Actually, it goes both ways, which is why all of the rhetoric about Democrats are great, Republicans are great is ridiculous. They are all politicians. They are all working for themselves rather than the American people. The sooner some of you wake up and realize that, the sooner this country can start moving in the right direction. Now, for the embarrassment of Democrats here, feel free to continue your name calling and immaturity. I seriously need to switch parties in order not to get confused with some of you. Used to be a time when Democrats represented the working Americans and represented freedom and personal rights. Based on some of the comments here, it is sad to see how far my chosen political party has fallen. View Comment
So, what you are saying is that a woman wouldn't realize that a man ripping her clothes off against her will is attempting to rape her? Or a person pulling a weapon asking for your wallet isn't trying to rob you? Or a person shooting at you or stabbing you or hitting you with a hammer isn't trying to cause you mortal harm? I don't know. Perhaps I am giving people too much credit, but I don't think those are difficult situations to assess. Also, considering the number of firearms in this country and the level of gun "accidents,' it would appear that most gun owners are more than capable of doing very effective threat assessment. Granted, mistakes are made, but they are few and far between when considering the level of gun ownership in this country. Currently, we are hearing about every possible gun-related incident because it serves the media's purpose and furthers a political agenda, but it is still exceedingly rare when considering there are 100 million+ guns in the hands of average citizens.
It does, however, come down to choice. You can choose to carry; you can choose not to carry. However, the tendency to demonize all gun owners in Connecticut because one young man with mental issues planned a crime for years and then followed through on it is rather inappropriate, and it is what the media and many anti-gun people have been doing. Consider the language used in most of the articles where people from those groups are interviewed. They imply that they are "afraid" of the pro-gun people. Why? Because they are equally as passionate about their right to bear arms as the anti-gun person is passionate about taking away those rights? Consider the fact that the legislature put metal detectors at the front doors of the Capitol when they were having the hearings on gun safety. Why? The implication being that they needed to check to make sure no one was coming in with a weapon. They didn't do that for any of the other hearings. It was done to instill a specific mindset about pro-gun individuals. Government and the media work diligently to influence the minds of the people, and a close analysis of the verbiage used in articles about this topic and others make it clear. As an example, think about the first time you heard "common sense gun control," and how quickly that exact phrase came into the usage of all anti-gun people's vocabulary. Ask them why gun control, and their answer is, "it's common sense." Ask them to explain how it is "common sense" and things start to fall apart. Rarely is a cogent argument made for how these "common sense" laws would prevent a Sandy Hook.
I would agree with you on Newtown in theory. The fundamental issue is that it is not limited to one town in the state. They are attempting to make state-wide and country-wide changes based on a faulty assumption -- i.e. gun control will prevent mass murderers. My problem is that they are focusing on this instead of focusing on things that might actually prevent this situation in the future. Prevention should be the focus, not mitigating damages. I just don't see any mother walking around and saying, "He/she murdered my child, but at least he didn't murder yours." I would see that mother saying, "Why didn't you do something to make sure that mentally ill person didn't kill my child?"
Unfortunately, in Connecticut, we don't have many options for self-protection outside the home. We aren't allowed stun guns at all; you can't carry a taser outside of your house; there are restrictions against most things that could be used as protection.
The biggest misfortune is that most debates in this country degenerate into name calling because neither side is ever willing to admit that the opposition has any valid points or concerns. We would get a lot more done if people worked at understanding others instead of being so narrow and closed-minded. View Comment
Just ignore them, Ries88. Any time anyone posts a link to anything, they start screaming about viruses. Most of them are just posting insults in order to get a reaction. You'll notice if you look at anything they post, it is all just standard "you're stupid," "you're a troll," "you're a wacko." It's unfortunate, but the internet allows certain people to get their jollies by behaving like spoiled children. Just think about how sad and empty their lives must be if they do this for entertainment. View Comment
I don't call people names, so I have no idea about leftist liberal pigs or demonizers. As a point of clarification, I did not say you didn't have the right to say whatever you wish. I said you should not infringe upon the rights of others when that infringement will have no impact on the source of the problem.
As for Newtown becoming a gun-free zone, they can certainly do so if they wish, and they think it will help. Considering that they have decided to have armed guards in the schools, I doubt that is high on their list.
The fundamental problem is people want to feel safe and are going about it in a strange manner. If someone wants to feel safe, they need to make themselves safe. Some people turn to defending themselves; some people turn to other things. Each has the equal right to defend themselves in whichever way they choose. If you would rather face a rapist, robber, or murderer with nothing in your hand, that is certainly a choice. If others would rather face a rapist, robber, or murderer with something to protect themselves, that is their choice as well. Calling the person who would rather be able to defend themselves a fanatic, nut job, idiot, etc., really is ridiculous. View Comment
That is a good point. It is the United States, and you don't have to agree with others. However, you also don't have the right to say that the crime of one sick individual should cause every person in a country to give up a right granted by an amendment to the Constitution, especially if the purpose of infringing on that right will not have an impact on the situation that caused the infringement. If even your legislators are indicating that these laws would not have prevented Sandy Hook, why do you think they are pushing forward with them? Do you seriously think that any law is going to keep you safe from criminals or a mass murderer who planned his crime for years and studied other mass murderers to see how best to do it?
I see a lot of people on here screaming at gun owners who have never broken a law or hurt anyone with any of the guns that they own. How about looking at why you feel like demonizing an entire group of citizens who have broken no laws, calling them fanatics, nuts, murderers, and other names? Towards other groups that would be called racist, prejudice, stereotyping, sexist, etc. If you don't want to own guns, don't own guns, but if you are looking to reduce gun violence, you're condemning the wrong group of people for the wrong reasons. View Comment
Just as a point of clarification, Connecticut already has an assault weapons ban in place. The federal ban expired, but Connecticut had its own, which did not.
There have been reports today that indicated he specifically chose the elementary school because he knew he would meet little resistant. Why do you suppose he knew he would meet little resistance? It also indicated that he had been planning it for quite some time and had been studying the behavior of other mass murderers in order to see what he needed to do in order to "score more points." What laws do you think would have worked to prevent that? View Comment
Probably because bats are the most common transmitters of rabies, which has no cure and is almost 100% fatal. If the bat had tested positive, quite a few kids and teachers in that school would be getting the rabies shots as a preventative measure right about now. The story could have been a bit more specific as to why handling a bat is dangerous and a health concern. View Comment
John what taxes have you seen go down? I certainly haven't seen my taxes drop, and I'm as middle class as you can get. I'm interested in knowing where I should be looking for these tax cuts because if there should have been some, I'm obviously getting ripped off.
For the record before you spout your same old line, I'm not a Republican. I'm a registered Democrat and always have been. View Comment
The mayor is not out there on the streets solving crimes. He sits in an office and attempts to make sure everyone else does what they are supposed to be doing. He's a glorified manager.
I certainly don't think he is doing a great job, so don't misunderstand me. I'm just a little tired of reading the same people complaining about the same things over and over again without doing anything about it. Complaining doesn't make anything any better. If people want things to get better, they need to stop whining and actually do something about it. Think the police do a lousy job? Become a cop. Think the mayor does a lousy job? Run for mayor. Think the Common Council is a joke? Run for Common Council. There's an old saying, "Put up or shut up." Want things to get better, be part of the solution.
My point, which you appear to be willfully missing, is that it could be a heck of a lot worse than it currently is, and it is a lot worse in other cities and towns. All you want to do is sit there and complain, but you don't do anything to make the city a better place. If you think things are that bad, run for office. Get on the Common Council, run for mayor, become a cop. Sitting there behind your computer spouting complaints does absolutely no good.
As for me, currently, I am not afraid to walk around after dark, go to the city parks, drive on its streets, or shop in its stores. When I first moved here, no one with any sense would dare to cross the bridge into SoNo after dark. Frankly, the city has come a long way, so you either haven't lived here that long or don't remember what it used to be like. Be that as it may, if you think the city is such a crime-ridden cesspool, perhaps you should move to a different city where you feel safe.
As for your other statement, I never said the police were not responsible for catching criminals, I said the mayor wasn't. There are towns in Connecticut without any police force at all, so if you think the NPD do such a hideous job, why don't you petition the city to do away with it and save the taxpayers some money? It would certainly make sense to do so since you think they are so ineffectual. Maybe then, you can go out and make yourself the Chief of Police and show us how much better a job you could do. View Comment
How does the mayor have anything to do with crime or punishment in the city? He doesn't. All he is responsible for is making sure the city runs. Is your power on? Did your street get plowed? Are the schools open? Was garbage collected? A mayor is a figure head, a coordinator, and little more.
To the other points, the police are not responsible for crime in the city, the criminals are. The constant attempt to deflect blame away from where it belongs (with criminals) is not helping the situation. Do the police solve every crime? Of course not, but if you think they are doing such a lousy job, and you could do it so much better, why don't you get off your computer and become a cop. This way, you could catch all the bad guys single-handedly and be the hero of Norwalk. Better yet, why don't you run for mayor since you think it is such an easy job and clearly have a grasp of everything the current mayor is doing wrong. Please, dazzle us with your leadership. Just let us know your real full name, so we know who to vote for.
While they are not perfect, I am happy to have the police force that we have and commend them for going to a job where they are tasked to serve the general public who show them so little appreciation. It's certainly not a job that I would want, and I doubt any of the keyboard heroes on here could do it better. View Comment
Interesting points, Thomas. There have actually been studies that indicate that there is no established and identifiable relationship between gun control laws and gun violence.
The reasons for this is a lack of consistency between places with strict laws. As an example, it is fascinating that Connecticut actually has some of the stricter gun laws in the country, and we also have quite low gun homicide rates, and those rates have been dropping every year since 2007. Based on most recent statistics, Connecticut has one gun homicide around every 3 days. When comparing this to Chicago, which also has strict gun laws, and their gun homicide rates of almost 2 per day, it would appear that there are other significant contributing factors that are being ignored.
The government would do well to examine socio-economic factors when considering methods for reducing gun violence. Identifying the cause-and-effect would go a long way to addressing the issue nationwide. View Comment
Perhaps the difference is that the pro gun posters are actually adding something meaningful, with supporting evidence, while all you are doing is repeatedly calling people wackos, nut jobs, insane, etc... I'm sure if you spent a little time explaining your own point of view and why you believe the pro gun posters are wrong, your posts would not be deleted. A little self-reflection goes a long way.
Now, feel free to post your typical response of me being a wacko, nut job, insane, etc... View Comment
It won't do anything to solve crime, reduce crime, prevent crime or anything else. That's the sad part. What is even sadder is that there are people who think this is some miracle cure for gun violence. View Comment
It's sad how people continue to blame a tool rather than the people who use the tool. I wonder what they will try to blame it when we continue to have gun homicides in the state. Our society continues to move further and further away from any sense of self responsibility.
On the plus side, if this keeps up, I'm sure I'll be able to sue someone for something -- "your honor, the back of his car ran into the front of my car when he stopped at the red light. It was his fault for following the law when I didn't want to, so I deserve a million dollars." View Comment
No lies involved. Every FACT included is clearly supportable from any number of sources if you had any intelligence and the ability to use research skills. Something you obviously are not capable of or don't care to do because it doesn't support your agenda.
Since we are asking rhetorical questions, why don't you explain why you can only insult people rather than providing your own legitimate supporting evidence? Could it be because when you look at the actual facts, they don't support your position?
On a side note, you do realize that most people over the age of 10 stop calling people names when they disagree with them. It shows a lack of intelligence that most educated adults like to avoid. However, if you like looking like an ignorant individual, you are certainly free to do so and are doing a fabulous job of it. Even if it weren't clear in your messages, it's clearly evident by your lack of basic grammar skills in your screen name. If you ever decide to get an education or to behave like an adult, feel free to respond to me. Otherwise, don't bother as you are too far beneath me to make it worth my while. If I want to talk to a five year old, I'll go volunteer at a preschool.
Oh, in case you missed it, this is called condescension. It's how adults insult people. View Comment
England (an island with strict control of its borders, unlike the U.S. with borders that are a sieve) is considered the most violent country in the European Union. Rampant violent crime, assaults, rapes, etc... Some specifics:
133% more assaults than the U.S.
326 times more drug offenses than the U.S.
125% more rapes than the U.S.
25% more crime victims than the U.S.
30% of their citizens don't feel safe walking after dark
Should I keep going?
You go ahead and keep cherry picking your stats and thinking that you are being smart. You're not. The fact of the matter is that gun homicide in Connecticut is minimal in comparison to the rest of the country. It's gun crime rates have been dropping year after year. We already have strong gun control laws. They just need to enforce what is already there.
It's an unfortunate reality that nothing they are proposing would in any way have prevented Newtown or most other gun homicides in this state or any other. Laws don't prevent crime; they just punish after the fact. Since mass murderers tend to commit suicide after their crimes, they don't even end up getting the punish end of the laws. View Comment
If I hear one more politician say "common sense" while clearly not using any, I am going to scream. They seem to be quite fond of saying that their new legislation will make people safer and reduce gun violence, but they cannot explain how that will happen. Of course, that is likely because it won't reduce any gun violence, and they know this already.
I hope everyone remembers all of their lies when the next mass murder happens and none of their fabulous control laws work. It isn't a question of "if," it is a simple question of "when." View Comment
Do you have a factual, rational explanation for why that should happen? Any supporting evidence for how it might be effective? Since you are suggesting undoing one of the tenants the country that you live in was founded on, you need to do more than simply say "repeal the 2nd Amendment."
Please do not bring up England as it is considered the most violent country in the EU with assault, home invasions and robbery rampant. Similar issues with Australia. Please provide evidence for how a repeal of the 2nd Amendment would prevent criminals and madmen from killing whoever they wish with whatever weapon they wish. View Comment