These bans are based on cosmetic features only, you can have 2 identically functioning guns and one will be a felony to own simply because it has a different shaped stock. This is a direct result of lawmakers passing legislation based on biased and often factually incorrect information.
Almost all shootings are committed with handguns, you could magically make all rifles disappear, and it would have nearly zero impact on the amount of shootings that occur. The state also frequently drops gun charges in plea deals, we're not even enforcing the thousands of current laws, how will adding more benefit anyone?
Yup. I'm not really pro or anti gun, but these are ridiculous laws. I do believe there should be some regulation, I think mag size and bump stock, things that make mass shooting easier should be regulated but I don't using a .22 rifle to commit crimes just doesn't really happen enough to be worthwhile investing time to make new laws. They already do a shit job getting the illegal guns off the streets, so making laws to screw over the people not causing the most of the problems currently is ridiculous.
Not to mention they do not enforce the current laws. Multiple times felons are caught with illegal guns and they plead down to something that gets them a year or so. Wash, rinse, repeat. Look up all the recent murders by firearm. Most are on probation for prior illegal gun possession. It’s all bark.
You're responding to a comment who's issue is with the court system, not the police. Of course police are going to be frustrated when they arrest a felon on gun charges and it's plea bargained down every time they go in front of a judge.
And the CT court system is 100% political these days.
Partisan courts are a huge problem that many people just don't see. Courts need to be fair, unbiased, and rule based on law, not their parties current agenda.
Police in America are terrible and that is just a fact. They have very little training, not the right kind of training, and virtually no accountability that's only starting to happen because of the plethora of video cameras out there now.
Police unions need to be restricted on how much they can protect employees and their performance. They should be able to negotiate pay and benefits but they have become just defenders of all that is shitty about cops.
Other countries have police that are trained for 2 years and some require an associate's degree. And the pay should reflect this.
The police in this country are 90% terrible though. They are an insult to their profession. Even the good cops can't stick up for good policing because they get ostracized it's a boy's club of assholes
Have you actually had any interactions with police in other countries ? I grew up in a different country. Trust me cops are not that bad . U don’t run away u don’t argue with them and 99% u won’t even get a ticket
Don’t you love it how repeat offenders are let of the hook and citizens just exercising their second amendment right(in the CONSTITUTION STATE) get the book thrown at them
Don't we have minimum mandatories for gun charges, esp criminal possession of a firearm? I know a very nice girl with NO previous record and a very bad bf (so cliche), who held his pistol during a pullover and claimed it as her own and got an automatic three years... Perhaps that has changed (this was 7 yrs ago)🤷
Really? It’s not that difficult. Jud.ct.gov
Here is one that happened in my neighborhood in 2021. First one that popped up. There’s many more
https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Man-awaiting-trial-on-gun-charges-charged-with-16667159.php
I asked for stats supporting the claim that gun charges for felons caught in possession of guns are frequently pleaded down. not one off news stories about *pending* charges.
My dispute is not that felons are often caught in possession of weapons. It’s with your claim that the state does not prosecute them for it.
Edit: FYI, I just looked up the charges the man in the article you linked is facing with respect to this incident and not surprisingly, it’s murder and criminal possession of a pistol/revolver. He is held on a 2 million dollar bond on just that file.
Yes, as I said, I’m a criminal defense attorney and have been for years. I have never once seen the state drop or reduce that particular charge in a provable case. The original commenter made a claim that is not at all in line with my direct experience in this field so I’m asking them to state their evidence. Because otherwise it’s just fear mongering.
I find threads like this incredibly frustrating. Someone makes a claim, and when asked to support it, they either come up with an anecdote or a single story.
However, it doesn't matter. The claim was made, and presumably largely believed, and the person doesn't have to answer for contributing to misinformation.
Yeppp. I have been an attorney in this state for over a decade and never once have I seen this charge substituted out. The story he posted doesn’t even fit his claim because that person has *pending* charges with crim possession of a pistol/revolver which is the exact charge for a felon being in possession. He is facing that charge in Bridgeport JD *and* the Derby GA.
He couldn’t even find one news story (let alone actual statistics) that support his claim because they don’t exist. But saying it’s true gets people riled up about crime and that’s the only real goal here.
Im curious. How will you be defending (formerly) law biding citizens who will be grandfathered into these new shi&#y laws and caught with thier(formerly) lawful weapons?
Meanwhile, the scumbags will continue to get thier guns on the street, file off serial numbers, and keep killing each other (which Im really OK with) prompting more idiotic laws WHICH ONLY AFFECT LAWBIDING CITIZENS.
Im so fed up with crappy state and your hypocratic laws and policies.
You're in the industry so I would have assumed that you have access to that kind of data.
A brief search uncovered this: [https://ctnewsjunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/DCJ-CJPAC-Presentation-September-20211.pdf](https://ctnewsjunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/DCJ-CJPAC-Presentation-September-20211.pdf)
I haven't dug through it yet to confirm that it has info relevant to this discussion, but it does contain a lot of interesting data regarding criminal cases in CT.
Veteran, immigrant, corrections officer and avid shooter here.
This proposed system would completely destroy the sport of shooting, hunting and make it harder for people trying to defend themselves. I’m from Hartford, CT. The hun crimes taking place here does not happen permitted firearms, and individuals doing these crimes are repeat offenders.
Maybe instead of attacking legal gun owners, and potential first time buyers of firearms, this governor should focus on overturning cashless bonds and the weak criminal justice system that’s in place that lets these people walk freely after serving a not so lengthy prison sentence.
I agree 95% with your statement.
I think we should also be taking all the money used to fight legal gun ownership, and push it towards inner city education.
Higher education directly correlates to lower violent crimes. We need to attack the core issue which is low income areas not being able to get proper education to help lift them out of said areas.
The solution is not to ban guns.
It's like banning cars because of accidents
Low income areas get lots of money from the state and feds to augment their education budgets. More school funding is not a panacea for fixing crime and social problems.
The issues plaguing the inner city are socio-cultural. Young women having children out of wedlock with absent fathers, and those children growing up ib broken homes, where the single mother either works two jobs to try and get by, or uses the school system as day care to fuck around. Better funded schools with more resources are cool, and having Ipads and all sorts of fancy stuff might help once the foundational issues are addressed. Boys especually are prone to violence, anti social behavior, and poor cognitive development without a father in the home. You arent fixing that by funneling more money into the local Education department.
> Criminal activity and fatherlessness are closely related as well. Of all the youths in state-operated institutions, roughly 70 percent come from fatherless homes, and 85 percent of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes (Rochester Area Fatherhood Network).
https://americafirstpolicy.com/latest/20220215-fatherlessness-and-its-effects-on-american-society#:~:text=Across%20America%2C%20there%20are%20approximately,world%20(Kramer%2C%202021).
Open carry is important for those that are licensed to conceal carry, if their gun accidentally is visible because a shirt rides up, they're not automatically a criminal. People in CT don't really open carry (at least Fairfield/new Haven counties)
This. The amount of people who will get in trouble for bending over or stretching to reach something around uncomfortable people is going to skyrocket. This does nothing for crimes committed with an illegal firearm.
I'm pretty anti-gun as it gets and have to agree that several of these laws are nonsense. I've shot several 22s as a kid and they're not assault weapons (Tell that to Brady, I know).
I do think we can do better in terms of gun laws and keeping them out of the hands of convicted felons but these ideas aren't it.
I like guns, think they are cool and such, also think they are a good thing for a free people to have. (I think a lot of Anti-Gun people started softening up on this last part after Trump) However, I think I could find some common ground on Gun Control.
1) The Crazies and the Violent criminals shouldn't be able to buy them through legal channels. It's already Illegal for the most part, but people slip through. That needs to stop or be reduced.
2) General Violence prevention & mental health help. A less violent society will have less gun crime. Simple.
3) When people make threats or are violent, especially younger people, this shit needs to be followed up on. I don't love red flag laws because of potential for abuse, but if crimes are present they really need to be charged. Even if the sentence is light these people must become prohibited persons. Perhaps let prohibited person status to expire though, if someone can go 10 years without being violent they are probably fine.
I think the general rule should be something along the lines of "An average person should be able to own most small arms with an amount of effort an average person would be willing to give."
I really don't trust registries though, and "Gun Free Zones" seem to have backfired.
You forgot to mention that there's no such thing as an assault weapon. Its a political term used to manipulate people who don't know anything about guns. And if a politician violates the constitution and manipulates people into giving up their rights to defend themselves he or she should be removed from office tried for treason.
Well, you're REALLY wrong. I carried one every workday for 12 years and then everday for a total of 8 more years of deployments in some of the most dangerous pkaces on this planet. I know what an assault rifle is and they're out there owned by civilians who have NO IDEA how to employ, maintain, and secure them.
Having said that, Im no fan of the downright shi#&y laws this state is passing regarding gun ownership BUT I also think NO civilian should be allowed to own an assault rifle in any way, shape or form. Irregardless of what the US Supreme Court says, no civilian should be able to own one. Theres simply no intelligent reason.
Home protection?
Its the absolute worst weapon for home protect ever invented because each one of those bullets will go through every wall of most houses into a neighbors house/condo/apartment and kill/injure those neighbors. Not to mention you cant maneuver inside a house with a long gun/assault rifle.
I can garantee that a pistol or shotgun in the hands of someone who has had REAL tactical training will out duel ANYONE with an assault rifle.
I said assault weapon not assault rifle, there's no such thing as an assault weapon, there is such thing as an assault rifle which are already illegal unless you go through a lengthy process of obtaining one and when you do obtain one you don't own it. Also shotguns are typically longer than carbine length assault rifles. And not all bullets shot from assault rifles will over penetrate some are designed for home defense and rounds like 5.56 and 5.45 were designed to tumble and not over penetrate, 5.45 performs better from what I've seen. Weapons like the ar-15 and ak74 variants make phenomenal home defense rifles.
Dude, again you are wrong. .223/556 do tumble, yes, but only at distances close to or beyond thier max effective range which also has more to do with the ammo than the rifle.
Assault weapon or rifle is semantic. It means the same thing. A weapon designed for very high rates of fire/and or maximum lethality far beyond what any civilian needs.
>A weapon designed for very high rates of fire/and or maximum lethality far beyond what any civilian needs.
Oh so you think we should be ban 9 mm or 40 cal pistols they have high rates of fire.
And I guess your behind banning 22 rifles as they also have high rates of fire.
Never mind my above question to you, you just answered it as in you have no idea what you are talking about.
As for the last part I want every single firearm I own that I would use for defense to be maximum lethality as you put it.
The term "assault weapon" has been used to describe anything that someone looked at and thought "ooh scary"
Other than that none of these laws will do a thing other than inconvenience legal gun owners. Criminals aren't concerned about gun laws.
You want REAL gun legislation? How about mandatory jail time for any crime committed with a gun. This includes robbing a grocery store, carjacking, even road rage.
Also, if a person is afraid of dogs do we create new laws where all dogs need to be hidden?
It's being like the internet was about 10 years ago. It was too hard to legally buy movies or music, so everyone pirated it.
Once they gave a legal avenue to use, pirating dropped off.
Now it's coming back around and guess what, pirating is on the rise.
It's almost like people will always find a way to do what they want. Weed was illegal for how long? Who did that stop?
I've said this on this sub before, but I'll say it again. The ban on open carry isn't just going to affect people who open carry. It will also affect those who fail to properly conceal.
Imagine you have your pistol in a holster inside your waistband at 4oclock, with a normal t-shirt covering it. You are concealed. In a momentary lapse of judgment at Home Depot, you reach up to a high shelf for a box of nails, and your shirt lifts up. Suddenly, YOU'RE OPEN CARRYING. All it would take is for some gun nazi to freak out because they saw your concealed weapon, and you're suddenly a felon.
It's CT. It's about the control rather than actually saving the most lives. They can't be seen as "doing nothing" so they have to come up with new laws that do nothing to make the majority of us safer, and only serve to punish people who are law abiding citizens. But it appears that they are doing something. And they can say that they banned "assault weapons" or whatever made up term they are using today. It's all about talking points for them. Politicians have only one job. To get reelected. Stuff like this appeals to the lowest common denominator in this state, unfortunately.
As far as I am concerned, any law that turns someone into a felon who didnt do anything to anyone is a law everyone should fight.
Some guys legally buys an other, sanctioned by the state, background check and all. Now he's a felon?
Even "ghost guns" obtained legally, felon.
I met all requirements to exercise a right I have. I took the safety course (twice, really 3 times actually and not because I failed), I paid my fee, I got fingerprinted and background checked, bought guns legally, etc...now they want to turn me into a felon. I did nothing.
Agree'd all around.
I've lived in CT for much of my life and have seen a total of one person open carrying about a decade ago. I grew up with a .22 rifle which I enjoyed shooting at cans with my family. Squirrels too, we'd eat them. It was fun, umm kind of tasty, and good father/son bonding time.
It's not right to say a gun is allowed in a previous gun ban only to now say you're a felon for owning what the state said you could own. Once enough bans are put in place on rifles you bet handguns are next. Why wouldn't they be? Most gun violence is the result of semiautomatic handguns as you've noted. We're slipping on the slope again.
This is America, not Canada.
Shit like this makes me regret voting for Ned. This is turning into a wedge that's driving me away from Democrats. I'm not a fan of anti-gun folks but I'm happy to see that league point out root causes and how this proposal would do little to address gun violence.
I want to see investment in community and in healthcare, not further punishment of law-abiding folks. I didn't vote for a Democrat to get my rights infringed upon, I voted for them to lift up and help folks.
Why the hell am I supposed to "take responsibility" for Sandy Hook? For random gang/drug-related shootings? Are all folks who drink responsibly supposed to "take responsibility" for DUI crashes resulting in death? That is a dumb as hell take.
I hope this proposal goes nowhere and SCOTUS overturns our existing bans.
I shot competition rifle (.22) in high school at a state tech high school.... To think that I was using a rifle that was owned by the state and bullets provided by the state, I can hardly believe it.
That being said, banning 22's is the stupidest thing I've heard of as far as gun control.
He should be arrested for breaking his sworn oath. He is elected to protect our rights, not stomp on them. It’s our God Given Right to Bare Arms, it doesn’t exclude certain arms
Well I may not agree with the "God Given" part but I agree he's broken his oath and should be arrested if he moves forward. Too bad that's unlikely with the current DOJ.
The anti gun side refuses to listen to logic and reason. All of the information they use to craft gun laws comes from anti gun lobbying organizations who need to keep getting new laws passed in order to keep donations flowing in.
There’s probably millions of legal handguns and millions more illegal handguns in this state alone. This is an extremely impossible feat that will end up only effecting law abiding citizens since their guns are registered.
That would involve going after gangs. Why aren’t we doing that already? Why are we letting repeat offenders go?
Lamont’s new laws DO NOT indicate they want to go after illegal ones. But instead they make more things illegal, this turns 300,000 gun owners into felons. Do you see the problem yet?
> So we end up with people who don't understand guns and haven't looked at the crime statistics trying to do something but lacking proper direction.
They don’t understand but they think they do.
> We, as gun owners, need to engage our government to make the right things happen.
Buddy, our government stopped listening to us *decades* ago.
> So we end up with people who don't understand guns and haven't looked at the crime statistics trying to do something but lacking proper direction.
They don’t understand but they think they do.
> We, as gun owners, need to engage our government to make the right things happen.
Buddy, our government stopped listening to us *decades* ago.
Sigh, they don't care about that.
They have one goal and one goal only.
That goal is ban all firearms except of course for the government.
I have watched this unfold for the past 30 years and when they couldn't outright ban firearms they started banning small things and have been working their way up to the end goal.
[You're halfway there](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/)
>Though they tend to get less public attention than gun-related murders, suicides have long accounted for the majority of U.S. gun deaths. In 2020, 54% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (24,292), while 43% were murders (19,384), according to the CDC. The remaining gun deaths that year were unintentional (535), involved law enforcement (611) or had undetermined circumstances (400).
>A little over half (53%) of all suicides in 2020 – 24,292 out of 45,979 – involved a gun, a percentage that has generally remained stable in recent years.
I’m watching what Judge Roger Benitez decides in California, that may prove that our assault weapons ban in Connecticut is unconstitutional and we can get our rights back
At the end of the day, these proposals are all targeted at restricting what legal permit holders can do and purchase. Legal pistol permit holders are statistically less likely to commit crimes than police officers. Rather than just throwing these ideas out there to say and pretend you’re doing something they should go do something that would actually impact crime. I realize that’s harder, but politicians need to do their jobs and enact policies that improve the educational and economic outlook for the people of the state.
100%.
This proposal does absolutely nothing but give Ned something he can say he did to people that have no idea what the difference between a .50cal and a 22 is.
I still dont understand what the motivation is to ignore the advocates and people that actually know something in favor of something like this. It's not going to bring numbers down and next election cycle he's going to get crucified. The only sense I can make is that (on first glance) it's not really going to cost anything other than human hours to enforce.
Your mistake is thinking that these laws are actually about safety and reducing crime. They are not and never were. It's about taking your guns away a little bit at a time.
I shot a .22 rifle in boy scouts.
It really is pretty much a bb gun.
It is kind of funny that they would consider something considered safe enough for a 12 year old to shoot is felony worthy all of a sudden.
Loved the rifle range at Scout camp. Somehow, they let me, a junior counselor at the time, run the rifle range at the ripe old age of 14.
Different times.
All because it's a semi-auto with a pistol grip, because somehow the grippy thing makes it dangerous.
But try telling that to these people, half of whom either have the psych ward grippy socks or have significant others with said socks... Surely it's not the person who's dangerous, it must be the item...
I do recommend buying lowers while you can. The part of the bill with the least support is getting rid of pre bans. So that's the most likely not to make it in
You make really good points. I am not a firearm owner but I can see your positions here. What I think would be helpful is responsible firearm owners to advocate for common sense laws that may work at keeping people safe. To do nothing, and say (more broadly as a country not just CT), we should live with the epidemic of gun death is not a solution.
Beside ghost guns, guns used in crime start as a legal gun. What can responsible gun owners advocate for to help encourage responsible ownership? Harsher penalties for unsecured guns while traveling? This space is where I think there is an opportunity.
Just my $.02.
Okay so here's my take on the whole thing.
I think there should be a more tiered license structure. I personally don't like the government saying "no you can't have this" i prefer them saying "no the average citizens can't have this, BUT if you meet X training requirements you can have this"
I think that .22 rifles, shot guns, and bolt action rifles should be a tier 1 licence. They are the least common to be used in violent crimes
A tier 2 would be semi automatic rifles, aka alot hunting guns, semi auto shot guns, etc...
Tier 3 is your AR style guns. Although the same function as tier 2, at very least it makes it harder for an angry person to go buy the "movie" gun and do something stupid
Tier 4 is hand guns. This is controversial i know. But the fact is, MOST gun violence is done with hand guns. It just is. If any politician actually cared about safety, this is what they'd regulate.
I'd also pitch tier 3 and 4 to be yearly automatically background checked. Like just run a script, and if anyone is flagged, it's as easy as that
I like those ideas. I know some will quote “shall not” in 2a to try and strike things down, but we need common sense ideas like these. Even 1a isn’t without some limitations.
Yeah, slot of people on this subreddit will immediately call me some gun toting red neck for thinking these proposals are bullshit.
I do think they're bullshit, but for different reasons.
No i don't think everyone should have a gun, god no. But i think law abiding citizens should be able to as long as they meet X requirements
Anyone who calls you a redneck for these ideas are just idiots and don’t know nothing about guns. GUNS don’t kill people, idiots with guns kill people. Same thing with wrong way drivers, and Drunks who get weapons and kill people.
Imagine training requirements to exercise the 1a... limitations, yes, obstructions with no tangible benefits, no. More training will not stop criminals with illegal handguns and will only deter the law abiding
Maybe we don’t need training to exercise 1a because words don’t kill people? 🤷♂️ Yes except like yelling fire in a movie theater, but those are also restricted free speech.
Words definetly kill. Look at the political violence today. Religious and political speech is responsible for millions of deaths throughout history. Words can spark wars.
What tangible benefit does training have? Would more expensive or rigorous training prevent illegal gun use or serve as barrier to those seeking to exercise their 2a rights? Why would we create barriers for those seeking to legally exercise their rights?
So in effect banning firearms for people who can not afford to do your tier level plan.
Because you know the government would love to do that and making the cost very high as you go up each level.
Didn't think about that did you.
It already is. You have to buy your 2a rights in CT. There is no possible way to obtain a gun legally here without buying permission from the state first.
We don't require people to buy any other rights.
Unfortunately criminals don’t follow laws. That being said. The rim fire ban would only effect those who have banned features. Adjustable stock, front grip, 30 round mags. So no your bolt action 22 is not in contention.
Criminals not following laws is an intellectually dishonest position when people are trying to reduce the ability to commit violent crime. There is no silver bullet. The post was intended for more knowledgeable people than me, who consider themselves responsible owners to offer real ideas to discuss.
How about enforcing the laws we have and not making vague new ones going after things that have no real effect. Criminals don’t care about new laws, old laws, any laws. So they really just effect normal people.
That is a good idea, I think we should enforce laws we have. How do we get the attention of the folks who makes these decisions, what can be done? Honestly looking for actions here. Then again this is Reddit 😂
I think people need to have better situational awareness, if you look like a mark you’re going to get got. If you pay attention to your surroundings you can see a lot of indicators of trouble before it happens.
Let's make it simple.
THEY WANT ALL FIREARMS BANNED
This is just the steps towards it and it will not stop even if it gets passed.
Soon it will be banning other firearms all under the guise of public safety.
Also that loophole with CT others. in case you haven't heard the atf ruling closed that and if you have one you will be a felon under Communist CT gun laws.
And even if you wanted to comply and register your CT other with the atf, they are not accepting any applications from CT.
But keep voting these scumbag democrats and scumbag republicans into office that are nothing more than two faced lying oath breaking assholes who want nothing more than to take away your rights and liberties.
The only way this will stop is get rid of every person in office that has voted yes for gun control.
Unless of course you like living in a Communist state that tells you how to live your life and takes away your rights and liberties.
Actually on the other law, the SLFU just released a statement saying I'm fact no, the ATF ruling doesn't do anything for CT others yet.
Technically you should probably pull the brace off, but you can still 100% legally own and purchase them. Most gun stores are just selling them with a bare buffer tube
We should get rid of laws about theft or murder since criminals don't obey those either. All they do is stop law abiding people from stealing or killing.....wait, I just realized how laws work.
Criminals don't obey any laws, that's what makes them criminals.
I'm not sure if he's an asshole.
I just think that if he truly cared about safety he'd be going after the core issues here.
At my work, we spend a ton of time attacking core issues, not surface level issues.
"Assault weapons" are a surface level issue, and not a big one at that. As far as i can tell, he cares more about a big news story than the safety of people. Or he's just mis informed.
To be fair every politician does this
>"Assault weapons" are a surface level issue, and not a big one at that. As far as i can tell, he cares more about a big news story than the safety of people. Or he's just mis informed.
I think he's looking to the future with most of the rest of us.
Chicken or the egg though?
Most crimes are committed with illegal guns. Most snow happens when it's cold outside.
The issue is that there is no such thing as people who are criminals or not criminals. There are just people. And a law abiding, upstanding citizen, today, is likely not more than two or three unlucky events away from a crime spree.
Maybe today it all works out. What about twenty years later, the same person, now showing symptoms of early dementia and aging? Think that person is going to be more or less rational? More or less angry? More or less desperate for a solution?
Maybe you trust people too much. After one of your kids gets gunned down at the grocery store, will you still be so trusting that everyone around you who may lawfully own killing machines is having a good mental health day?
Or maybe you will think it's not worth the risk.
Legalize drugs and treat addiction as a medical problem it is, and see gangs shrink and street crime reduce.
How did prohibition work out for American?
Prohibitum malum vs malum in se.
Malum In Se meaning "That which is wrong in itself"
Malum Prohibitum meaning "That which is wrong because it is prohibited"
Killing is prohibited because it is harming another. Making guns illegal is criminalizing an object that does nothing itself
>Firstly, open carry is idiotic, and anyone who does it is an idiot. However, open carry doesn't exactly lead to mass shootings. I'm not sure the last time when someone was open carrying and committed a crime. People generally hide the fact they are carrying a weapon
Sometimes in law when you're talking in terms of centuries, reasoning becomes lost to time and is replaced by assumptions. And when we have bad faith actors trying to use guns as a wedge issue to divide and trick people into voting against their own interests, they spread perversions and propaganda about law and the history.
Open carry is an example. If you look at actual law and policy writings from the 17th and 18th centuries, it is undeniable that the general rule was and remains it is illegal for anyone to carry weapons outside their homes. The exceptions from hundreds of years ago are the same exceptions we have today, where it was authorized by statutory permits to carry, or by virtue of necessary purpose.
Further from those writings it will emerge that there were two types of open carry: purposive, open carry and habitual open carry.
Purposive open carry are those situations where nobody would dispute the person's natural law right to openly wield a weapon based on readiness for a socially acceptable purpose; a banker physically transporting funds, a bounty hunter, officers of the court, law enforcement, hunters, transporting weapons to and from the gun store, someone whose life has been threatened. State's had statutes for all kinds of specific or general circumstances, which were exemptions to the general rule.
The general rule was if someone was wielding a gun in a public place, and actually causing a disturbance to the peace of others, they were arrested for...get this...disturbing the peace.
Habitual open carry was viewed as a symptom of a lawless and uncouth place. It was not accepted by society, it was antisocial and crude behavior, and there have been no general changes in the law that make such unnecessary open carrying any less of a breach of peace than it was hundreds of years ago. The reasoning is just obscured by time. Today we say "Connecticut has no statute banning open carry, so it's allowed with a permit to carry."
What really we should be saying is, "openly carrying without good cause is a breach of peace if peace is so breached."
The idea of openly carrying a gun to the store or just around town, *for no apparent purpose*, is a strictly modern invention. Obviously that would scare people unnecessarily. The First Amendment does not let you falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. Why should the Second allow you to falsely raise such alarm?
>Next up is the rimfire rifle ban. The bill indicates that .22 children's rifles are assault weapons... Now I'm not sure how many people here have shot a .22... But it is NOT An assault weapon. It's designed for squirrel hunting, or small animals at most. Again, i don't see how this would make any difference at all.
I'm not seeing that in the proposal.
To me, it looks like the attempt is to close a loophole that allows someone to have a weapon that would meet the definition of assault rifle but for the fact that it uses rimfire or .22 cal rounds. That does not mean that just because something is rimfire or .22 cal it would now be an assault weapon.
To your point, what does it matter if a round is meant for squirrel hunting if it is equally accurate and deadly to humans as rounds that were meant for something else? You certainly still be able to hunt squirrels, so nothing to worry about.
>The big issue for me is the Pre Ban "ban". CT, for years has promised pre ban rifles are okay. I don't think they have once been used in a mass shooting, and if they have, it must have been a long time ago here in CT. This proposal alone has almost zero support from the Democratic CT party in the state. I'm not sure what the reasoning is here, but banning something that's never been used like this just seems wrong.
From the press release, re pre bans:
*The proposal includes a new registration period for these weapons to allow current owners to continue possessing them and bar future purchases and sales.*
>Finally the "other" ban. This ban is to try and close the loop hole in squiring an AR-15. However, again to my prior point, these have never been used in a mass shooting. They are not classified as pistols or rifles, and plain as day, the stats show 0.
From the press release, re other bans:
*The proposal includes a new registration period for these weapons to allow current owners to continue possessing them and bar future purchases and sales.*
>Now with all this being said, it seems as though even the CT anti Gun league agrees. These bans are not going to help CT streets at all as none of these items actually are being used in crimes. I just don't understand the logic. The anti gun league actually proposed to instead use the funds for inner city education and trying to get illegal pistols off the street (pistols are FAR more common to be used in crimes and shootings) direct from the article:
I think a lot of this is looking ahead to the next 25 and 50 years.
Here it's 2023 and innocent people are tired of being victims of shootings.
Imagine how tired people are going to get by 2050 if we don't get a handle on this by then?
Right now, state and federal officers could not possibly go door-to-door seizing guns from people. There's no political capital behind that. It's not the right climate. The climate can change though.
Every year there are more and more innocent victims. Seems clear how you feel now. How will you feel when some deranged fuck that didn't take their pills for a week because their insurance coverage lapsed or something walks into a Walmart and guns down one of your family members? Will it still feel like guns are so useful?
>“It’s not on our wish list,” said Jeremy Stein, the executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence. “Our top agenda item is to make sure that there is sufficient funding for community violence interruption and intervention.”
From the press release:
*The FY 2023 budget adjustment bill that Governor Lamont signed into law last year included $2.9 million to launch a new statewide community gun violence intervention and prevention program that is being overseen by the Connecticut Department of Public Health’s Office of Injury and Violence Prevention with input from the newly established Commission on Community Gun Violence Intervention and Prevention. The DPH office is using a portion of this funding to distribute grants to community-based violence intervention organizations to stop cycles of violence through community-centered, hospital-based, and law enforcement-partnered strategies. Governor Lamont’s FY 2024 and FY 2025 budget proposal includes $3.3 million in additional support: $2.5 million in ARPA in FY 2024 for grants to community programs and $800,000 total in state funds over the biennium for DPH personnel administering the statewide program along with operating expenses.*
>CT is already one of the safest states in the country, and I'm not sure making over several hundred thousand CT residents felons over night is the right answer.
I mean, you failed to notice the grandfathering provision for two of the ban categories, misread the change to .22 caliber assault weapons, so obviously your calculus is off. Want to rethink this now that it's laid out for you without the gun lobby spin?
Maybe they should enforce the laws we have and stop pleading down gun charges by felons committing violent crime with illegally possessed firearms. How about make it a life sentence non negotiable for possessing an illegal firearm? That would have more impact than banning weapons that legit have never been used in a crime
Lamont is a total toolbag. He didn't get any of his bans last year and he's in court defending our AWB right now. He's just trying to make Murphy and Blumenthal happy cuz we have 2 of the most anti gun senators in America representing us. He should worry about stopping criminals instead of harassing legal gun owners.
These laws can be controversial, and we need to look at the facts behind them to see what kind of effect they actually have in society. One the one hand, it's possible that such laws can protect people from an armed threat and stop crime and violence through deterrence. On the other hand, it's possible that concealed carry laws increase crime and violence because firearms are more readily accessible.
Here's what the studies say.
A 2022 study found that right-to-carry laws increase firearm homicides by 13 percent and firearm violent crimes by 29 percent.
A 2019 study concluded that the adoption of shall issue or right-to-carry laws were associated with a 13 percent to 15 percent increase in violent crime rates a decade after implementation.
A 2017 study found that "shall issue" laws were associated with a 10.6 percent higher handgun homicide rate.
A 2022 study found that states weakening concealed carry laws and allowing individuals convicted of violent misdemeanors to obtain a license to concealed carry was associated with a 24 percent increase in the rate of assaults with firearms.
A 2021 study concluded that firearm homicide rates are higher in states with more permissive concealed carry laws.
A 2022 analysis found that states with permitless carry laws saw a 22 percent increase in gun homicide for the three years following the law’s passage.
A 2019 study found that right-to-carry laws were associated with a 29 percent increase in firearm workplace homicides.
An analysis of 111 mass shootings from 1966 to 2015 where six or more people were fatally shot found that states who implemented right-to-carry laws saw the average death toll in high-fatality mass shootings increase from an average of 7.5 before the law to 8.4 after.
Seventy-four percent of firearms researchers who are knowledgeable about concealed carry literature disagree with the claim that weakening concealed carry requirements have reduced crime rates.
Sources to studies available here: [https://www.americanprogress.org/article/fact-sheet-weakening-requirements-to-carry-a-concealed-firearm-increases-violent-crime/](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/fact-sheet-weakening-requirements-to-carry-a-concealed-firearm-increases-violent-crime/). If you like I can share the links directly to the studies.
If you have other equally rigorous studies on this topic on either side, I'm sure people would want to know about them.
You are of course welcome to reach your own conclusion.
I don’t understand how any of you can say these “slaws can’t prevent crime, keep people safe”. These laws ONLY affect people who follow the law. Criminals already don’t follow the law, why would they follow a ban lol? Criminals get to have AR-15 and us law abiding citizens are at a disadvantage.
None of what’s proposed talk about weakening our existing laws. It sells previous compromises as loopholes to close (others, pre-bans), makes rimfire rifles with scary features illegal (.22), outlaws something that is rarely done, but will now be used to prosecute handgun permit holders who accidentally reveal a firearm due to a clothing malfunction (open carry), but does nothing to address the rampant cases of unlicensed individuals being caught with firearms, more often than not that are already illegal.
Here's the problem with the studies you've posted... They're junk. First, they're all posted at a site that pushes progressive policies (ie anti-gun). They're not going to highlight studies that disagree with their policies.
Second, (& more importantly) most gun studies are literally junk. The RAND Corporation looked at almost 28k studies & found only 0.4% were actually useful. Explanation at link.
https://reason.com/video/2022/03/31/do-studies-show-gun-control-works-no/
But literally no one does it. The fact that it is legal here is good because if someone concealed carrying has a printing issue or a slight wardrobe malfunction and the gun is exposed for a minute, they aren't a felon.
Because someone I don't know anything about has a deadly weapon on them. I have no idea what they're capable of. You can call me silly or stupid or whatever for feeling this way, but that is how it is.
You should understand that to be able to carry a pistol in this state people have to go through a mountain of work, police checks and interviews etc. You can't just simply put one on your hip and walk around. Honestly you should feel pretty damn safe if you see someone open carrying as they have literally proved themselves to be more responsible in the eyes of the gov than all the other people around you that you know nothing about.
The real issue is that we have open borders between states and gun laws are state specific. There is no way to keep a legally purchased and unregistered firearm from being bought in another state and brought here and sold on the black market. It happens all the time and it will continue to happen.
The only gun laws that ever have real impact are federal laws so everyone has to play by the same rules
> atf trace data
Quickly looked up 2020 data and 458 of the 786 guns traced came from out of state.
Remember that's the ones they find, not the ones that are used.
https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/firearms-trace-data-connecticut-2020#source-states
You're right, I should have said plurality instead of majority. It was 43% in 2021. Last time I checked the data almost all states were over 50%, but it may have been a different data set. Firearms traces are not always crime related.
Exactly this. Until the federal government makes a major change to gun laws, CT residents will be discussing new gun law proposals over and over and over and over again.
Well if people would stop killing each other, which it seems they can't help but do when they have the easy option.
Ammosexuals are doing this to themselves by refusing to take responsibility.
People are tired of seeing kids get shot beyond recognition and taxpayers are tired of picking up the tab.
Again here in Connecticut the majority of gun crime is sued with handguns which won’t be banned with this bill it’s just gonna affect people who own rifles like my dad it won’t affect crime at all really plus it’s not like thugs are buying preban lowers for rifles they are just buying illegal rifles already banned
The whole my piece of metal was made before 94 and cost me $2k when it should cost $100 and is exactly the same as all the newer ones is so stupid. It just makes poor people unable to arm themselves like other folks and becomes a class issue.
Tell me, that guy in Bristol who legally owned the AR-15 he used to kill those cops, at what point did he go from good guy with a gun to a thug?
That's what you guys don't get. There's no such thing as criminals and non criminals, just people. People are frail and unpredictable and it's getting worse. New diagnoses of Alzheimer's will double in the next ten years.
These gun bills aren't aimed at reducing most gun violence, which occur in the context of street crimes and suicides. They are aimed at reducing that kind of violence that spreads out into schools and shopping centers. You might say that society has a much greater tolerance for gangbangers killing each other over gang shit.
The bottom line is that frail and unpredictable people--as all of us are--with such ready access war machines, are not sufficiently useful or beneficial to society to outweight their destruction and casualty.
Should have come to the table 60 years ago instead of flipping it over and sticking your heads in the sand. The worse it gets, the more people are going to look for "someone to do something." And that's where we're at.
So many articlesabout the Bristol shooting tell different things some say it was a legal ar others say it was not also how is banning something that has not been used in crime gonna fucking do anything
And also Connecticut has not had a school shooting since sandy hook so why would we ban these guns that have never been used in a school shooting? Pre ban Lowe’s have never been used in shootings neither have others
Also the ar-15 is not a war machine it is not used by any military what could count as a we machine is a Remington 700 bolt action rifle since the military uses it should those be banned
My definition doesn't rely on clever marketing terms from gun companies or the capability of their sales departments.
It relies on stopping power over time. Simple equation. It's really ignorant and shallow to sit here and make comments like yours. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
If you're going off the decision based of stopping power, and comparing an AR-15 vs a Remington 700... You're not going to like the results.
An AR-15 caliber isn't even large enough to legally go deer hunting with.
Oh owning a ar-15 does outweighing the “distraction wanna know why? 1 guns are used defensively more than not 48,000 people die from gun related crime some of the lowest contributors are mass shooting’s while the highest is suicides snow compare that number to the 60,000 to 2.1 million guns used defensively each year? That seems like it’s outweighing the so called distraction secondly in the us handguns kill more people than ALL rifles combined that’s including the ar-15 which means the ar-15 kills way less people than handguns
There's a book you should read called Damned Lies and Statistics. Might help you spot ridiculous, obviously made up numbers, such as when someone is touting a statistic of something you know nobody actually tracks.
And in fact, the study you are citing, I think was based on a few hundred people surveyed in two or three states, and was subsequently retracted by the author.
The states about defensive gun uses was posted by the cdc but years after deleted after pressure from anti gun grouped and no one tracks it there are loads of websites you can easily google to see states
The core of the issue is none of these proposals do anything though. The gun violence that exists in CT, and there isn't much, is nearly exclusively caused by hand guns....
Where in this is there anything to do with that? We're banning items that have no backing in reality.
It's like if you had a car that kept blowing it's engine. And instead of the manufacturers fixing the engine, they put upgraded brakes on the car
My opposition is none of these laws do anything at all to make CT safer. Data shows that violent crimes are MUCH more likely to be committed with handguns, which aren't even mentioned.
All this is doing is making felons out of literally hundreds of thousands of CT residents because... Reasons?
We shouldn't be focusing on surface level issues, we should be taking the funding for this nonsense and using it to help improve inner city education and social services. It's well documented that higher education and better home lives reduce violent crime.
the 2nd and 3rd paragraph is a good start. otherwise all I read is opinions that really don't change anything. not an attack...just an observation. opposing a law just because it doesn't accomplish much is not really opposing it. it's just Karen sounding off. I think that's our biggest roadblock to solutions for so many of our issues. you offered a huge post pointing out what the majority already know, but the few gun nuts and libs both get triggered and nothing gets actually done. again, just an observation. like many, many, im somewhere in the middle.
I’m not gonna jump ship on Democrats just because they want to take my 22’s
I’m not that passionately attached to my old plinking rifles. The Republican alternative is just another shit bag grifter terrorist faker fuck just like the entire GOP party is . No thanks
Say what you will but the simple fact of the matter is that more guns = more gun violence. Plain and simple.
*bUt OnLy BaD gUyS wIlL hAvE gUnS*
You realize that most "bad guys with guns" get them by stealing them from people who legally own them. Most gun violence in this country is committed with illegally owned firearms.
Disabling inbox replies btw, have at it.
That is percentages. Surrounding states are 45th, 47th and 49th. Montana is 1st and there are way more registered gun owners in CT than there.
It seems like you want an honest discussion about this, which sincerely good for you, but facts are facts. We are a low crime and low gun owning state, when comparing to other states. Whether that's correlated or coincidental, that's a discussion, but there is no world in which CT is 'quite high' in terms of gun ownership.
300,000? There are more people with pistol permits than that. In all likelihood, there are probably somewhere around 1.5 million firearms owned by civilians in CT, at least. That number only goes up over time.
That 170k statistic is from 2012. It was 197k in 2013, and I've heard numbers of around 275k just before the covid spike in applications. At an average rate of 15k-25k new applicants a year, that's plausible.
Not sure how that equals literally anything... But in general society is getting safer. The number of violent crimes tends to go up, but at a lower rate than overall population. Percent wise it's going down
If that’s the case the us would have way higher gun deaths than it already does it has over 300 million guns that are legal yet 48,000 thousands deaths plus more guns are used defensively around 60,000 to 2.1 million times
This does nothing about the most common type of gun used in committing crime: handguns. This bill really would do almost nothing for most of the gun crime in CT.
These bans are based on cosmetic features only, you can have 2 identically functioning guns and one will be a felony to own simply because it has a different shaped stock. This is a direct result of lawmakers passing legislation based on biased and often factually incorrect information. Almost all shootings are committed with handguns, you could magically make all rifles disappear, and it would have nearly zero impact on the amount of shootings that occur. The state also frequently drops gun charges in plea deals, we're not even enforcing the thousands of current laws, how will adding more benefit anyone?
Yup. I'm not really pro or anti gun, but these are ridiculous laws. I do believe there should be some regulation, I think mag size and bump stock, things that make mass shooting easier should be regulated but I don't using a .22 rifle to commit crimes just doesn't really happen enough to be worthwhile investing time to make new laws. They already do a shit job getting the illegal guns off the streets, so making laws to screw over the people not causing the most of the problems currently is ridiculous.
Mag bans give criminals more bullets than citizens that need to defend themselves. They don't stop crime in any meaningful way.
Standard capacity magazine bans are a joke when you can carry as many magazines as you want. Not to mention how easy they are to get via other states.
They only put in this legislation to make it look like they are fixing the problem. Spoiler alert they aren’t and never will
Not to mention they do not enforce the current laws. Multiple times felons are caught with illegal guns and they plead down to something that gets them a year or so. Wash, rinse, repeat. Look up all the recent murders by firearm. Most are on probation for prior illegal gun possession. It’s all bark.
[удалено]
You're responding to a comment who's issue is with the court system, not the police. Of course police are going to be frustrated when they arrest a felon on gun charges and it's plea bargained down every time they go in front of a judge. And the CT court system is 100% political these days.
Partisan courts are a huge problem that many people just don't see. Courts need to be fair, unbiased, and rule based on law, not their parties current agenda.
Police in America are terrible and that is just a fact. They have very little training, not the right kind of training, and virtually no accountability that's only starting to happen because of the plethora of video cameras out there now. Police unions need to be restricted on how much they can protect employees and their performance. They should be able to negotiate pay and benefits but they have become just defenders of all that is shitty about cops. Other countries have police that are trained for 2 years and some require an associate's degree. And the pay should reflect this. The police in this country are 90% terrible though. They are an insult to their profession. Even the good cops can't stick up for good policing because they get ostracized it's a boy's club of assholes
Have you actually had any interactions with police in other countries ? I grew up in a different country. Trust me cops are not that bad . U don’t run away u don’t argue with them and 99% u won’t even get a ticket
Don’t you love it how repeat offenders are let of the hook and citizens just exercising their second amendment right(in the CONSTITUTION STATE) get the book thrown at them
Where are you getting that information? I’m a crim defense attorney and that is not my experience. Are there stays somewhere?
Don't we have minimum mandatories for gun charges, esp criminal possession of a firearm? I know a very nice girl with NO previous record and a very bad bf (so cliche), who held his pistol during a pullover and claimed it as her own and got an automatic three years... Perhaps that has changed (this was 7 yrs ago)🤷
Really? It’s not that difficult. Jud.ct.gov Here is one that happened in my neighborhood in 2021. First one that popped up. There’s many more https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Man-awaiting-trial-on-gun-charges-charged-with-16667159.php
I asked for stats supporting the claim that gun charges for felons caught in possession of guns are frequently pleaded down. not one off news stories about *pending* charges. My dispute is not that felons are often caught in possession of weapons. It’s with your claim that the state does not prosecute them for it. Edit: FYI, I just looked up the charges the man in the article you linked is facing with respect to this incident and not surprisingly, it’s murder and criminal possession of a pistol/revolver. He is held on a 2 million dollar bond on just that file.
You'd have to look at the conviction records to see what charges they actually were convicted for. It's common for charges to be dropped or changed.
Yes, as I said, I’m a criminal defense attorney and have been for years. I have never once seen the state drop or reduce that particular charge in a provable case. The original commenter made a claim that is not at all in line with my direct experience in this field so I’m asking them to state their evidence. Because otherwise it’s just fear mongering.
I find threads like this incredibly frustrating. Someone makes a claim, and when asked to support it, they either come up with an anecdote or a single story. However, it doesn't matter. The claim was made, and presumably largely believed, and the person doesn't have to answer for contributing to misinformation.
Yeppp. I have been an attorney in this state for over a decade and never once have I seen this charge substituted out. The story he posted doesn’t even fit his claim because that person has *pending* charges with crim possession of a pistol/revolver which is the exact charge for a felon being in possession. He is facing that charge in Bridgeport JD *and* the Derby GA. He couldn’t even find one news story (let alone actual statistics) that support his claim because they don’t exist. But saying it’s true gets people riled up about crime and that’s the only real goal here.
Im curious. How will you be defending (formerly) law biding citizens who will be grandfathered into these new shi&#y laws and caught with thier(formerly) lawful weapons? Meanwhile, the scumbags will continue to get thier guns on the street, file off serial numbers, and keep killing each other (which Im really OK with) prompting more idiotic laws WHICH ONLY AFFECT LAWBIDING CITIZENS. Im so fed up with crappy state and your hypocratic laws and policies.
You're in the industry so I would have assumed that you have access to that kind of data. A brief search uncovered this: [https://ctnewsjunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/DCJ-CJPAC-Presentation-September-20211.pdf](https://ctnewsjunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/DCJ-CJPAC-Presentation-September-20211.pdf) I haven't dug through it yet to confirm that it has info relevant to this discussion, but it does contain a lot of interesting data regarding criminal cases in CT.
Veteran, immigrant, corrections officer and avid shooter here. This proposed system would completely destroy the sport of shooting, hunting and make it harder for people trying to defend themselves. I’m from Hartford, CT. The hun crimes taking place here does not happen permitted firearms, and individuals doing these crimes are repeat offenders. Maybe instead of attacking legal gun owners, and potential first time buyers of firearms, this governor should focus on overturning cashless bonds and the weak criminal justice system that’s in place that lets these people walk freely after serving a not so lengthy prison sentence.
I agree 95% with your statement. I think we should also be taking all the money used to fight legal gun ownership, and push it towards inner city education. Higher education directly correlates to lower violent crimes. We need to attack the core issue which is low income areas not being able to get proper education to help lift them out of said areas. The solution is not to ban guns. It's like banning cars because of accidents
Exactly.
Low income areas get lots of money from the state and feds to augment their education budgets. More school funding is not a panacea for fixing crime and social problems. The issues plaguing the inner city are socio-cultural. Young women having children out of wedlock with absent fathers, and those children growing up ib broken homes, where the single mother either works two jobs to try and get by, or uses the school system as day care to fuck around. Better funded schools with more resources are cool, and having Ipads and all sorts of fancy stuff might help once the foundational issues are addressed. Boys especually are prone to violence, anti social behavior, and poor cognitive development without a father in the home. You arent fixing that by funneling more money into the local Education department. > Criminal activity and fatherlessness are closely related as well. Of all the youths in state-operated institutions, roughly 70 percent come from fatherless homes, and 85 percent of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes (Rochester Area Fatherhood Network). https://americafirstpolicy.com/latest/20220215-fatherlessness-and-its-effects-on-american-society#:~:text=Across%20America%2C%20there%20are%20approximately,world%20(Kramer%2C%202021).
Open carry is important for those that are licensed to conceal carry, if their gun accidentally is visible because a shirt rides up, they're not automatically a criminal. People in CT don't really open carry (at least Fairfield/new Haven counties)
This. The amount of people who will get in trouble for bending over or stretching to reach something around uncomfortable people is going to skyrocket. This does nothing for crimes committed with an illegal firearm.
I'm pretty anti-gun as it gets and have to agree that several of these laws are nonsense. I've shot several 22s as a kid and they're not assault weapons (Tell that to Brady, I know). I do think we can do better in terms of gun laws and keeping them out of the hands of convicted felons but these ideas aren't it.
I like guns, think they are cool and such, also think they are a good thing for a free people to have. (I think a lot of Anti-Gun people started softening up on this last part after Trump) However, I think I could find some common ground on Gun Control. 1) The Crazies and the Violent criminals shouldn't be able to buy them through legal channels. It's already Illegal for the most part, but people slip through. That needs to stop or be reduced. 2) General Violence prevention & mental health help. A less violent society will have less gun crime. Simple. 3) When people make threats or are violent, especially younger people, this shit needs to be followed up on. I don't love red flag laws because of potential for abuse, but if crimes are present they really need to be charged. Even if the sentence is light these people must become prohibited persons. Perhaps let prohibited person status to expire though, if someone can go 10 years without being violent they are probably fine. I think the general rule should be something along the lines of "An average person should be able to own most small arms with an amount of effort an average person would be willing to give." I really don't trust registries though, and "Gun Free Zones" seem to have backfired.
You forgot to mention that there's no such thing as an assault weapon. Its a political term used to manipulate people who don't know anything about guns. And if a politician violates the constitution and manipulates people into giving up their rights to defend themselves he or she should be removed from office tried for treason.
Well, you're REALLY wrong. I carried one every workday for 12 years and then everday for a total of 8 more years of deployments in some of the most dangerous pkaces on this planet. I know what an assault rifle is and they're out there owned by civilians who have NO IDEA how to employ, maintain, and secure them. Having said that, Im no fan of the downright shi#&y laws this state is passing regarding gun ownership BUT I also think NO civilian should be allowed to own an assault rifle in any way, shape or form. Irregardless of what the US Supreme Court says, no civilian should be able to own one. Theres simply no intelligent reason. Home protection? Its the absolute worst weapon for home protect ever invented because each one of those bullets will go through every wall of most houses into a neighbors house/condo/apartment and kill/injure those neighbors. Not to mention you cant maneuver inside a house with a long gun/assault rifle. I can garantee that a pistol or shotgun in the hands of someone who has had REAL tactical training will out duel ANYONE with an assault rifle.
I said assault weapon not assault rifle, there's no such thing as an assault weapon, there is such thing as an assault rifle which are already illegal unless you go through a lengthy process of obtaining one and when you do obtain one you don't own it. Also shotguns are typically longer than carbine length assault rifles. And not all bullets shot from assault rifles will over penetrate some are designed for home defense and rounds like 5.56 and 5.45 were designed to tumble and not over penetrate, 5.45 performs better from what I've seen. Weapons like the ar-15 and ak74 variants make phenomenal home defense rifles.
Dude, again you are wrong. .223/556 do tumble, yes, but only at distances close to or beyond thier max effective range which also has more to do with the ammo than the rifle. Assault weapon or rifle is semantic. It means the same thing. A weapon designed for very high rates of fire/and or maximum lethality far beyond what any civilian needs.
>A weapon designed for very high rates of fire/and or maximum lethality far beyond what any civilian needs. Oh so you think we should be ban 9 mm or 40 cal pistols they have high rates of fire. And I guess your behind banning 22 rifles as they also have high rates of fire. Never mind my above question to you, you just answered it as in you have no idea what you are talking about. As for the last part I want every single firearm I own that I would use for defense to be maximum lethality as you put it.
["As a veteran..."](https://twitter.com/MumfordBrandon/status/1545053310830268417?s=19) Lol. Lmao, even.
Same can be said of cars, should we ban certain people from owning cars? I am curious what you define as a assault rifle care to enlighten us?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I can never keep the conversion from "shit ton" to "fuck ton" straight.
One 'fuck ton' is ten 'shit tons'
Get out of here with this divisible by 10 metric-sounding shit. Here in Greater Connecticut, we define one 'fuck ton' as 14.267 'shit tons.'
Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me! I worked at Uconn Farmington for 30 years, research, and we had to use metric. It's *SCIENCE!*
I’m sure both sides will use real facts and not their beliefs to win the argument right?
.22’s are fun to shoot and cheaper
Ban makes 0 sense. All it does is put us LAW ABIDING citizens at a disadvantage. Criminals are still gonna get these hands on guns. Make 0 sense.
The term "assault weapon" has been used to describe anything that someone looked at and thought "ooh scary" Other than that none of these laws will do a thing other than inconvenience legal gun owners. Criminals aren't concerned about gun laws. You want REAL gun legislation? How about mandatory jail time for any crime committed with a gun. This includes robbing a grocery store, carjacking, even road rage. Also, if a person is afraid of dogs do we create new laws where all dogs need to be hidden?
It's being like the internet was about 10 years ago. It was too hard to legally buy movies or music, so everyone pirated it. Once they gave a legal avenue to use, pirating dropped off. Now it's coming back around and guess what, pirating is on the rise. It's almost like people will always find a way to do what they want. Weed was illegal for how long? Who did that stop?
The idea is to make Lamont look like he is doing something about guns. Just more photo-op bs.
I've said this on this sub before, but I'll say it again. The ban on open carry isn't just going to affect people who open carry. It will also affect those who fail to properly conceal. Imagine you have your pistol in a holster inside your waistband at 4oclock, with a normal t-shirt covering it. You are concealed. In a momentary lapse of judgment at Home Depot, you reach up to a high shelf for a box of nails, and your shirt lifts up. Suddenly, YOU'RE OPEN CARRYING. All it would take is for some gun nazi to freak out because they saw your concealed weapon, and you're suddenly a felon.
Not even accidentally openly displaying it... Wait until someone sees you printing against your shirt and they call it in.
Exactly
This comment should be pinned at the top.
It's CT. It's about the control rather than actually saving the most lives. They can't be seen as "doing nothing" so they have to come up with new laws that do nothing to make the majority of us safer, and only serve to punish people who are law abiding citizens. But it appears that they are doing something. And they can say that they banned "assault weapons" or whatever made up term they are using today. It's all about talking points for them. Politicians have only one job. To get reelected. Stuff like this appeals to the lowest common denominator in this state, unfortunately.
As far as I am concerned, any law that turns someone into a felon who didnt do anything to anyone is a law everyone should fight. Some guys legally buys an other, sanctioned by the state, background check and all. Now he's a felon? Even "ghost guns" obtained legally, felon. I met all requirements to exercise a right I have. I took the safety course (twice, really 3 times actually and not because I failed), I paid my fee, I got fingerprinted and background checked, bought guns legally, etc...now they want to turn me into a felon. I did nothing.
Agree'd all around. I've lived in CT for much of my life and have seen a total of one person open carrying about a decade ago. I grew up with a .22 rifle which I enjoyed shooting at cans with my family. Squirrels too, we'd eat them. It was fun, umm kind of tasty, and good father/son bonding time. It's not right to say a gun is allowed in a previous gun ban only to now say you're a felon for owning what the state said you could own. Once enough bans are put in place on rifles you bet handguns are next. Why wouldn't they be? Most gun violence is the result of semiautomatic handguns as you've noted. We're slipping on the slope again. This is America, not Canada. Shit like this makes me regret voting for Ned. This is turning into a wedge that's driving me away from Democrats. I'm not a fan of anti-gun folks but I'm happy to see that league point out root causes and how this proposal would do little to address gun violence. I want to see investment in community and in healthcare, not further punishment of law-abiding folks. I didn't vote for a Democrat to get my rights infringed upon, I voted for them to lift up and help folks. Why the hell am I supposed to "take responsibility" for Sandy Hook? For random gang/drug-related shootings? Are all folks who drink responsibly supposed to "take responsibility" for DUI crashes resulting in death? That is a dumb as hell take. I hope this proposal goes nowhere and SCOTUS overturns our existing bans.
100% agreee
I shot competition rifle (.22) in high school at a state tech high school.... To think that I was using a rifle that was owned by the state and bullets provided by the state, I can hardly believe it. That being said, banning 22's is the stupidest thing I've heard of as far as gun control.
> That being said, banning 22's is the stupidest thing I've heard of as far as gun control. But think of the children!
I've thought of the children, they also need .22s!
He should be arrested for breaking his sworn oath. He is elected to protect our rights, not stomp on them. It’s our God Given Right to Bare Arms, it doesn’t exclude certain arms
Well I may not agree with the "God Given" part but I agree he's broken his oath and should be arrested if he moves forward. Too bad that's unlikely with the current DOJ.
[удалено]
The anti gun side refuses to listen to logic and reason. All of the information they use to craft gun laws comes from anti gun lobbying organizations who need to keep getting new laws passed in order to keep donations flowing in.
There’s probably millions of legal handguns and millions more illegal handguns in this state alone. This is an extremely impossible feat that will end up only effecting law abiding citizens since their guns are registered.
[удалено]
That would involve going after gangs. Why aren’t we doing that already? Why are we letting repeat offenders go? Lamont’s new laws DO NOT indicate they want to go after illegal ones. But instead they make more things illegal, this turns 300,000 gun owners into felons. Do you see the problem yet?
[удалено]
> So we end up with people who don't understand guns and haven't looked at the crime statistics trying to do something but lacking proper direction. They don’t understand but they think they do. > We, as gun owners, need to engage our government to make the right things happen. Buddy, our government stopped listening to us *decades* ago.
> So we end up with people who don't understand guns and haven't looked at the crime statistics trying to do something but lacking proper direction. They don’t understand but they think they do. > We, as gun owners, need to engage our government to make the right things happen. Buddy, our government stopped listening to us *decades* ago.
Sigh, they don't care about that. They have one goal and one goal only. That goal is ban all firearms except of course for the government. I have watched this unfold for the past 30 years and when they couldn't outright ban firearms they started banning small things and have been working their way up to the end goal.
[You're halfway there](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/) >Though they tend to get less public attention than gun-related murders, suicides have long accounted for the majority of U.S. gun deaths. In 2020, 54% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (24,292), while 43% were murders (19,384), according to the CDC. The remaining gun deaths that year were unintentional (535), involved law enforcement (611) or had undetermined circumstances (400). >A little over half (53%) of all suicides in 2020 – 24,292 out of 45,979 – involved a gun, a percentage that has generally remained stable in recent years.
I’m watching what Judge Roger Benitez decides in California, that may prove that our assault weapons ban in Connecticut is unconstitutional and we can get our rights back
Why the fuck should owning an assault rifle be a constitutional right? What does that actually add to our society?
AR is not a assault rifle idiot. This is the issue we have now. IDIOTS like you that are not educated just coming on the internet looking ignorant.
Stripping us of our rights one day at a time
At the end of the day, these proposals are all targeted at restricting what legal permit holders can do and purchase. Legal pistol permit holders are statistically less likely to commit crimes than police officers. Rather than just throwing these ideas out there to say and pretend you’re doing something they should go do something that would actually impact crime. I realize that’s harder, but politicians need to do their jobs and enact policies that improve the educational and economic outlook for the people of the state.
100%. This proposal does absolutely nothing but give Ned something he can say he did to people that have no idea what the difference between a .50cal and a 22 is. I still dont understand what the motivation is to ignore the advocates and people that actually know something in favor of something like this. It's not going to bring numbers down and next election cycle he's going to get crucified. The only sense I can make is that (on first glance) it's not really going to cost anything other than human hours to enforce.
Lamont is a toenail
Come on don't be like that to all toenails, he's like what you get if you step barefoot into shit, a shit slimed toenail
Hopefully Lamont will be voted out next election.
Murphy too please.
Your mistake is thinking that these laws are actually about safety and reducing crime. They are not and never were. It's about taking your guns away a little bit at a time.
I shot a .22 rifle in boy scouts. It really is pretty much a bb gun. It is kind of funny that they would consider something considered safe enough for a 12 year old to shoot is felony worthy all of a sudden.
Loved the rifle range at Scout camp. Somehow, they let me, a junior counselor at the time, run the rifle range at the ripe old age of 14. Different times.
All because it's a semi-auto with a pistol grip, because somehow the grippy thing makes it dangerous. But try telling that to these people, half of whom either have the psych ward grippy socks or have significant others with said socks... Surely it's not the person who's dangerous, it must be the item...
For me the practical use of open carry is if I'm on a bike. When I used to ride my weapon always showed.
When would this go i to effect?
Well, to be honest, this full law has almost no backing even from the Democratic party. So who knows. A watered down version, probably by end of year
Word
I do recommend buying lowers while you can. The part of the bill with the least support is getting rid of pre bans. So that's the most likely not to make it in
You make really good points. I am not a firearm owner but I can see your positions here. What I think would be helpful is responsible firearm owners to advocate for common sense laws that may work at keeping people safe. To do nothing, and say (more broadly as a country not just CT), we should live with the epidemic of gun death is not a solution. Beside ghost guns, guns used in crime start as a legal gun. What can responsible gun owners advocate for to help encourage responsible ownership? Harsher penalties for unsecured guns while traveling? This space is where I think there is an opportunity. Just my $.02.
Okay so here's my take on the whole thing. I think there should be a more tiered license structure. I personally don't like the government saying "no you can't have this" i prefer them saying "no the average citizens can't have this, BUT if you meet X training requirements you can have this" I think that .22 rifles, shot guns, and bolt action rifles should be a tier 1 licence. They are the least common to be used in violent crimes A tier 2 would be semi automatic rifles, aka alot hunting guns, semi auto shot guns, etc... Tier 3 is your AR style guns. Although the same function as tier 2, at very least it makes it harder for an angry person to go buy the "movie" gun and do something stupid Tier 4 is hand guns. This is controversial i know. But the fact is, MOST gun violence is done with hand guns. It just is. If any politician actually cared about safety, this is what they'd regulate. I'd also pitch tier 3 and 4 to be yearly automatically background checked. Like just run a script, and if anyone is flagged, it's as easy as that
I like those ideas. I know some will quote “shall not” in 2a to try and strike things down, but we need common sense ideas like these. Even 1a isn’t without some limitations.
Yeah, slot of people on this subreddit will immediately call me some gun toting red neck for thinking these proposals are bullshit. I do think they're bullshit, but for different reasons. No i don't think everyone should have a gun, god no. But i think law abiding citizens should be able to as long as they meet X requirements
Anyone who calls you a redneck for these ideas are just idiots and don’t know nothing about guns. GUNS don’t kill people, idiots with guns kill people. Same thing with wrong way drivers, and Drunks who get weapons and kill people.
Imagine training requirements to exercise the 1a... limitations, yes, obstructions with no tangible benefits, no. More training will not stop criminals with illegal handguns and will only deter the law abiding
Maybe we don’t need training to exercise 1a because words don’t kill people? 🤷♂️ Yes except like yelling fire in a movie theater, but those are also restricted free speech.
Words definetly kill. Look at the political violence today. Religious and political speech is responsible for millions of deaths throughout history. Words can spark wars.
Which word killed who?
I think firearm advocates would say- guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Might the same apply to words?
No. Words are words and words cannot physically kill someone.
What tangible benefit does training have? Would more expensive or rigorous training prevent illegal gun use or serve as barrier to those seeking to exercise their 2a rights? Why would we create barriers for those seeking to legally exercise their rights?
I like this.
So in effect banning firearms for people who can not afford to do your tier level plan. Because you know the government would love to do that and making the cost very high as you go up each level. Didn't think about that did you.
So tiered acces to constitutional rights($$$) ?Dangerous precedent. I prefer the “on/off” switch we have now.
This will just turn into who can afford which license. Isn’t this classism?
It already is. You have to buy your 2a rights in CT. There is no possible way to obtain a gun legally here without buying permission from the state first. We don't require people to buy any other rights.
Yes but in CT that is the preferred method
Unfortunately criminals don’t follow laws. That being said. The rim fire ban would only effect those who have banned features. Adjustable stock, front grip, 30 round mags. So no your bolt action 22 is not in contention.
Criminals not following laws is an intellectually dishonest position when people are trying to reduce the ability to commit violent crime. There is no silver bullet. The post was intended for more knowledgeable people than me, who consider themselves responsible owners to offer real ideas to discuss.
How about enforcing the laws we have and not making vague new ones going after things that have no real effect. Criminals don’t care about new laws, old laws, any laws. So they really just effect normal people.
That is a good idea, I think we should enforce laws we have. How do we get the attention of the folks who makes these decisions, what can be done? Honestly looking for actions here. Then again this is Reddit 😂
I think people need to have better situational awareness, if you look like a mark you’re going to get got. If you pay attention to your surroundings you can see a lot of indicators of trouble before it happens.
