Dargan Fields Angry Phone Calls Over Bill To Make Gun Permits Public
by Christine Stuart | Jan 4, 2013 3:43pm
Google
(69) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Town News, Newtown, Law Enforcement, Public Safety
Hugh McQuaid file photo
Stephen Dargan of West Haven
Rep. Stephen Dargan of West Haven doesn’t back down from a fight. When people call and leave threatening messages he calls them back.
By Friday at 2 p.m. he had about 70 messages on his home answering machine in response to his proposal to make the names and addresses of gun permit holders public. That information has been confidential since 1994.
“Everytime you try to expand Freedom of Information statutes everybody goes nuts,” Dargan said Friday.
But he’s not fazed by the opposition to the bill. “I’m used to it,” Dargan said. “I’ve been a representative for a very long time.”
Dargan was elected to the House in 1990.
As chair of the Public Safety Committee, Dargan deals with law enforcement on a regular basis. But he said he hasn’t felt compelled to call any police officers to inform them of the phone messages.
Dargan let CTNewsJunkie listen to one of the angry calls from a gun enthusiast.
“You need to stop this please,” the caller said. “This has gone too far.”
The male caller described the legislation as a “hate crime” against gun owners.
Dargan, whose home phone is publicly listed, calls many of the callers back and talks to them if their number shows up on caller ID. He said they may not agree, but they seem to reach an understanding.
“I’m a middle-of-the-road guy,” Dargan said.
The fear being expressed by many of the callers is that if the information is made public they will become targets for criminals who will try to steal their guns, according to Rich Burgess, president of Connecticut Carry.
“You have the people who have a permit and potentially own firearms who do not want to be victims of crime (which is likely why they have the permit in the first place) who are put at risk when their address is put online with essentially a sign that says ‘firearms here’,” Burgess said last week.
He said he can’t see any good coming out of releasing the information.
“There are 170,000-plus pistol permit holders in Connecticut and the vast, vast majority do nothing to harm anyone each day,” Burgess said. “So telling people where those people live as if they are threats to the community would accomplish what precisely?”
Dargan said there’s public information about all types of things from what kind of dog someone may own to how much their home is worth. The computer age has only increased the amount of information that’s out there.
He said he introduced the legislation so it could be part of the gun control discussion prompted by the Newtown school shooting.
Tags: Stephen Dargan, gun control, gun permit listings, FOIA, Newtown, dh
(69) Comments
posted by: Longtime NHResident | January 4, 2013 5:03pm
Next he’ll want to post all the names of women who have had abortions so they can be harassed too.
This will only lead to anti-gun people harassing people for no reason except excersing their rights- maybe its time for Dargan to step down he’s been doing this too long.
What good will come from this???
posted by: NoNonsense2012 | January 4, 2013 6:03pm
“Dargan said there’s public information about all types of things from what kind of dog someone may own to how much their home is worth. The computer age has only increased the amount of information that’s out there.” So what? That’s no justification for releasing more. What a Ridiculous (yes, with a capital R) answer.
posted by: Joe Eversole | January 4, 2013 6:53pm
Dargan said there’s public information about all types of things from what kind of dog someone may own to how much their home is worth. The computer age has only increased the amount of information that’s out there.
Which doesn’t answer the question. How exactly are releasing the names and locations of those who have permits going to increase public safety?
posted by: Reasonable | January 4, 2013 8:01pm
Rep. Stephen Dargan should worry about the people out there—“with unregistered guns.”
Leave the legal gum-owners alone - instead of opening up “a can of worms.”
Suggest Mr. Dargan give his attention to our deficit state budget, instead of “wasting his efforts” on disclosing gun-owners. Give it a break, Stephen. I knew your wonderful father, who was a pillar in his church.
posted by: Walt | January 4, 2013 8:08pm
Not to jointhe gun nuts but if all the legal gun owners are listed we non-listees seem to be more at risk, as the crooks will feel they are less likely to be armed if they wish to attack.
It is a move that would just tell the criminal where he can most likely select a safer home to burglarise or invade.
posted by: NoNonsense2012 | January 4, 2013 8:43pm
@Joe Eversole: Here’s the answer to your question: It doesn’t.
posted by: gutbomb86 | January 5, 2013 2:23am
Dargan is a brave guy. I applaud his effort. A lot of gun owners and the folks who support their privacy are pretty upset about this issue. However, the guns used in the murders in Newtown were guns owned legally and allowed to fall into the hands of a madman. The idea here, which is going to be offensive to legal gun owners, is that the presence of any firearms represents a public health threat because people can’t be trusted to safeguard them. It’s a discussion worth having. Complicated. But worth having.
posted by: justsayin | January 5, 2013 7:46am
This is one of the dumber suggestions I have heard, worse than taxing bullets! Things like this make me very concerned about our “leadership”.
posted by: Noteworthy | January 5, 2013 9:28am
Dargan’s plan to make all this information public serves no good purpose. Before he proposed such a dumb idea, he should look at what’s happening in NY and all the retired cops and public safety people who predict that paper’s efforts will lead to tragedy. When it does, will Dargan then do an about face, and then try to ban the information? Citizens really need to demand more thoughtful, deliberative and smart public officials.
posted by: DEZ | January 5, 2013 11:15am
I look at it this way. First? God has absolutely NOTHING to do with your right to bear arms, the second amendment does, so stop your preaching there. Freedom of religion means freedom FROM religion. Keep your God out of my business. Second, your AK-47 will do NOTHING to save you or your loved ones from the tyranny of the government when the US Air Force is using drone strikes to wipe out your town. Get real people. Thirdly, the reason criminals are stealing guns is because gun enthusiasts CAN’T KEEP THEIR GUNS SAFE FROM THEIVERY! Hello? The criminals aren’t walking up to armed citizens and forcibly grabbing their firearms to go mug some old lady. Those firearms make it into the mainstream by home robbery. I look at it like this, the second amendment folks had their chance to keep their legally obtained firearms out of the hands of criminals. They failed. Adam Lanza’s mother failed. They didn’t secure them like a good gun owner would (it’s called a SAFE people, and it’s huge, and heavy, and bolted to the floor and has a combination and keeps guns away from kids and CRIMINALS). You want to flout you right to bear arms? Then let me know who I can run to for protection so that you may protect me, your fellow American, when I’m in the process of being robbed. Let me know where my child can and cannot play where he doesn’t run the risk of being killed by the lazy action of a gun owner who HASN’T properly secured their firearm. (And NO, under your pillow or mattress or the shoebox in the closet is not a secure place). The NRA has FAILED THIS NATION by not working harder to make sure gun owners were…wait for it…RESPONSIBLE. That is why this needs to be debated smartly, and legislated accordingly. Bravo for a responsible elected official to have the brass to start this conversation.
posted by: Reasonable | January 5, 2013 11:17am
gutbomb86: You are right. There are just too many guns out there, whether registered or not. Also, these guns will by law of averages, end up in the hands of mentally unstable and dangerous people. It’s also akin to the drug pushers for protection—that lead to many murders.
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 5, 2013 11:35am
Gutbomb with all due respect that was the dumbest thing you ever said.
Do you realize that police officers and prison guards in New York are having their lives and that of their families threatened due to this stuff because they own guns legally?
Knowing this is occurring you would think the newspaper would stop but NO they want to put more innocent people in jeopardy. Why would they do that? Because if they can create more violence around guns including sacrificing the lives of innocent people then its all good for their agenda.
Now knowing that this is happening to retired NYC police officers that put away very scary criminals, present police, present and past prison guards, do you still think its a reasonable idea?
You also said “presence of any firearm.” That tells me you want private citizens to not be allowed to have guns. Some people want to limit the type of firearm or size of magazine but you are pretty sick if in your world the presence of any firearm is bad. Seriously mentally ill if thats what you think. You should be on some sort of list.
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 5, 2013 12:10pm
DEZ, I totally agree with you on keeping guns secured. However your arguments make no sense beyond that. They may sound good when you type away but lets look at some facts.
Criminals steal guns but they also get them from the black market. Criminals wouldnt be in the community to steal guns (again agree 100% that they should be secured) if they were not in prison longer. You see I was never given the choice of a busway or money for prisons or mental hospitals, so who is to blame there?
As for Air Force drones, yeah if it gets that far we are screwed, but there are a thousand things between that and where we are today.
No one ever thought an educated broke nation would look the other way as handicapped and 6 million people were killed.
I have to been to China 6 times in the last 4 years. They have an issue with politicians extorting from private citizens. Do you know that if the citizens of a small town push back that the military cordons off the town, kills a few people if necessary, beats up alot of people for about a year, and then when people have been rehabilitated they open the town up again? Hmmm, our leading trade partner so is it too far fetched for me to think that if we are willing to look the other way on that, that someday people could run this country the same way?
posted by: Cel | January 5, 2013 1:20pm
I’m not quite sure how having a list of 170,000 people who have guns would be beneficial in any instance
posted by: Reasonable | January 5, 2013 1:26pm
DEZ: Our problem is that because of our inept presidency, and congress—this country is screwed up—BIG TIME. Nothing will change as long as we have this inept country club crew, who only serve themselves, not the people —in charge—exploiting our people! Perhaps we must have another Boston Tea Party—to regain our constitutional rights—which have been stolen from us by some worthless politicians—who have us in between a rock and a hard place!”
posted by: BMC556 | January 5, 2013 4:37pm
@ DEZ… I asked myself the same question… “WHO will protect me and my family?”... after reading the details of the Cheshire home invasion/murders of July 23, 2007. This was a case where a 911 call DID go out and Cheshire Police stood OUTSIDE the residence, waiting for a SWAT Team to arrive as a mother and two daughters were raped and murdered in their own home. The answer I came up with was… “NO ONE will protect my home or family.” I realized at that time that it is MY responsibility. I am now a VERY responsible gun owner and pistol permit holder. I sincerely wish we lived in a peaceful society, free from threats. Unfortunately, we do not.
posted by: jschmidt2 | January 5, 2013 8:29pm
So if a women in a domestic dispute has a gun, her alienated partner will now know it. If a person has a gun, the criminals will know where to get more. If they don’t have a gun, the criminals will know who to rob. This is one of the dumbest bills that has ever been touted and Dargan should resign for shear stupidity.
posted by: Tim White 1 | January 6, 2013 10:43am
What is the purpose of this law? If Dargan says “FOI,” then why *now*?
Also, what is the % of people who own guns and have carry permits? What is the % of people who have carry permits and own guns?
posted by: jim1 | January 6, 2013 11:44am
Now lets see every one will now know that I have a gun. If I’m not home and they know where I live will they break in? Do I need to take the gun everywhere I go to keep the gun safe? Why don’t we list everyone that has been picked up for DUI to keep our kids safe. This type of listing from dog owners to people with hunting permits needs to stop…....It might be easer to list those that don’t have a gun this will make for some fun time on the streets of New Haven.
posted by: ConnVoter | January 6, 2013 4:05pm
As for Mr. Dargan’s plan, it’s the equivalent of posting everyone who has ever had sex, watched pornography or purchased a condom or other birth control device on a Megan’s Law registry. Maybe even stupider than that.
I would like to see the State post the names and addresses of *illegal* gun owners online. That would be great.
DEZ, how exactly has the NRA “FAILED THIS NATION” or failed to make sure that gun owners were “RESPONSIBLE”? Newtown began when a terrible human being elected to steal his mother’s guns, kill her with them, and then kill 26 other people. How did the NRA FAIL THIS NATION or otherwise enable Ms. Lanza to be RESPONSIBLE? Are you saying that the NRA should encourage women not to let their sons sleep in their homes if they own guns? Really?
You are engaging in endless, reckless hyperbole that serves no public safety function. None.
posted by: DEZ | January 7, 2013 10:53am
ConnVoter, there is no hyperbole that Ms. Lanza did not keep her weapons out of the hands of her son. If you apply for a permit, then inspections should be part of the process to see that whomever has firearms, also has the ability to keep them safely protected from the criminal element who steals them and then perpetrates these crimes. This includes a gun safe as I described before. If gun owners can’t keep their firearms safe, then they shouldn’t have firearms, and that’s a fact, not hyperbole.
posted by: DEZ | January 7, 2013 10:56am
Whoopsie, and the NRA should be lobbying for the legislation to ensure these inspections are part of the permitting process in every state. The NRA should be lobbying to close the gun show loopholes if they are concerned for responsible gun ownership.
posted by: BMC556 | January 7, 2013 12:30pm
Article from Westchester/Rockland Newsday…
Inmates at the Rockland County jail are taunting corrections officers by saying they know the guards’ home addresses—information they got from the list published by Westchester-based newspaper, Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco said.
“Since about 9:30 this morning, I’ve been in a meeting with my corrections officers and their unions. They have inmates coming up to them and telling them exactly where they live. That’s not acceptable to me,” Falco said at a news conference Friday morning in New City, where local leaders condemned the list.
And Rep. Dargan is eager to do the same thing in CT!!! As if Police and Corrections Officers don’t have enough to worry about!!!
posted by: ad_ebay | January 7, 2013 1:08pm
When did our “unalienable right” become a “regulated privilege”? What’s next? License to vote? A test to allow you to speak your mind? What’s the next constitutional guarantee to go?
posted by: Reasonable | January 7, 2013 2:17pm
DEZ: Thank you for your common sense: “If gun owners can’t keep their forearms safe, they should’nt have firearms.” Amen.
posted by: ConnVoter | January 7, 2013 4:09pm
DEZ, that’s like saying that when a car is stolen and a crime is committed in it, the owner of the car should be held liable because he or she didn’t keep his or her car from being stolen. Talk about losing the forest through the trees.
Oh, and by the way, before you dismiss that as an irrelevant analogy, remember that about four times as many people die in auto-related deaths than from guns each year.
posted by: DEZ | January 7, 2013 8:18pm
ConnVoter, wake up. Don’t give me useless analogies, keep your weapons out of the hands of criminals. If you can’t afford to keep your weapons safe, then you shouldn’t have them. Don’t deflect if you can’t accept a simple fact. The NRA is AGAINST any sort of safety in terms of keeping weapons off of the black market after they have been stolen by gun owners who can’t seem to keep track of them. They are against trigger locks, they are agains safes as well. Sorry buddy, but you don’t have a valid argument here.
posted by: DEZ | January 7, 2013 8:24pm
And BTW, ConnVoter, do you have a dog? Is he or she licensed? A better analogy is this; you ARE liable for damage done by your inability to keep your dog leashed and the general public safe should your dog attack someone or damage private property. I’d like to think that guns, which killed 16,800 people (homicides alone) last year, are a little more dangerous to the American people than my neighbors Poodle. Get real.
posted by: DEZ | January 7, 2013 8:37pm
NEWSFLASH…AND, I’m going to be labeled a ranter here, it IS TRUE, ConnVoter, that if you car is loaned to someone who is in an accident with it, you sure as shenanigans ARE held liable for that accident.
posted by: Reasonable | January 7, 2013 8:55pm
ConnVoter: You logic is not acceptable. Where most people need motor vehicles for transportation and commerce—most people do not have the same need for firearms. Your excuse that four times as many people die in auto related deaths —defies common sense as most auto accidents are accidental—and and occur in performing a necessary function in life—transportation. The loss of life by firearms is necessary only in protecting the public from criminals who endanger life of our innocent citizens, including our police officers in the line of duty. Our gun industry lobby, led by the NRA, would like to convince everyone—like they lobby Congress—that gun ownership be promoted for all people. Recent events like the Sandy Hook School
carnage—have proven otherwise. Unlike auto accidents—these gun related deaths were not accidental—but mass murder.
