall impact as hundreds of challenged laws and cases have been upheld.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:53 PM

26. Well we'll just get us some anti gun judges

and fix that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:05 PM

28. Yeah right.

 

History is obviously not your strong point. I've heard the same threats by Republicans and Roe v. Wade. Same level of ignorance...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #28)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:10 PM

29. Ever here of Citizens United?

Overturned tons of settled law. I'm 66 and I'll bet we see the SCOTUS change their minds on gun control in my life time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #29)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:22 PM

30. Citizens United was built on

SCOTUS precedent that supported corporate personhood like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

Of course I don't like Citizens United anymore than you do, but it seems like a false equivalent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #30)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:34 PM

31. Giving corporations unlimited ability to contribute

to campaigns overturned settled law. It was done by the Roberts court in service to
ALEC and the Kochs.
The latest decisions on guns also overturned settled law and also was in service to ALEC by the Roberts court. If we didn't have a conservative court neither of those cases would have been decided as they were.
They were not an interpretation of the Constitution but a gift to the right wing. There is pressure to change the effects of both decisions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #31)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:48 PM

32. partly true

Heller didn't overturn any precedent, since SCOTUS never said it wasn't an individual right. McDonald did overturn a SCOTUS decision, one that said 1A and 2A only applied to the federal government and that a state can take your guns and your freedom to assemble. It also made the civil rights laws unenforceable, paving the way for Jim Crow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:40 PM

23. How 'are we making gun access easier'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #23)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:51 PM

25. where did this fuck today get an semi automatic

weapon? From his mommy's house.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:59 PM

27. are we sure about that?

I haven't seen anything about where the pistols came from. I read he was 20YO. If that is the case, we know where he didn't get them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:20 PM

34. He must have stolen it

As it's illegal for a 20-year-old to buy a handgun. Oh, and a permit is needed in both NJ and CT for a handgun. Both states have assault weapons bans and NJ has magazine restrictions... and he drove through NY, too.

So the gun laws (a crapload of them between the three states) did nothing to stop this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:20 PM

9. It would have to be a federal law

and you'd have to go door to door to get them all.

You can't collect 200 million guns. There's a black market besides which. Even if you stopped all guns being sold or illegally imported, you'd still have the 200 million existing weapons to think about.

I think better mental health care would help tremendously. Ever been to a shrink? My son is. Its EXPENSIVE AS CRAP and how many major medical plans cover you for it?

Now, I'm thinking about buying a gun for the first time in my life just so if goober walks into my office with an AR-15, I might be able to hold my own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:26 PM

11. FYI. CT does not have any "ban" on magazines over any size.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:29 PM

13. Did I misread this ?

 

Today, a Connecticut bill banning “large capacity” magazines will have its first public hearing. Six other states have such bans in effect, though no state has demonstrated its ban has had any effect on crime.


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262834/ct-considers-confiscating-large-capacity-magazines-daniel-gelernter

Sorry about the RW link

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:32 PM

15. It never passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:31 PM

14. What this may mean is that all those kinds of laws are just useless.

 

10-round magazine rules are useless. You can drop the 7-round-mag on a 100-year-old 1911 and slap a new one in in seconds. We all know this.

A permit doesn't matter at all to someone who decides today is the day they are going to walk into a kindergarten classroom and kill all the children there. It didn't stop Amy Bishop at my school, it didn't stop this guy at Sandy Hook Elementary.

One gun a month didn't matter much to this guy, either, obviously. Even if he had only one gun, it probably would not have mattered.

I think we could enforce these laws with 100% effectiveness and it would not change anything about today.

We have to find a way to identify unhinged people and keep guns out of their hands. I don't know how to do this. But I don't see much middle ground here anymore. Either we must find a away to screen gun owners or we just don't let anyone own guns at all. I can't fathom the latter, and I don't know how we can implement the former without massive cost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:59 PM

18. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:07 PM

20. Here's the list of CT gun laws.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:09 AM

39. Here's another one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trunk Monkey (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:22 PM

35. So go 30 miles and over a boarder and then what?

Then there's online services. Legal or illegal. They happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fearless (Reply #35)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:36 PM

36. no, they don't.

Seller violates federal law, so can't go to gun store. Every online ad I have seen have "must send copy of FFL to ship to." As for the MAIG video, think James O'Keefe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #36)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:37 PM

37. And?

The fact remains that this happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fearless (Reply #37)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 07:01 PM

38. Australian biker gangs make

submachine guns in their basements too. It isn't that hard to get a pistol or submachine gun in London from your local drug connection. Illegal, but it happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread