Social Networks We Use

Categories

CT Tech Junkie Feed

NASA’s Orion Spacecraft Completes Successful Unmanned First Mission
Dec 5, 2014 11:30 am
An unmanned test flight of NASA’s new Orion spacecraft was successful this morning, flying higher than any human-rated...more »
2014 Connecticut International Auto Show to Feature Electric Vehicles And More
Nov 20, 2014 9:00 am
State automobile retailers are hoping to educate consumers about the benefits of electric vehicles at the Connecticut...more »

Our Partners

˜

‘Do Something Before Our Tragedy Becomes Your Tragedy’

by Hugh McQuaid & Christine Stuart | Apr 8, 2013 6:22pm
(40) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Civil Liberties, Congress, Town News, Newtown, West Hartford, Public Safety, White House

Hugh McQuaid photo

Nicole Hockley

As she introduced President Barack Obama on Monday at the University of Hartford, Nicole Hockley shared a glimpse of the grief she’s experienced since her son, Dylan, was among those killed Dec. 14 in Newtown.

Hockley said that before her son was gunned down with 19 other first graders and 6 educators, she would see violence on the evening news and it would impact her — for a moment. But it wasn’t long before she went back to her routine.

“Now there is no going back,” she told the crowd of 3,100. “For me there is no turning away. If you want to protect your children, if you want to avoid this loss, you will not turn away either. Do something before our tragedy becomes your tragedy.”

Paralyzed after the death of her 6-year-old son, Hockley said she was inspired to lobby the Connecticut legislature on his behalf. But it took her months to summon the courage to get involved in the conversation on gun control.

“We approached the Connecticut legislature with love and logic and they listened,” Hockley said. “They responded with respect and the strongest gun responsibility legislation in the nation.”

She said her expectations for Congress are high and that with the same approach of “love and logic,” they will prevail.

President Obama has high hopes as well. He’s bringing Hockley and 10 other families back to Washington with him to lobby for stricter gun control laws, but he admitted it won’t be easy.

Hugh McQuaid photo

President Barack Obama

In a 28-minute address Monday before thousands at the University of Hartford, Obama said he doesn’t understand how something like universal background checks — which has the support of 90 percent of the American public — may not get a vote in Congress.

“How often do 90 percent of Americans agree on anything?” Obama said.

“You would think with those numbers Congress would rush to make this happen,” he said. “You’d think that this would not be a heavy lift and yet some folks back in Washington are already floating the idea that they may use political stunts to prevent votes on any of those reforms.”

He said they’re not just saying they’ll vote against the bill, they’re saying they won’t even allow a vote.

“That’s like saying your opinion doesn’t matter,” Obama told the crowd.

The crowd started chanting: “We want a vote. We want a vote.”

Obama waited until they quieted to transition back to the beltway.

“I’ve also heard some in the Washington press suggest that what happens to gun violence legislation in Congress this week will either be political victory or defeat for me. Connecticut, this is not about me. This is not about politics. This is about doing the right thing for all the families that are here that have been torn apart by gun violence,” Obama said over a cheering crowd.

He insisted this was not about politics.

Convinced that America is not as divided as some may suggest, Obama said cable news and the Internet may have people thinking everyone just hates each other and everyone’s “at each others throats’.”

“But that’s not how most Americans think about these issues,” Obama said. “There are good people on both sides of every issue.”

He said Connecticut was able to pass bipartisan legislation because they listened to one another. He hopes that Congress can do the same.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who signed gun control legislation last week, used his time at the podium as more of a victory lap. He said the laws Connecticut passed, including universal background checks and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, should give supporters confidence “that you can stand up to people who raise their voice louder than yours. That you can stand up when you have what’s right on your side.”

Newtown has been called a tipping point in the gun control debate and U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy have said they hope passage of Connecticut’s legislation becomes the turning point in the national debate.

Blumenthal said he has been lobbying his colleagues to get gun control legislation to the Senate floor for a vote. But he expected testimony this week from the families of the Sandy Hook victims to be more persuasive than that of any politician. 

“The president’s being here is a powerful and important message, but at the end of the day these families in their grief and healing have a firsthand experience that virtually no one can match and a testimony that is incomparable in its power,” he said.

An estimated 3,100 students, faculty, and invited guests packed the University of Hartford Sports Center as they awaited Obama’s arrival Monday, including many of those who helped get Connecticut’s laws passed.

Ron Pinciaro, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence, said the president’s visit affirmed that Connecticut was on the right track when it passed sweeping gun control legislation.

“It sends a strong signal that we did the job that the rest of the country was expecting us to do,” he said.

Hugh McQuaid photo

Ron Pinciaro, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence

Although Pinciaro was pleased with the steps the state had taken to curb gun violence, he said it would be tougher to accomplish on the federal level. He said he was disappointed that some gun control proposals seem to have fallen off the table in the national debate.

“The makeup of Congress at this point is very, very difficult for our point of view,” he said.

Pinciaro said he expected Obama to reinforce the need for outspoken popular support to overcome political resistance in Washington.

Meg Staunton and Nancy Lefkowitz, two Fairfield mothers who founded March for Change, said they felt as if Connecticut could serve as a template for other states. But they also said it would need to start as a grassroots effort.

Staunton and Lefkowitz said they were hoping the president’s acknowledgement of Connecticut’s gun legislation would encourage other states to pass similar measures.

Lefkowitz said she hoped other people would be inspired by Obama “saying publicly he’s proud of these lawmakers . . . proud of what they’ve done.”

Hugh McQuaid photo

Craig Bentley

Craig Bentley, a senior at the University of Hartford, said he felt Connecticut had taken the wrong steps in response to the Newtown tragedy. With a Gadsden “Don’t tread on me” flag draped over his shoulders, Bentley told reporters Connecticut lawmakers should have focused more on school safety than gun control.

Though he said most gun owners supported measures like universal background checks, he said some aspects of the state’s new law were unconstitutional. Bentley acknowledged his view was a minority view on campus and in the gymnasium where the president would soon be speaking.

As he was speaking with reporters before the event began, another student walked by and told Bentley to “show some respect.”

Tags: , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

(40) Comments

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 8, 2013  8:34pm

Do something before our tragedy becomes your tragedy.

I agree, but the Democrat party blocked it.

From the early days of horror I asked myself, what if it was my son? Would I become an anti gun person like these people?

No. My sadness would be tremendous and stay with me forever, but I would not be pushing for these gun laws. I would probably want to destroy anyone in my town government that may have fought against armed security if the issue was raised prior by anyone. I would definitely go bezerk on anyone in my town government that would still be for gun free zones after this occurred and they would live in fear after I was done with them. I would also be as outspoken as anyone could be about bad parents and nut jobs walking the streets. I could tell this about the shooter in this case, Aurora and Tuscon just looking at pictures and not knowing them.

I would not fight to strip down the second amendment and tell people what kinds of guns they can own and magazine sizes. I might feel like that would be logical, but because prior to this happening I would have been educated enough on the agenda of the left,  I would not let my sons death by a nut job be fuel to empower people who had this agenda before his death. They dont care about him. If they did they would have pushed for armed security. Can you imagine the power they would have if they had been and it was blocked by Republicans? They didnt though. They hate to see people die but that feeling passes and it becomes part of an agenda.

By this time I would be so sick of Chris Murphy that the media would talk about my contempt for him as a news story.

Would I have as much contempt for Malloy. Based on how I think he acted when this happened (and I still think he showed good leadership and great compassion), if I was in that group I would be vocal and disappointed in what he has done. However,  I would imagine he comforted me and my family in that time at the fire station and after and I would show him respect in disagreeing with him.

posted by: Ray | April 8, 2013  10:03pm

My sympathies to the families and friends of those killed in Newtown.  Legislation should not be based on politics.  I agree.  It should be based on facts.  Once the Sandy Hook report comes out, then we can make appropriate decisions.

posted by: azinkerman | April 8, 2013  10:12pm

Christine, Your coverage with hugh was some of the best I’ve seen tonight. Keep it up.

posted by: shootist | April 8, 2013  10:31pm

If Obama’s gun control agenda was really about saving lives and not about control & growing the government again, then why are you not addressing the 1,200,000 lives a year, that’s 3288 lives a day that are lost to abortions in the US.
Obama is violating his oath of office & ignoring the Constitution regarding the 2nd Amendment, and as abortion rights are not in the Constitution, I really don’t want to hear about Roe V. Wade as an excuse for letting this slaughter continue.

And, oh yes; Obama’s drones killed 11 innocent little children today.

posted by: Noteworthy | April 9, 2013  7:07am

It’s a circus and the tent just got bigger.

posted by: dano860 | April 9, 2013  7:08am

First, Mr. Bentley was exercising his first amendment right and from what I have seen reported he was respectful.
The statements made by Mrs. Hockley appear to try and make us all victims of Adam Lanza’s. The tragedy is beyond anyone’s comprehension but the laws they are pushing for would not have and will not prevent the Newtown atrocity.
The guns used were stolen!
Where are the Newtown parents that are not for these laws? They seem to miss the invitations to Barry’s campaign events. They somehow get passed by when the media shows up also.
There will be more tragedies for families to deal with, planes crash, buses crash, tornadoes and hurricanes still will hit, sink holes happen, buildings and homes burn, bombs will be detonated…we do not live in a risk free world!
We can not legislate a risk free world but we can take steps to keep firearms stored and handled safely, we can identify persons that shouldn’t drive or have a pilots license so we can identify those that should not have a gun.
We can and should address the deaths caused by mis-use of prescription drugs, this kills 3 times more people than guns. We should look to preventing abortions, far more dead than nuts with guns cause.
The Connecticut legislation will have many unintended victims, business’s moving out, business’s not moving in, loss of Internet revenue, increase in jobless rolls and unemployment, loss of sportsmen and associated revenue and the list goes on.
Making us all victims of Newtown will only alienate a large portion of society. These actions are not what is needed. They should reject all of these proposals at the Federal level, they should re-visit the Ct. legislation and come up with something that answers the question,“Will this prevent another Newtown or equivalent atrocity?”

posted by: JH_1 | April 9, 2013  7:39am

I agree 100% with bigjoe.  I also think the democrats, especially at the federal level let a great opportunity to do something effective against gun violence slip through. 

Had they focused their energy on the root causes such as mental illness, career criminals getting slapped on the wrist, school security, the deterioration of family values, etc, they could have passed true bipartisan legislation with widespread support.

Instead, they immediately went after guns and immediately received significant pushback.  Now, I doubt anything will pass that will make any difference.

In this state, I still think some parts of the bill that passed were good, but I do think that some aspects were purely political, such as the ban on semi-auto rifles with evil features.  That’s actually the only piece of the legislation that I completely disagree with.

I also would have preferred to see more being done about the mental illness issue (besides legislating that another committee would be established).

posted by: jim1 | April 9, 2013  7:39am

Yes what went down was real bad. But new laws are not they to go as most times they are pleay bargain away. The new law will only hurt people who rollow the law not the people an the other side.  One of the only thing this bill will do is to make guns on Dixwell Ave. go up in price, I have 10 mags that are LCM and do you think that I will reg. them no…...Some other parts of the bill are r]from star treck {part 3 section 5 line 2 subpart 15 give me a break}  You could have saved time by just saying any gun before April 1 is ok and after April 1 has to be turned in.  This law will go to court. I have 6 10 shot mags and it takes 1 sec. to change mags.  And as far as the guns {lever actions that can hold more than 10 shots} tell the Indians that attacked the US army they were not assualt guns….... I could go on and on as to this bill but it is what the Conn. gov. wanted I will never vote for any one that voted this in even if I have vote for the comm. party, intentment party, or right my self in.  If not all my Dr. lived in Conn. I would move to Nelson, Ga.  I think I will get another pit bull one for the frount door and one for the back.  Gun owner lives here and only has $200.00 worth of ammo but it takes only one to end the problem when the cops show up in 1/2 hr. only one story.

posted by: ASTANVET | April 9, 2013  8:07am

You know those Founders were some quirky folks.  Immediately following the revolution where they defeated the best military in the world at the time, fought for freedom and liberty of the individual over a distant government so that all men are equal, and free - one of the first things they did was sit down to ensure that everyone could hunt deer… if you think the 2A was about deer hunting you’re mistaken.  I respectfully disagree with not only this legislation, this law, but with the idea that is floated out there that this has anything to do with safety… I Never trust a politician who says - ‘but think of the children’.  You can’t provide safety by making people afraid of guns or whatever is on the agenda next.  Politicians rule through fear.  They amp up your fear about something and then use that fear to strip your rights.  Rights ladies and gentlemen are NOT there for the pleasure of the government to decide what parts of them are ok, and what aren’t.  Apply that test to any one of your cherished rights… religion, speech, search and seizure. ——those who are willing to trade their freedoms for security deserve neither.

posted by: CT Jim | April 9, 2013  8:40am

Between Joebigjoe and the shootist it’s seems almost not woth it to coment on these pages. Unfortunately the right wing turn your tinfoil hats to the sky nut jobs have once again taken over a truly good informational page. For Joe to act like he would calmly know what to say and do if it was his family is sickening and the shootist rational is right out of a Rick Santorum i’m a nut job playbook.

posted by: Not that Michael Brown | April 9, 2013  9:03am

Let’s hope they get an up or down vote in the Senate.  No politics.  Vote.

posted by: RLee | April 9, 2013  9:18am

If 90% are for universal background checks where is the opposing 10% representation among the Newtown victims families? Is there any among them, even a distant cousin or close friend, that doesn’t seem to be right in step with the gun control agenda?

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 9, 2013  10:03am

CT Jim, you either have values or beliefs that are strongly held or you don’t. I’m sure if a story came out where someone said that 25 babies were unsuccessfully aborted in some clinic, the pro abortion people would say “thats horrible but what about the million other successful abortions over the last 10 years.” They have their beliefs and values and I have mine.

If I were you Jim I would really start to worry why Mark Matioli, father of one of the victims was not invited on 60 Minutes, was not invited to washington, and was not at Obamas address yesterday.

You see, people that are not easily fooled see that he has a position that doesnt fit their agenda. Is the loss of his son James any less important? Certainly seems that way to everyone except the sheeple out there.

Chris Murphy and Obama dont want him on the same stage. Let the man speak even though he will take a different approach to why this happened and how to prevent another. Let his voice be heard.

Michael, no vote and here is why?

I want universal background checks. However I want mental health info in the NICS system yet Dems are fighting that. I want the check done, shown as approved or disapproved, and then any information on type of gun if approved to be destroyed so there can be no gun registry. Nope cant do that according to Dems. I want many thousands more people prosecuted for trying to defraud the background check system. Nope cant do that. Finally I dont want background checks for transfer between family members. None of the governments business. Nope cant do that.Gotta know what the family is doing because we’re a collective.

Now what is it that you want a vote on?

posted by: ad_ebay | April 9, 2013  12:14pm

dano860,
Why is it OK to exercise the First Amendment but NOT the Second?

posted by: ad_ebay | April 9, 2013  12:19pm

RLee,
I hear the gun-grabbers quote “90%” a lot.  It’s right out of Bloomberg’s playbook.
What “90%”?  Not the country, because no one asked me. 
Not the state for the same reason.
Not Newtown for the same reason.
Sooooo…..90% of what exactly?
A limited survey done in a limited population?  what good is that other than to get a number you wanted to start with?

posted by: ASTANVET | April 9, 2013  2:22pm

All this universal back ground check is nonsense - to purchase a gun you already needed a background check.  There was NO gun show loophole, when I purchased a gun at a gun show I needed to have it sent to a licensed dealer and do the waiting period, and background.  What is dumb is having to do a background check to give a gun to my brother, or transfer a gun to my kids later in life - that is just plain dumb.  Where is the “common sense” on that one?  Where is the common sense when having 11 rounds in a magazine will get you prosecuted more than a child molester?  All about the kids right…

posted by: JH_1 | April 9, 2013  3:27pm

The 90% the gun control groups keep talking about is a bogus number released by a Quinnipiac poll sometime back in Feb. of this year.  I say it’s bogus because I don’t think you can trust a university poll on such a polarizing issue.  Everybody knows most colleges / universities lean pretty far left and everyone knows polling questions can be framed to elicit a specific answer. The question could have been very high level without any specifics as to what it actually means.

One additional comment about that same poll.  A follow up question in the same poll indicated about 45% of those same people believed background checks could lead to eventual confiscation. Funny how that never gets mentioned.

Finally, the supposed 40% of sales that don’t have any background checks is also bogus.  That’s a statistic taken from a study done back in 1993 prior to the original Clinton gun ban.  I don’t think anyone knows for sure what that number is know, but I’m sure it’s a lot less than 40%.

posted by: borisvian | April 9, 2013  3:57pm

Rusty Shackleford here, reporting from Connecticut. Rusty Shackleford is not my real name, but I’m a proud gun owner and NRA member, enough said. My reporting is somewhat belated, but I just had to run down to the ER, because I shot my foot accidentally.

It’s totally outrageous what just happened in the Connecticut legislation. Those goddamn soicleasists or whatever it spells (frankly, I don’t even know what it means, I just heard it from people, who are much smarter than me, and who have lots of money) changed the laws and the lives of some of the gun owners.

They took away gun owners Second Amendment right of the ability to peacefully slaughter (without having to bother too much with changing magazines) those, who are against the USA, or at least those, who are against us, gun owners.

Because, you see, one shouldn’t kill, so says God, but then there are the ones who deserve to be killed. So, there you have it. Put them before God to sort them out, and if they’re innocent, they go to the heaven, by default. So, they ain’t got nothing to lose.

We believe that our enemies should be killed, or at least put into concentration camps, like Gitmo. Yeah, I said Gitmo, outside the USA, because concentration camps should be somewhere else, and not in the USA. You see, despite our big-huge-an-huge-big guns, we are an extremely sensitive crowd and we’re scared senseless of those hundred+ unarmed, locked-up, suspicious guys, too. What would happen, if they were brought to the USA, in maximum-security prison?!? They could even pray for bad weather, bad luck or any such things, once in the USA.

Back to Hartford, some of the gun owners showed up in person at the State Capitol at the day of the voting. Some of them even got dressed into military mascara to entertain the crowd and to show the lawmakers and everybody else, they know what joke is.

But, it was all useless. Insensitive, rude, impolite, unmoral, unpatriotic, (in one word: soocelisit), etc. unarmed politicians brought even more fears and terror into those big, sensitive hearts of these poor gun owners. They’ve been kicked around for so long, they don’t even know which way is up. Looks like they have to resort to magazines that carry only 10 (ten) bullets. Ouch!!!

Rusty Shackleford from Hartford, CT.

I’ll be back, with more reporting.

And, remember, you don’t know me but I know you!

posted by: jim1 | April 9, 2013  6:34pm

Now lets see he wants the 90% to say all there about gun and how bad they are,  not one of my guns have ever moved off the table and done anything.  Now the 90% of the wall st. people are told to take a hike from the same man.

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 9, 2013  7:38pm

Cute and funny in parts Boris.

Did I misread or do you think that Muslim terrorists should be in US prisons?

posted by: anuddaCTresident | April 9, 2013  8:12pm

How the President can say with a straight face that it isn’t about politics is astonishing.  Its ALL politics.  The entire event took place to put pressure on political opponents to do what he wants done.

Yes, point a finger at “powerful interests” and forget that those interests are the interests of thousands of like minded gun owners who ARE the NRA.

If you call an irrational response “common sense” enough, does it truly render it so?  If you have to tell people something is common sense so frequently, I think…maybe..its not assumed to be “common” sense by all.

I swear if I hear the disinegenuous “if there is even one thing we can do to protect our kids…” nonsense rhetoric again, I will puke.  There are so many things we fail to do to protect and nurture our youth, its ridiculous.  So many other simple, “common sense” efforts that don’t trample on constitutional rights could be addressed that would positively affect so many more children.  Talk about irrational fear mongering…  Where has all this righteousness been hiding?

I hesitate to write this part because some will call me a monster….but I am very, very tired of having the Newtown families trotted out as some kinds of experts on gun control issues.  Experts on grief….my God, certainly so.  I hold them in my prayers. I am not a parent and can’t even begin to imagine the pain they feel, but they are not experts on this issue and they are trotted out only for effect and to strong arm and shame the opposition.

posted by: anuddaCTresident | April 9, 2013  8:44pm

Forgot my real point…if all this stuff “deserves a vote” stop playing political games by trying to ram it all down our throats in one giant, unpalatable lump….it will fail.

If these efforts are all so common sense, draft them as individual Acts that can be voted upon.  The things that make sense, thusly, will get voted for by the supposed 90%.

Why can’t there be a stand alone “100% background checks” act without tying it to a AW ban?

I’ll support background checks…I won’t support an AW ban.

No, lets, instead, tie up all the common sense with unConstitutional garbage, tie the whole process up and then name call and bash those that wont accept the whole package because of the foul kernel at its center that spoils the whole package.

posted by: rankandfile | April 9, 2013  8:57pm

Facts are always better than knee-jerk opinions:  http://www.assaultweapon.info/

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 10, 2013  7:46am

Why is this not a story in CT media but it is around the country. It happened in Bristol.

Whats the penalty for this type of indoctrination?

posted by: borisvian | April 10, 2013  8:30am

Thank’s goodness, Dylan Quick didn’t exercise his Second Amendment “right”, this way 14 lives didn’t end too soon.

posted by: borisvian | April 10, 2013  9:02am

Sack your 2ndA phantasy, it saves lives. Gun owners kill 30 000 plus people every year. Ever since the Newtown massacre, there are more than 3000 people killed by gun owners, more people, than at the WTC attack. These gun owners are anti-American and unpatriotic, after all, they manage to kill more than 30 000 people every year.

Lets celebrate life, ban all guns for private citizens!

posted by: timelord | April 10, 2013  9:50am

There’s no denying that the parents and friends of the kids and adults killed in Newtown experienced a life-changing loss.  But passing legislation based on strong emotions is immoral and unwise.  Obama is an evil man for toting these families around for purely political reasons.

posted by: CT Jim | April 10, 2013  10:06am

Joebigjoe, You need to stay on message please… I know it’s difficult especially when all the Frank Luntz’s talking points say when your losing the argument change the subject. This has nothing to do with abortion or gay rights or any other far right issue you want to throw out there this is about the culture of fear and murder in the US and the forsight of some good politicians to help protect the public from a crazy person with an assault rifle or at least with the smaller magazines there’s a shot to stop them before they kill 30-40 people. As for JH-1 your assessment of the Q-poll is a joke. I’m sure Frank Luntz and other right wing spin miesters would have already told us to look at Rasmussen or Gallop but he hasn’t. Why??? Because they say the same thing. Grow up stop making stuff up and deal with it.

posted by: JH_1 | April 10, 2013  10:53am

Ct Jim - I stick by my comments on the 90% figure from the QU poll.  Like I said before, questions can and are usually framed to get a specific response, a.k.a - “leading the witness”. 

For example, if the question was simply “do you support universal background checks?”, I think any reasonable person would have said yes.

What if the question was “do you support universal background checks even if it includes gun registration?”  I doubt the positive response would have been 90%.  It’s likely to be a lot less.

I don’t listen to what Luntz has to say either because he’s just as bad, only to the far right.

posted by: ASTANVET | April 10, 2013  10:56am

My theory is that Borisvain is trying so despirately to be provocative and noticed that he will get one of us to act inappropriately.  Lawful gun owners did not kill 30,000 people last year - thugs with guns did - does CT’s new law do anything to prevent thugs and criminals from possessing, transporting or using guns… nope.  So nice try borris -

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 10, 2013  11:13am

Jim as for polls I really dont care about them even if they support my positions. We shouldnt govern and modify the Constitution by polls. Lawmakers need to become quasi-experts on what they are voting on, and cast their vote like that and not because they care whether you or I will vote for them. Thats called statesmanship.

As for my abortion analogy it wasnt as clear as it could be and there was no attempt to change the message.

posted by: JH_1 | April 10, 2013  11:29am

One final thought for CT Jim - No need for you to lecture me and tell me to “grow up and deal with it”.  I’ve stated many times before I don’t mind the background checks.  I think they’re necessary to keep guns out of the wrong hands.  I never said I disagree with the background checks.

My comment on the QU poll was in response to someone asking where the much talked about 90% came from.  I stand by that assessment.

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 10, 2013  12:30pm

New information out here. Read this and then with a straight face tell me who the crazy people are? Gun owners or anti-gun people? I’m not including people that just dont like guns but the ones that work against gun ownership or pontificate against gun ownership.

If you say gun owners then I guess they’re going to need alot more hospitals because we must all be nuts.

If you say anti-gun people, Ask yourself what millions and millions of people see that you dont? Here is the info.

During Barack Obama’s presidency there have been 32 background checks for gun purchases every minute.

Since February of 2009, the first full month of Obama’s presidency, there have been 70,291,049 background checks for gun purchases, according to data released by the FBI.

Using February 1, 2009 as our starting date, and March 31, 2013 as our end date, (the latest data from the FBI) Obama has been president for 1,520 days.

That equates to 36,480 hours, or 2,188,800 minutes.

Divide the 70,291,049 background checks by 2,188,800 minutes and you get approximately 32 checks for gun purchases every minute!

I say the math is being kind because the background checks are not available 24/7 in any state I’m aware of.

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 10, 2013  1:12pm

Here is some more NEW data. Since the tragedy there have been more than 2000 NEW permit applications from the Town of Newtown to State Police. I’m sure there were probably a couple of thousand existing permit holders before that horrible day, so when you take the population, subtract out people under 21, it would seem that a very high percentage of eligible adults will have permits.

Now if I could get this info, how come the news can’t?

posted by: rankandfile | April 10, 2013  1:14pm

borisvian, spreading misinformation again? 2/3 of those firearms deaths were suicides. It’s deceptive to blame those suicides on the guns, Japan has almost twice the suicide rate we do and only two or so gun deaths a year.  Besides, Democrats support the right to assisted suicide, so why not unassisted suicide? That seems a little hypocritical. 4% of gun homicides occur from rifles. and 0.6% from so called “assault rifles”. 75% of the victims of gun homicide are criminals. Meanwhile the Clinton Justice Dept. found that guns are used 1.5 million times per year for self-defense. A 1993 study found that found that “2.45 million crimes were thwarted each year in the United States by guns” As for Dylan Quick, 2 of this victims were critically injured. Maybe if his victims had been allowed to exercise their 2nd amendment rights a lot less than 14 of them would of them would have been wounded.

posted by: borisvian | April 10, 2013  3:42pm

The only gun-fact to know: THEY KILL.

Nobody could kill 26 people in 5 minutes without guns. Lets not even get into the classification game.

A gun is a gun is a gun, ban them all.

posted by: Joebigjoe | April 10, 2013  4:37pm

Thanks for you honesty Boris.  Ban them all huh?

Oh yeah the answer is Tim McVeigh and the guy who killed the most school kids in history in Michigan with that bomb.

A larger stronger person could have done the same thing with the right kind of knife in five minutes. Don’t believe me? How did terrorists gain control of cockpits on 9 -11 without the right kind of knife including killing a former special forces person sitting in first Class.

posted by: ASTANVET | April 10, 2013  6:56pm

BORISVAIN - i guess you’ve never heard of a VBIED - a propane truck, an oil truck - fertilizer?  Your argument is flawed - guns are useless unless someone pulls the trigger.  You are trying to perfect the human condition, which has had many failed attempts.  What makes you think you are morally superior to the gun owning folks?  What makes you think that you know better .... I’d be happy to sit down and debate with you any time you like - I stand for individual freedom, personal responsibility, liberty - what do you stand for?

posted by: rankandfile | April 10, 2013  8:12pm

borisvian, wrong again. McVeigh killed far more in seconds. 167 dead, 19 under the age of 6. What about the 9/11 terrorists? The 1927 school dynamiting killed 44 and injured 58 in seconds. Jonestown, over 200 children dead in minutes, 913 total dead. The Omagh massacre, 29 dead and 220 injured in seconds. Do I need to go on?

posted by: dano860 | April 11, 2013  7:29am

@ Ad_ebay, you must not have followed any of my other comments. How do you get that I don’t support the 2nd amendment out of my latest comment?
I support the Constitution, the whole Constitution. I support the second amendment. I have fought for the Constitution many times, the 4th amendment is very important to me too.
To Owebama the Constitution is a list of limitations, yes, thankfully it is otherwise we would be getting steam rolled by his Socialist ideas.
Stand together, we’ll make it through the next 3 years with any luck, somehow.