posted by: okaragozian1 | January 7, 2013 11:22pm
Registration of firearms is an infringement in firearm ownership. The second amendment prohibits infringement of firearms ownership.
posted by: okaragozian1 | January 8, 2013 9:34am
Respondent “Reasonable” is being unreasonable. Having a gun is as essential as having a driver’s license. Each item has a purpose and is essential. “Reasonable” could argue that hammers could only be sold to carpenters and not accountants. “Reasonable” can not say what one person can have and what another can’t have. The U.S. Constitutions says you can have something, then you can have it. Why doesn’t “Reasonable” be reasonable and move forward to amend the Constitution as required.
posted by: ConnVoter | January 8, 2013 9:44am
DEZ and Reasonable, no and no. You’re just wrong. DEZ, you twisted my argument: this isn’t about loaning a car or a failure to keep a dog leashed. This is about someone stealing a car or stealing a dog and whether the owners of the car or the dog should be liable for damages that were caused thereby. The answer is no, the person who stole them should. Swap “gun” for “dog” or “car” and you’re getting closer to relevance.
Reasonable, you don’t get to define the bounds of my right to own a gun. I do, and the Constitution does. If you want to stop gun crimes, go ahead and stop gun crimes. Make the theft of a firearm (or the use of a stolen firearm) in crime punishable by waterboarding or death by a firing squad. Don’t, however, cry “Newtown,” come up with some kooky form of suppression of legal gun owners’ rights, and then pretend you’re solving even a single problem.
By the way: I don’t even own a gun.
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 8, 2013 12:02pm
DEZand Reasonable, I want you to focus on something.
We ALL agree that we dont want any more Newtowns.
Watch the plan that Obama/Biden come out with and go line by line. You will not see one item that would have prevented this horrific event. Since people like you and I can agree we dont want these Newtowns then maybe you’ll see the light that there is another agenda.
Think that’s crazy then let me change the issue. You and I can agree to disagree on this forum and have arguments about our respective positions. Why would this government EVER even consider or push for an off switch for the internet. This is all about control of people and last I looked, my history books taught me that this doesn’t turn out well.
posted by: Reasonable | January 8, 2013 1:52pm
Joebigjoe: You are absolutely right about Obama-Biden. They are the leaders of our national problems, and are continuing to bury this country. Hopefully they are not leading us to a revolution. Perhaps this is the reason for a record
amount of gun sales at this juncture. The hidden past of Barack Hussein Obama is coming to the surface.
posted by: DEZ | January 8, 2013 2:23pm
A gun safe. End of story. If Ms. Lanza’s weapons were responsibly stored in a gun safe, her underage son would not have had access to her firearms to cause this horrific event. Period. It’s pretty simple. We need a multi faceted approach, which starts with dialogue (Bravo Dargan), BUT, firearms are the responsibility of the registered owner to keep secure, and these weapons were not secure. I can bet, if these weapons were in a safe, we wouldn’t be having this conversation today.
posted by: NoNonsense2012 | January 8, 2013 6:31pm
Well, one thing’s for sure: the wacky, illogical, over-the-top arguments made here are entertaining.
posted by: BMC556 | January 8, 2013 8:09pm
And what about keeping the mentally deranged psychopaths “secure”??? Since the mass deinstitutionalization of the states mental patients in the late 1970’s and 1980’s and state hospital closures, these walking time bombs live among us. If Lanza had been in an institution and under 24 hour supervision, we would not be having this conversation either.
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 9, 2013 12:08am
DEZ gun storage laws won’t even be part of what gets proposed. Again because having a national dialogue on how gun ownership is a right but also a privilege, and being responsible within your own home as some people are nuts, would never fly. Obama could request that the NRA pay for that campaign and they would, but this is no longer about preventing this horror from happening again in another venue but is about pushing a gun control bill that was probably written before Newtown ever occurred just waiting for the next massacre that we all knew would take place at some point.
posted by: DEZ | January 9, 2013 8:50am
BMC556, mental health issues may be flushed out with background checks for things like ammunition purchase, and obviously weapons purchase when not performed at a gun show. BUT, you are correct that mental health in this country needs to be addressed BIG TIME. I’m not sure this kid, horrific as the crime was, had been diagnosed with mental health issues.
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 9, 2013 1:40pm
DEZ again, you may be a nice person but you are a low information person. You said “I’m not sure this kid, horrific as the crime was, had been diagnosed with mental health issues. “
The mother was trying to get him committed. You dont go from zero to committed. I’m certain that there was mental health treatment. Based on his odd behavior in high school if the school didnt screen him, then we’re all screwed, but I think they did.
Speaking of mental health, why does no one talk about the fear and anxiety that kids must feel in schools now when they go on lockdown, and know that in the 5-10 minutes until police arrive, they can be killed, because of what enlightended liberal adults have decided is best for them. Looks like more kids on medication in the future. I think it would be better that they know that between the time of lockdown and the time police arrive that they are safe, don’t you?
posted by: Reasonable | January 9, 2013 5:40pm
It appears that we have veared away badly from the proposed bill to make gun ownership public —to the NRA and gun control, and the like. Let’s get back to the subject of whether this bill wiil be passed—or fade away?
posted by: DEZ | January 9, 2013 5:43pm
Joebigjoe, I know a lot about mental illness and what it takes to get people committed. A diagnosis is one. What was his diagnosis?
“Based on his odd behavior in high school if the school didnt screen him, then we’re all screwed, but I think they did”.
“Odd behavior”? You “think” they did? What pray tell was his diagnosis? Or hers? I’m not being flip here, but you just crossed the rudeness line on marginalizing kids who are normal but have “odd behavior” in high school. What’s odd? What kind of qualifying describer is that? Without diagnosis we will never know, and unfortunately, diagnosis leads to therapeutics. But the mental health issues that this adult exhibited should have been all the reason more for this mother to keep her weapons secured in the home they shared. Period. Evidently she didn’t think her own child exhibited “odd behavior” enough to keep him from killing her with her own weapons.
She had the power to stop it, but unfortunately didn’t by not securing her weapons.
Victim or accomplice?
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 9, 2013 6:30pm
DEZ, diagnosis is the wrong word but if you are telling me that he was not screened by a school psychologist and teachers didnt talk about his non communication, wearing the same clothes every day and a host of other issues of “weirdness” as told by his classmates then we have screwed up. I know my childrens classmates get screened when they have had behavioral issues or just acted antisocial whether it be the school psychologist or special ed.
If you think that the description of Adam Lanza by his classmates doesnt meet a minimum standard of evaluation by professionals then that would be pretty messed up thinking.
As for securing the weapons I agree with you based on what we know.
posted by: okaragozian1 | January 9, 2013 7:50pm
You can not just make laws that are against the Constitution. If you don’t like what the Constitution says, then you have to amend the Constitution. The Connecticut Constitution (Article First, § 15) gives every citizen the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Making up these “sideways” laws is treason. The penalty for treason is quite explicit.
posted by: DEZ | January 9, 2013 10:31pm
Joebigjoe, therapy leads to diagnosis, diagnosis leads to treatment, treatment either works or doesn’t. I have not heard that Adam Lanza was diagnosed with anything. I am not arguing that this was not a deeply troubled human, BUT, special care must be taken before whitewashing those who exhibit “odd behavior” vs. a diagnosed cognitive disorder. The bottom line remains, Ms. Lanza, by my thought, played a great deal in this horrific tragedy. This is why background checks, and mandatory inspection of homeowner firearm safe must be mandatory. If a registered gun owner can’t responsibly keep their weapon safe, then they simply should not have the firearm. It’s quite simple. And Okaragozian, you are correct. There are other ways, however, to cone at this problem. Amendments are simply one of them.
posted by: ConnVoter | January 10, 2013 12:27am
DEZ, have you ever heard of any defendant who was found guilty of accomplice liability for actions that occurred after he or she was shot in the face?
You’re blaming Nancy Lanza for failing to stop 26 murders that occurred using three of her guns about 30 minutes after she was killed with a fourth. You’re also using this odd, unprecedented accomplice liability theory to advance your personal goals which, as is pointed out, are in direct conflict with the state and federal constitutions.
Good luck with that.
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 10, 2013 8:59am
Wow, I’m almost speechless and that in itself should send me to get evaluated.
DEZ, this is exactly what some predicted within days after this shooting. When we found out it was a 20 year old man, we all agreed that only a real sick person could do that to small children. However as predicted, some on the left, as well as those who may suffer from mental illness, or not be able to effectively handle mental illness in their families would try to blur the lines. Thank you for proving that prediction right.
I’m not going to get into the semantics of diagnosis vs treatment vs evaluation etc.
All I will say is that if you are telling me that if classmates describe a person as non-communicative (I never heard him speak), wears the same clothes to school every day, walks down the hall all the way pushed over to the sides all the time, is not a candidate for a screening by a school system, and you personally dont think he should have been screened, and is looked at as being odd but normal, then we’re all screwed. He may be odd but normal but I am talking about being screened by the school to make that determination. I wouldnt go based on a parents assurances because we all know you have crazy parents out there.
You call it odd behavior. I agree. However, unless we screen the odd behaviored kids we dont know what the issue is. Is a childs behavior odd because of aspergers or some type of autism, or are they shutting down because they’re being threatened or someone is sexually abusing them? Being odd doesmt make you a killer or we’d have one of these a day, but we owe it to the odd people and to the innocent to try to get to the odd as soon as possible to help them.
Prove me wrong here. I think when the investigation is done that we should know every piece of data about how different people dealt with Adam Lanzas mental health over the years. I want to know about school screenings, social workers, teachers comments, psychologist, psychiatrist, medications he may have been on and off and when, etc and leave nothing out. I don’t think you will fully agree. Prove me wrong.
posted by: DEZ | January 10, 2013 9:03am
Ugh, ConnVoter, did you read the thread?
I’ll make this easy for you and work backwards:
1. Adam Lanza kills himself with stolen weapons.
2. Adam Lanza commits massacre at SHE School with stolen weapons.
3. Adam Lanza murders his mother in bed, with stolen weapons.
4. Adam Lanza has open access to an unsecured arsenal, owned and registered by his mother, and steals it for the purpose of number 1-3 above.
If number 4 never happened, the explain how numbers 3-2-1 could have? It’s pretty simple.
And just to reiterate, Nancy Lanza thought her son had social/mental/emotional/cognitive disabilities, YET, allowed the situation of unsecured firearms under her roof to exist, thus leading to numbers 1-4 above…are you kidding me?
Irresponsible gun owner. And yes, if Ms. Lanza knowingly let this play out, and SURVIVED? Ugh, yes, she’d sure as shootin’ would be held accountable.
posted by: DEZ | January 10, 2013 10:47am
OMG, Joebigjoe, READ!!!Blog, read the thread! Refresh the thread in your mind…“Odd behavior” is in quotes because, wait for another one…I was quoting…YOU! (1/09/2013 12:40) A diagnosis is not done from an armchair by someone with a tagline on CTNewsJunkie, it is done by a professional. Again, what was his diagnosis? You appear to know so much about this. To get help, he needed to be, wait again, getting help. He obviously had issues, he obviously committed a horrific crime, but issues and a diagnosis are worlds apart. BUT, what WAS he doing? Stealing his mothers UNSECURED WEAPONS and her cache of HIGH CAPACITY CLIPS and commiting a heinous crime against the GUNOWNER (who thought her kid had issues yet didn’t think enough to SECURE HER WEAPONS) and 27 INNOCENT people at SHE. As citizens of this country and state, I look forward to the continued debate on the subject from even those who can’t seem to keep their weapons safe from the criminal element. I look forward to continued debate on mental health issues. I look forward to debate on mandatory (100%) background checks and the closure of the gun-show loophole. I look forward to debate on mandatory inspection of safe storage of firearms so that people like Adam Lanza can’t just grab an armful of high capacity clips, pistols and rifles, and go off on a shooting spree. I look forward to the debate on naming those individuals that have firearms in their homes. I think we all agree that the situation is a little out of control.
posted by: Reasonable | January 10, 2013 12:18pm
DEZ: You say that you know a lot about mental illness. Are you a psychiatrist? Also the subject of this blog is “a bill to make gun permits publi”—not mental illness. You are all over the board with your comments, DEZ—without replying to the question on hand. “To be or not to be?”
Don’t blame ConnVoter for
giving useless analogies—when you, DEZ—“are the leader of useless analogies.”
posted by: ASTANVET | January 10, 2013 12:33pm
You know, people in Connecticut just can’t seem to get enough. The democrat party has had the legislature for decades and with all of their “fixes” you would think we would be a thriving, successful, utopia. I guess it is my gun’s fault. First, we don’t know if Mrs. Lanza had weapons in a safe, we won’t know until the investigation becomes public. We won’t know what measures a 19 year old kid took to obtain access to her guns. It is not for the State to administer what goes on in my house…isn’t that what all you progressives say…keep government out of my bedroom? Don’t tell me how to manage my firearms. There is a saying, that when seconds count, help is only minutes away. If you choose to rely on someone else for your protection and safekeeping I hope the weight of those chains rest lightly upon you, but do not compell me to live in your servitude, at the mercy of some distant government official. What happened to all that freedom of choice arguement -or is that only true when it is suiting your purpose. This state was founded, in part, by gun manufacturers. I suppose we should replace those factories with hugging pillow factories… You people are the useful idiots that Lenin was counting on.
posted by: ASTANVET | January 10, 2013 12:57pm
I’ll give one more point - there is a lot of calls for mental health screening. I have not heard of a specific diagnosis for mr. lanza, would you have people denied rights, access to full citizenship based on “he’s a little wierd”? So you will stigmatize those who may or may not have a true disability. What of the returning Veterans (I am one of those), are you going to search through their VA records to see if they ever went to see someone for PTSD? What about divorce and martial counselling people going through a life changing event and seeing someone for depression… where does it end. I know your end state is to remove all firearms, and you’ll do it gradually - so why don’t we just lay it all on the table.
posted by: gutbomb86 | January 10, 2013 1:03pm
@joebig
You also said “presence of any firearm.” That tells me you want private citizens to not be allowed to have guns. Some people want to limit the type of firearm or size of magazine but you are pretty sick if in your world the presence of any firearm is bad. Seriously mentally ill if thats what you think. You should be on some sort of list.
Cmon Joe - you’re more reasonable than that - in that comment you were leaping to a ridiculous conclusion in an effort to protect your precious guns. We CAN do better.
If you can’t accept the fact that the presence of a firearm increases risk without getting into a panic about the gov’t taking away all your guns, then you have no business being in the conversation. You’re Alex Jones. The gov’t can’t possibly collect them all. It’s not going to happen. Let it go.
Accept the reality that the presence of guns increases risk. That’s the first step toward understanding it is a mistake to think we can cut down on the number of these kinds of shootings while also continuing to dump tens of thousands of firearms into our society on a daily basis. Mrs. Lanza - and many others - have proven that even so-called law-abiding gun owners are fallible.
We need to mitigate the risk by ending the proliferation and managing the existing guns better. Stop dumping them out there willy nilly based on flawed regulations with loopholes designed to continue the flow of money into gun makers pockets with the natural result of more blood flowing out of holes in people.
Jon Stewart covers this ground really well in this episode of The Daily Show on Jan. 8.
posted by: gutbomb86 | January 10, 2013 1:12pm
@DEZ
As citizens of this country and state, I look forward to the continued debate on the subject from even those who can’t seem to keep their weapons safe from the criminal element. I look forward to continued debate on mental health issues. I look forward to debate on mandatory (100%) background checks and the closure of the gun-show loophole. I look forward to debate on mandatory inspection of safe storage of firearms so that people like Adam Lanza can’t just grab an armful of high capacity clips, pistols and rifles, and go off on a shooting spree. I look forward to the debate on naming those individuals that have firearms in their homes. I think we all agree that the situation is a little out of control.
Could not agree more.
Too many gun advocates are arguing to maintain the status quo and that’s simply no longer acceptable.
posted by: DEZ | January 10, 2013 1:31pm
Please Reasonable, you opened your volley of comments by making a comment on Steve Dargans father being a pillar of his church. The topic is multifaceted as this little debate has shown, stemming from making gun permit owners names public. But to get rude on “useless analogies” and being “off topic”? I’m happy to have differing opinions, as “out of the many, one” pertains to a great deal of things, opinions which lead to law being one. But I’ll let you get back to your very real memories of Rep. Dargans church pillored father and continue this debate out of church.
posted by: ASTANVET | January 10, 2013 1:47pm
i find it laughable that you claim to want to have a ‘legitimate debate’ when you get your news and political empirical data from Jon Stewart. If only you could manage all our lives, and our decisions - what a utopia that would be. Why don’t you go to a book burning to get rid of all these different opinions before they take root.
posted by: gutbomb86 | January 10, 2013 2:13pm
@astanvet - Interesting.
1, Jon Stewart’s analysis of just about anything is better than what I’ve read from you in this thread. You’re trying to draw Lenin or communism into the conversation and that’s really just a total crock designed to obfuscate the issue. Talk all you want about gov’t overreach. It’s nonsense. 20 first graders were murdered and you’re on this site talking about gov’t overreach. Ridiculous. If anything, the real PROBLEM is gov’t under-reach on gun ownership.
2. You just posted a comment suggesting that it would be a bad idea to disarm veterans who have been diagnosed with PTSD. I’m not going to be flip or sarcastic here. As a veteran you should know that PTSD has been linked to a huge increase in suicides among veterans. So, YES, in fact we SHOULD be looking at mental health issues - particularly those who have been diagnosed with mental health issues, including substance abuse - when we consider whether an individual is a good candidate to be trusted possessing firearms within the populace. No one has any business possessing firearms if they are potentially suicidal or under the influence most of the time. If you can’t see the sense in removing firearms from those individuals, I’m afraid you’re not open to discussing the problem.
posted by: ASTANVET | January 10, 2013 2:47pm
gutbomb86- you miss the point, if someone can arbitrarily deem you unfit based on limited evidence, and a point in time, we as a society are all vulnerable. I have unfortunately had too many soldiers take their lives - none with firearms, when ample were available as they were licensed holders. You wash over the whole purpose of the 2A, which was to protect the citizen…individual liberty from tyrants. You willingly wish to remove that obstacle. So long as there are people (criminals) who intend on doing harm I will do what I must to defend myself, my property and my family. Who would you have possessing guns? In your perfect society… I’m sure there would be no crime. Or if there were, we’d all have an armed escort. I’d assume then that you would have the state guarantee protection… what happens when that protection fails. There were plenty of laws that prohibited this violent act. Do not confuse me defending my rights as defending this kind of act. But I do not pretend that evil people, or desperate people do not exist. Criminals will continue to band together and commit crimes. What is the best defense against that??? for me, I rely on myself and whatever means necessary. That may not work for you, but just because you find something objectionable doesn’t mean that you can restrict my ability to defend myself. You may agree that there are things in our society that you don’t like, and there are things that I don’t like. But the difference between you and I is that I do not seek to take away your rights – while you seem hell bent on taking mine. You agreed with the idea that we should open our homes to ‘inspectors’ to deem each house safe. What other little tid bits are they going to look for, and if you’re ok with the government inspecting your private life for the ‘general good’ of the public, what about STD’s? they have the potential to transmit disease?? You want government to solve your problems – you are looking for a master. I am not, I’ll handle my own problems.
posted by: Reasonable | January 10, 2013 3:23pm
DEZ: Knowing Rep. Dargan’s father, and his stellar background shouldn’t upset you as being off-topic. You apparently did not know his father.
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 10, 2013 3:46pm
DEZ and Gutbomb, I’m not even going to reply to your latest tirades against me and others that for whatever reason do see the potential for evil in society and our government (present and possibly future). You just live in this world where government is all good and I don’t agree.
Do you know what the most sick thing is? We all agree that we dont want our children massacred ever again. That’s good but here comes the sick part.
One side (the gun rights people) says “do it our way, we can stop this in schools.“knowing full well that if our ideas dont work we are going to be losing a whole bunch of rights. Rather than telling them “OK we’ll do it your way and if it doesnt work, then we’re going to limit your gun rights”, they come up with every stupid reason that will not work. Why? Because they’re ignorant and the loss of a few children next year will be sad but will further allow them to advance their agenda.
They and you like to blame the NRA and gun owners for the issue. I dont agree, but why arent the next words out of your mouth to us “FIX IT”? We would like that chance because like you we don’t want anymore children massacred. Your ideas will not work so are you willing to lose some of your rights of my choosing when the next school shooting occurs somewhere in this country that follows your progressive ideals? I’m willing to lose some of my rights if you allow us to do it our way and it fails so put your money where your mouth is.
posted by: Joebigjoe | January 10, 2013 4:08pm
Now Shotguns. Are you going to do away with those too?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/10/2-shot-at-california-high-school/
posted by: ASTANVET | January 10, 2013 10:27pm
Bigjoe- I’m not claiming to have the answers - I think like you, I was equally affected and deeply disturbed by those events. I don’t pretend to be able to issue that guarantee that these things won’t happen again… I just can’t. I wish with all my might that I could, but the reality is that evil is out there, and we cannot predict when it will strike. Assaulting the rights of free people will not bring one second of security to those people you or I wish to protect, I believe that it only sets conditions for future abuses against our rights.
posted by: gutbomb86 | January 11, 2013 12:40am
@astanvet - The point is, you’re clinging to a gun proliferation model that has failed. It’s not about a utopian society or labels like liberal or conservative or anything of that sort. It’s about fixing an existing problem, a clear and present danger that you’re choosing to ignore. You’re doing this, apparently, in the hope that you might some day have enough firearms available to you to protect yourself against some form of tyranny that - at best - has almost zero chance of ever occurring. It’s fiction based on paranoia. You are betting on a ridiculously remote possibility at the expense of public safety TODAY. You’re trading inadequate personal protection against an imaginary gov’t tyranny at the expense of repeated school shootings and an epidemic wave of gun violence. This is fine with you as long as you “feel” safe. But your false sense of safety is not worth the real risk represented by the continued proliferation of firearms and increasing school shootings. We now have AR-15s and other consumerized combat-style weapons flying off the assembly lines and into the hands of paranoid anti-gov’t survivalist types who “believe” they are capable of safeguarding the weapons. And we’re just expected to accept their blank stares and “Oh but I meant to keep it safe. Sorry about all the dead people who were killed with my gun” excuses.
It makes no sense and never will, but you clearly can’t see it. Body armor and thicker doors and windows and walls are “defensive.” Guns are just offensive weapons and they present the choice to do far more than defend yourself. We’re expected to think the average anti-gov’t paranoid clown is safe with firearms? Absolutely not. There’s a negative tradeoff in having guns all over the place, but you can’t seem to grasp it. The tradeoff is no longer acceptable when there are nearly 300 million guns in circulation.
@Joe - you’re “not going to respond” but you did anyway… right. You’re suggesting now that we try it your way? The gun advocates’ way? As if we haven’t tried that? WRONG. We’ve given you and the NRA your proliferation model, and now there’s basically 1 gun in circulation for every single one of us. Your way has given us school shootings and a massive wave of gun violence all over the place. You and the NRA have failed and you’re basically refusing to take responsibility for the failed thinking that led us here.
It’s painful to accept, I’m sure. This whole episode has been painful for all of us. But failed policy is failed policy, and you’ve supported it. It’s time for you and @astanvet and the others to MAN UP and admit you were wrong and now we have a problem that MORE GUNS will not solve.
And you’ve also brought up the shotgun discussion with a petulant “now should we ban shotguns” comment. This is more faulty analysis and obfuscation.
Yes we all saw the sad news about YET ANOTHER SCHOOL SHOOTING - the student who was wounded in California by a kid who was bullied and who showed up with a shotgun. It was a student who had access to a shotgun and who made the choice to get the weapon and shoot someone with it. An unarmed teacher talked the kid off the ledge AFTER he critically wounded one student. One student critically wounded vs. 26 people ripped apart by a combat weapon through which hundreds of rounds were expended. Twenty first graders who were fully aware they were being murdered. And you can’t see the difference there but instead are trying to make partison points to prolong some fantasy about arming yourself against a fictional tyrannical gov’t. Please spare us that from now on. It is selfish, delusional bunk.
posted by: ASTANVET | January 11, 2013 12:59pm
gutbomb86- you think that my only concern is against my own government? Sir, respectfully I have spent 28 years defending the constitution at home and abroad following orders of republicans and democrats alike. I’m not an anti-government nut (as you like to refer to it). I am a defender of civil liberties which the 2A is one! You sir, seem to think that a disarmed society is somehow more free than an armed one. I’m not about proliferation of arms, although should free people decide that they want to protect themselves the best way they see fit, I see no reason to erode their ability to do so. AR-15’s are just rifles sir, they are neither assaulting or military. They fire semi-automatically just like 90% of all firearms. You don’t like the way they look or that you can detach a magazine, but that has nothing to do with lethality. A 30/30 winchester will remove a limb - a .223 bushmaster will not. I can effectively employ both kinds of weapons even though one is semi, and one is not. Tyranny is not impossible, even here, and we should guard against it by fighting for individual liberty. As you seek to destroy my constitutional rights, that is a form of tyranny. When your new mob rule comes to power, I caution you to respect the differences among us. I have owned firearms most of my life, and my civilian firearms have never had to be used other than at the range. I don’t think anyone is in a hurry to use their weapon in self defense…but I surely don’t want to need it, and not have it. In your thinking I don’t want you to ignore that the only thing you are going to accomplish with your efforts is to stoke the black market, and further a larger criminal element and their endeavors. But I doubt that common sense is driving your desires.
posted by: Reasonable | January 11, 2013 3:00pm
For reason of privacy and confidentiality, I disagree with Rep. Stephen Dargan’s proposal to make the names and addresses of gun permit owners public. This indormmation has bee deemed confidential since 1994—and should stay that way—in my humble opinion. Perhaps Mr. Dargan should focus his attention on ideas to reduce our huge state budget deficit—that he can convey to Gov. Dannel Malloy and the Connecticut General Assembly instead of pushing for gun permit listings?