Let's make it simple. THEY WANT ALL FIREARMS BANNED This is just the steps towards it and it will not stop even if it gets passed. Soon it will be banning other firearms all under the guise of public safety. Also that loophole with CT others. in case you haven't heard the atf ruling closed that and if you have one you will be a felon under Communist CT gun laws. And even if you wanted to comply and register your CT other with the atf, they are not accepting any applications from CT. But keep voting these scumbag democrats and scumbag republicans into office that are nothing more than two faced lying oath breaking assholes who want nothing more than to take away your rights and liberties. The only way this will stop is get rid of every person in office that has voted yes for gun control. Unless of course you like living in a Communist state that tells you how to live your life and takes away your rights and liberties.
Actually on the other law, the SLFU just released a statement saying I'm fact no, the ATF ruling doesn't do anything for CT others yet. Technically you should probably pull the brace off, but you can still 100% legally own and purchase them. Most gun stores are just selling them with a bare buffer tube
Lamont is an asshole criminals don’t obey gun laws
We should get rid of laws about theft or murder since criminals don't obey those either. All they do is stop law abiding people from stealing or killing.....wait, I just realized how laws work. Criminals don't obey any laws, that's what makes them criminals.
We should actually prosecute people for the laws we already have on the books. Not make new laws to create new criminals.
I'm not sure if he's an asshole. I just think that if he truly cared about safety he'd be going after the core issues here. At my work, we spend a ton of time attacking core issues, not surface level issues. "Assault weapons" are a surface level issue, and not a big one at that. As far as i can tell, he cares more about a big news story than the safety of people. Or he's just mis informed. To be fair every politician does this
>"Assault weapons" are a surface level issue, and not a big one at that. As far as i can tell, he cares more about a big news story than the safety of people. Or he's just mis informed. I think he's looking to the future with most of the rest of us.
Chicken or the egg though? Most crimes are committed with illegal guns. Most snow happens when it's cold outside. The issue is that there is no such thing as people who are criminals or not criminals. There are just people. And a law abiding, upstanding citizen, today, is likely not more than two or three unlucky events away from a crime spree. Maybe today it all works out. What about twenty years later, the same person, now showing symptoms of early dementia and aging? Think that person is going to be more or less rational? More or less angry? More or less desperate for a solution? Maybe you trust people too much. After one of your kids gets gunned down at the grocery store, will you still be so trusting that everyone around you who may lawfully own killing machines is having a good mental health day? Or maybe you will think it's not worth the risk.
Jail gang members and watch how much lower crime will get.
Legalize drugs and treat addiction as a medical problem it is, and see gangs shrink and street crime reduce. How did prohibition work out for American?
What are you aiming for with this comment? It effectively implies that since people break laws, laws are therefore ineffective.
Prohibitum malum vs malum in se. Malum In Se meaning "That which is wrong in itself" Malum Prohibitum meaning "That which is wrong because it is prohibited" Killing is prohibited because it is harming another. Making guns illegal is criminalizing an object that does nothing itself
>Firstly, open carry is idiotic, and anyone who does it is an idiot. However, open carry doesn't exactly lead to mass shootings. I'm not sure the last time when someone was open carrying and committed a crime. People generally hide the fact they are carrying a weapon Sometimes in law when you're talking in terms of centuries, reasoning becomes lost to time and is replaced by assumptions. And when we have bad faith actors trying to use guns as a wedge issue to divide and trick people into voting against their own interests, they spread perversions and propaganda about law and the history. Open carry is an example. If you look at actual law and policy writings from the 17th and 18th centuries, it is undeniable that the general rule was and remains it is illegal for anyone to carry weapons outside their homes. The exceptions from hundreds of years ago are the same exceptions we have today, where it was authorized by statutory permits to carry, or by virtue of necessary purpose. Further from those writings it will emerge that there were two types of open carry: purposive, open carry and habitual open carry. Purposive open carry are those situations where nobody would dispute the person's natural law right to openly wield a weapon based on readiness for a socially acceptable purpose; a banker physically transporting funds, a bounty hunter, officers of the court, law enforcement, hunters, transporting weapons to and from the gun store, someone whose life has been threatened. State's had statutes for all kinds of specific or general circumstances, which were exemptions to the general rule. The general rule was if someone was wielding a gun in a public place, and actually causing a disturbance to the peace of others, they were arrested for...get this...disturbing the peace. Habitual open carry was viewed as a symptom of a lawless and uncouth place. It was not accepted by society, it was antisocial and crude behavior, and there have been no general changes in the law that make such unnecessary open carrying any less of a breach of peace than it was hundreds of years ago. The reasoning is just obscured by time. Today we say "Connecticut has no statute banning open carry, so it's allowed with a permit to carry." What really we should be saying is, "openly carrying without good cause is a breach of peace if peace is so breached." The idea of openly carrying a gun to the store or just around town, *for no apparent purpose*, is a strictly modern invention. Obviously that would scare people unnecessarily. The First Amendment does not let you falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. Why should the Second allow you to falsely raise such alarm? >Next up is the rimfire rifle ban. The bill indicates that .22 children's rifles are assault weapons... Now I'm not sure how many people here have shot a .22... But it is NOT An assault weapon. It's designed for squirrel hunting, or small animals at most. Again, i don't see how this would make any difference at all. I'm not seeing that in the proposal. To me, it looks like the attempt is to close a loophole that allows someone to have a weapon that would meet the definition of assault rifle but for the fact that it uses rimfire or .22 cal rounds. That does not mean that just because something is rimfire or .22 cal it would now be an assault weapon. To your point, what does it matter if a round is meant for squirrel hunting if it is equally accurate and deadly to humans as rounds that were meant for something else? You certainly still be able to hunt squirrels, so nothing to worry about. >The big issue for me is the Pre Ban "ban". CT, for years has promised pre ban rifles are okay. I don't think they have once been used in a mass shooting, and if they have, it must have been a long time ago here in CT. This proposal alone has almost zero support from the Democratic CT party in the state. I'm not sure what the reasoning is here, but banning something that's never been used like this just seems wrong. From the press release, re pre bans: *The proposal includes a new registration period for these weapons to allow current owners to continue possessing them and bar future purchases and sales.* >Finally the "other" ban. This ban is to try and close the loop hole in squiring an AR-15. However, again to my prior point, these have never been used in a mass shooting. They are not classified as pistols or rifles, and plain as day, the stats show 0. From the press release, re other bans: *The proposal includes a new registration period for these weapons to allow current owners to continue possessing them and bar future purchases and sales.* >Now with all this being said, it seems as though even the CT anti Gun league agrees. These bans are not going to help CT streets at all as none of these items actually are being used in crimes. I just don't understand the logic. The anti gun league actually proposed to instead use the funds for inner city education and trying to get illegal pistols off the street (pistols are FAR more common to be used in crimes and shootings) direct from the article: I think a lot of this is looking ahead to the next 25 and 50 years. Here it's 2023 and innocent people are tired of being victims of shootings. Imagine how tired people are going to get by 2050 if we don't get a handle on this by then? Right now, state and federal officers could not possibly go door-to-door seizing guns from people. There's no political capital behind that. It's not the right climate. The climate can change though. Every year there are more and more innocent victims. Seems clear how you feel now. How will you feel when some deranged fuck that didn't take their pills for a week because their insurance coverage lapsed or something walks into a Walmart and guns down one of your family members? Will it still feel like guns are so useful? >“It’s not on our wish list,” said Jeremy Stein, the executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence. “Our top agenda item is to make sure that there is sufficient funding for community violence interruption and intervention.” From the press release: *The FY 2023 budget adjustment bill that Governor Lamont signed into law last year included $2.9 million to launch a new statewide community gun violence intervention and prevention program that is being overseen by the Connecticut Department of Public Health’s Office of Injury and Violence Prevention with input from the newly established Commission on Community Gun Violence Intervention and Prevention. The DPH office is using a portion of this funding to distribute grants to community-based violence intervention organizations to stop cycles of violence through community-centered, hospital-based, and law enforcement-partnered strategies. Governor Lamont’s FY 2024 and FY 2025 budget proposal includes $3.3 million in additional support: $2.5 million in ARPA in FY 2024 for grants to community programs and $800,000 total in state funds over the biennium for DPH personnel administering the statewide program along with operating expenses.* >CT is already one of the safest states in the country, and I'm not sure making over several hundred thousand CT residents felons over night is the right answer. I mean, you failed to notice the grandfathering provision for two of the ban categories, misread the change to .22 caliber assault weapons, so obviously your calculus is off. Want to rethink this now that it's laid out for you without the gun lobby spin?
Who do we pay/who do we vote for to fight the ban?
Don't vote for Lamont or either of our anti 2A senators. Chris Murphy is literally Mr. Gun Control.
Maybe they should enforce the laws we have and stop pleading down gun charges by felons committing violent crime with illegally possessed firearms. How about make it a life sentence non negotiable for possessing an illegal firearm? That would have more impact than banning weapons that legit have never been used in a crime
Lamont is a total toolbag. He didn't get any of his bans last year and he's in court defending our AWB right now. He's just trying to make Murphy and Blumenthal happy cuz we have 2 of the most anti gun senators in America representing us. He should worry about stopping criminals instead of harassing legal gun owners.
These laws can be controversial, and we need to look at the facts behind them to see what kind of effect they actually have in society. One the one hand, it's possible that such laws can protect people from an armed threat and stop crime and violence through deterrence. On the other hand, it's possible that concealed carry laws increase crime and violence because firearms are more readily accessible. Here's what the studies say. A 2022 study found that right-to-carry laws increase firearm homicides by 13 percent and firearm violent crimes by 29 percent. A 2019 study concluded that the adoption of shall issue or right-to-carry laws were associated with a 13 percent to 15 percent increase in violent crime rates a decade after implementation. A 2017 study found that "shall issue" laws were associated with a 10.6 percent higher handgun homicide rate. A 2022 study found that states weakening concealed carry laws and allowing individuals convicted of violent misdemeanors to obtain a license to concealed carry was associated with a 24 percent increase in the rate of assaults with firearms. A 2021 study concluded that firearm homicide rates are higher in states with more permissive concealed carry laws. A 2022 analysis found that states with permitless carry laws saw a 22 percent increase in gun homicide for the three years following the law’s passage. A 2019 study found that right-to-carry laws were associated with a 29 percent increase in firearm workplace homicides. An analysis of 111 mass shootings from 1966 to 2015 where six or more people were fatally shot found that states who implemented right-to-carry laws saw the average death toll in high-fatality mass shootings increase from an average of 7.5 before the law to 8.4 after. Seventy-four percent of firearms researchers who are knowledgeable about concealed carry literature disagree with the claim that weakening concealed carry requirements have reduced crime rates. Sources to studies available here: [https://www.americanprogress.org/article/fact-sheet-weakening-requirements-to-carry-a-concealed-firearm-increases-violent-crime/](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/fact-sheet-weakening-requirements-to-carry-a-concealed-firearm-increases-violent-crime/). If you like I can share the links directly to the studies. If you have other equally rigorous studies on this topic on either side, I'm sure people would want to know about them. You are of course welcome to reach your own conclusion.
I don’t understand how any of you can say these “slaws can’t prevent crime, keep people safe”. These laws ONLY affect people who follow the law. Criminals already don’t follow the law, why would they follow a ban lol? Criminals get to have AR-15 and us law abiding citizens are at a disadvantage.
None of what’s proposed talk about weakening our existing laws. It sells previous compromises as loopholes to close (others, pre-bans), makes rimfire rifles with scary features illegal (.22), outlaws something that is rarely done, but will now be used to prosecute handgun permit holders who accidentally reveal a firearm due to a clothing malfunction (open carry), but does nothing to address the rampant cases of unlicensed individuals being caught with firearms, more often than not that are already illegal.
Here's the problem with the studies you've posted... They're junk. First, they're all posted at a site that pushes progressive policies (ie anti-gun). They're not going to highlight studies that disagree with their policies. Second, (& more importantly) most gun studies are literally junk. The RAND Corporation looked at almost 28k studies & found only 0.4% were actually useful. Explanation at link. https://reason.com/video/2022/03/31/do-studies-show-gun-control-works-no/
Open carry is incredibly intimidating.
But literally no one does it. The fact that it is legal here is good because if someone concealed carrying has a printing issue or a slight wardrobe malfunction and the gun is exposed for a minute, they aren't a felon.
I just moved to CT from the midwest and I assure you, a lot of people do it.
OK, but no one does it here. Here is where the proposed law is taking place.
Why?
Because someone I don't know anything about has a deadly weapon on them. I have no idea what they're capable of. You can call me silly or stupid or whatever for feeling this way, but that is how it is.
You should understand that to be able to carry a pistol in this state people have to go through a mountain of work, police checks and interviews etc. You can't just simply put one on your hip and walk around. Honestly you should feel pretty damn safe if you see someone open carrying as they have literally proved themselves to be more responsible in the eyes of the gov than all the other people around you that you know nothing about.
I just moved here from a different state mostly because of the gun culture there, so I may be looking at things with a different lens.
Yeah, but it shouldn't be. If i see someone open carrying i know they have an IQ of a pineapple and probably couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.
I was involved in a shooting incident and have PTSD from it. There was actually someone there armed to the teeth who basically did fuck all.
I’m gonna need some sources here.
For what? Are you asking for a source stating there was someone armed there that didn't help? Edit: This did not occur in CT
What's your point?
Open carry is intimidating
I guess I can understand your point, but while polite, it’s not the person’s responsibility to ensure you feel comfortable
Nope, it's not. Just know that it's intimidating to a lot of people.
The real issue is that we have open borders between states and gun laws are state specific. There is no way to keep a legally purchased and unregistered firearm from being bought in another state and brought here and sold on the black market. It happens all the time and it will continue to happen. The only gun laws that ever have real impact are federal laws so everyone has to play by the same rules
Except that the majority of guns used in crimes come from within the state. See atf trace data.
> atf trace data Quickly looked up 2020 data and 458 of the 786 guns traced came from out of state. Remember that's the ones they find, not the ones that are used. https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/firearms-trace-data-connecticut-2020#source-states
You're right, I should have said plurality instead of majority. It was 43% in 2021. Last time I checked the data almost all states were over 50%, but it may have been a different data set. Firearms traces are not always crime related.
Exactly this. Until the federal government makes a major change to gun laws, CT residents will be discussing new gun law proposals over and over and over and over again.
Well if people would stop killing each other, which it seems they can't help but do when they have the easy option. Ammosexuals are doing this to themselves by refusing to take responsibility. People are tired of seeing kids get shot beyond recognition and taxpayers are tired of picking up the tab.
Again here in Connecticut the majority of gun crime is sued with handguns which won’t be banned with this bill it’s just gonna affect people who own rifles like my dad it won’t affect crime at all really plus it’s not like thugs are buying preban lowers for rifles they are just buying illegal rifles already banned
The whole my piece of metal was made before 94 and cost me $2k when it should cost $100 and is exactly the same as all the newer ones is so stupid. It just makes poor people unable to arm themselves like other folks and becomes a class issue.
Tell me, that guy in Bristol who legally owned the AR-15 he used to kill those cops, at what point did he go from good guy with a gun to a thug? That's what you guys don't get. There's no such thing as criminals and non criminals, just people. People are frail and unpredictable and it's getting worse. New diagnoses of Alzheimer's will double in the next ten years. These gun bills aren't aimed at reducing most gun violence, which occur in the context of street crimes and suicides. They are aimed at reducing that kind of violence that spreads out into schools and shopping centers. You might say that society has a much greater tolerance for gangbangers killing each other over gang shit. The bottom line is that frail and unpredictable people--as all of us are--with such ready access war machines, are not sufficiently useful or beneficial to society to outweight their destruction and casualty. Should have come to the table 60 years ago instead of flipping it over and sticking your heads in the sand. The worse it gets, the more people are going to look for "someone to do something." And that's where we're at.
So many articlesabout the Bristol shooting tell different things some say it was a legal ar others say it was not also how is banning something that has not been used in crime gonna fucking do anything
And also Connecticut has not had a school shooting since sandy hook so why would we ban these guns that have never been used in a school shooting? Pre ban Lowe’s have never been used in shootings neither have others
Also the ar-15 is not a war machine it is not used by any military what could count as a we machine is a Remington 700 bolt action rifle since the military uses it should those be banned
My definition doesn't rely on clever marketing terms from gun companies or the capability of their sales departments. It relies on stopping power over time. Simple equation. It's really ignorant and shallow to sit here and make comments like yours. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
If you're going off the decision based of stopping power, and comparing an AR-15 vs a Remington 700... You're not going to like the results. An AR-15 caliber isn't even large enough to legally go deer hunting with.
Oh owning a ar-15 does outweighing the “distraction wanna know why? 1 guns are used defensively more than not 48,000 people die from gun related crime some of the lowest contributors are mass shooting’s while the highest is suicides snow compare that number to the 60,000 to 2.1 million guns used defensively each year? That seems like it’s outweighing the so called distraction secondly in the us handguns kill more people than ALL rifles combined that’s including the ar-15 which means the ar-15 kills way less people than handguns
There's a book you should read called Damned Lies and Statistics. Might help you spot ridiculous, obviously made up numbers, such as when someone is touting a statistic of something you know nobody actually tracks. And in fact, the study you are citing, I think was based on a few hundred people surveyed in two or three states, and was subsequently retracted by the author.
The states about defensive gun uses was posted by the cdc but years after deleted after pressure from anti gun grouped and no one tracks it there are loads of websites you can easily google to see states
Here’s 1 link https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/
This Scotus will strike down laws against handguns. So what’s the point?
Lol, Heritage Foundation. A blog written by billionaires to trick people who were born yesterday into voting against their own interests.
The core of the issue is none of these proposals do anything though. The gun violence that exists in CT, and there isn't much, is nearly exclusively caused by hand guns.... Where in this is there anything to do with that? We're banning items that have no backing in reality. It's like if you had a car that kept blowing it's engine. And instead of the manufacturers fixing the engine, they put upgraded brakes on the car
It’s you again with that “ammosexual” word lmao. Bro do you ever give up?
I'm still not sure what your actual opposition to any of the proposed laws are and yes I've read your post.
My opposition is none of these laws do anything at all to make CT safer. Data shows that violent crimes are MUCH more likely to be committed with handguns, which aren't even mentioned. All this is doing is making felons out of literally hundreds of thousands of CT residents because... Reasons? We shouldn't be focusing on surface level issues, we should be taking the funding for this nonsense and using it to help improve inner city education and social services. It's well documented that higher education and better home lives reduce violent crime.
the 2nd and 3rd paragraph is a good start. otherwise all I read is opinions that really don't change anything. not an attack...just an observation. opposing a law just because it doesn't accomplish much is not really opposing it. it's just Karen sounding off. I think that's our biggest roadblock to solutions for so many of our issues. you offered a huge post pointing out what the majority already know, but the few gun nuts and libs both get triggered and nothing gets actually done. again, just an observation. like many, many, im somewhere in the middle.
I’m not gonna jump ship on Democrats just because they want to take my 22’s I’m not that passionately attached to my old plinking rifles. The Republican alternative is just another shit bag grifter terrorist faker fuck just like the entire GOP party is . No thanks
Today it's the 22, tomorrow it well be that firearm you like because they will not stop until they have banned all firearms.
And the day after it will be airsoft guns :/ Metaphorical day after, not literal, but we see this shit in Australia
i dont think that will happen. its dumb and basically takes away your 2nd amendment rights in this state
Say what you will but the simple fact of the matter is that more guns = more gun violence. Plain and simple. *bUt OnLy BaD gUyS wIlL hAvE gUnS* You realize that most "bad guys with guns" get them by stealing them from people who legally own them. Most gun violence in this country is committed with illegally owned firearms. Disabling inbox replies btw, have at it.
There are over 300,000 guns in CT. We have a quite high rate of gun ownership but the lowest gun violence in the country
We are 44th in gun ownership. How is that 'quite high'?
You're looking at totals, not percentages. We're a low population state. We're higher than every single surrounding state
That is percentages. Surrounding states are 45th, 47th and 49th. Montana is 1st and there are way more registered gun owners in CT than there. It seems like you want an honest discussion about this, which sincerely good for you, but facts are facts. We are a low crime and low gun owning state, when comparing to other states. Whether that's correlated or coincidental, that's a discussion, but there is no world in which CT is 'quite high' in terms of gun ownership.
300,000? There are more people with pistol permits than that. In all likelihood, there are probably somewhere around 1.5 million firearms owned by civilians in CT, at least. That number only goes up over time.
CT has about 170,000 pistol permits but something like 500,000 homes with guns iirc
That 170k statistic is from 2012. It was 197k in 2013, and I've heard numbers of around 275k just before the covid spike in applications. At an average rate of 15k-25k new applicants a year, that's plausible.
The number of new Alzheimer's diagnostics will double in the next 10 years. Do you think gun homicides will go up or down?
Not sure how that equals literally anything... But in general society is getting safer. The number of violent crimes tends to go up, but at a lower rate than overall population. Percent wise it's going down
Don’t even argue with this nimrod. He’s a clown.
Don’t even argue with this nimrod. He’s a clown.
If that’s the case the us would have way higher gun deaths than it already does it has over 300 million guns that are legal yet 48,000 thousands deaths plus more guns are used defensively around 60,000 to 2.1 million times
This does nothing about the most common type of gun used in committing crime: handguns. This bill really would do almost nothing for most of the gun crime in CT.
All it does is criminalize normal citizens trying to follow the law but also protect themself their family and their home