Connecticut Reaction to Obama Gun Control Proposals

The president unveiled a sweeping number of proposals Wednesday designed to curb gun violence. What's your take?


President Barack Obama on Wednesday unveiled what is being called the most ambitious gun control agenda in decades, initiating 23 separate executive actions aimed at curbing what he called “the epidemic of gun violence in this country,” according to The Washington Post.

According to the White House fact sheet, Obama’s plan includes:

  • reinstating and strengthening the assault weapons ban,
  • restoring a 10-round limit on ammunition magazines,
  • getting rid of armor-piercing bullets,
  • ending a freeze on research into gun violence,
  • providing additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime
  • calling on Congress to pass a $4 billion proposal to help communities keep 15,000 police officers on the streets, as well as new gun trafficking legislation that would “impose serious penalties on those who help get guns into the hands of criminals".
  • Making schools safer by giving communities the opportunity to hire up to 1,000 school resource officers and school counselors.

Connecticut political reaction came quickly:

Governor Dannel P. Malloy released the following statement:

“In the hours after the worst of our fears were confirmed, in the midst of the grief and sorrow over the loss of 20 innocent children and six dedicated educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School, there was one question on the minds of people across Connecticut and around the nation: How do we make sure this never happens again? 

“Today the President took the critical first step toward answering that question.  The common sense measures he proposed today are something that we should all be able to agree on, and I want to commend him and the Vice President for their work on this issue.

“I have no doubt that, state by state, we will deal with the issue of gun violence.  Over the coming months, I will do everything in my power to make sure that Connecticut is a national leader in preventing gun violence.  We will take steps to make sure that our gun laws are as tight as they are reasonable, that our mental health system is accessible to those that need it, and that our law enforcement personnel have all the tools they need to protect public safety, particularly in our schools.

“But we can’t go it alone.  We need leadership at the federal level, and for the first time in a long time, we have it. 

“We will not be able to stop gun violence completely, but we can make our country and our children safer.  We owe it to them, and to all those lost in Sandy Hook, Aurora and every other city that has lost someone to gun violence, to try.”

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn) released the following statement:

These are strong recommendations, and Congress should act on them now—before another mass tragedy occurs. If assault weapons and high capacity magazines were not so readily available, I am convinced there would be more little boys and girls alive in Newtown today. If background checks were universal, our city streets would be safer. There are no longer any excuses for inaction. If the horror of Sandy Hook doesn't move Congress to act on common sense gun laws, I have no idea what will. I’m so appreciative of the leadership of President Obama and Vice President Biden on this issue, especially their willingness to involve the Sandy Hook parents and families in this effort. Now, it’s time to get to work.

Sean January 17, 2013 at 02:29 PM
Saul Alinsky at its finest. Attack the person and insult them, but do not debate the issues at hand. That alone is what makes liberals so dangerous.
Erik Musick January 17, 2013 at 02:30 PM
"word vomitting (sic)"! May I use this later? I promise to give you full credit.
practicepeace January 17, 2013 at 04:11 PM
1) I did mean dribble; 2) Sorry about the misspelling of vomiting; 3) I'm well aware of whom Hui Cho is, (I had a family member at Virginia Tech at the time of the shootings); 4) I wholeheartedly agree that the mental health system is broken and needs to be fixed. Just wondering who you think should pay for it, as many mentally ill people are without health insurance (and I am sure that you are opposed to the Affordable Care Act). Maybe the amount of untreated mental illness in our country has something to do with our broken healthcare system. And it’s my opinion that only a mentally unstable person would care to own a military grade weapon and keep it in their home. They’re certainly not quail hunting with one of those… 5) I’m also aware that it is "people" who commit violent crimes – that point has been overused, ad nauseum. Truth is, a person with a rock is less effective in committing mass murder than they are with an AK-47. People have been killing each other since the beginning of time, I agree – and someone hell-bent on killing another human being will certainly find a way. But the United States, with a little over 4.5% of the world’s population, accounts for over 40% of the world’s firearms. In countries with stricter gun control laws there is a huge difference in gun violence. That’s a fact.
practicepeace January 17, 2013 at 04:19 PM
The weapon Adam Lanza used was not illegally obtained. It was the “right” of his mother to own it. But rights should come with strict responsibility. She used horrible judgment in having those weapons in her home with accessibility to a mentally ill son, so there should have been laws in place preventing it. The Colorado gunman had a record of mental illness and was able to legally buy his weapons (one has to assume that he had no criminal record). From what I’ve read, Adam Lanza was denied buying a gun because of his mental health issues, so it seems that laws are determined by state, not nationally. Perhaps if a gun -- and even ammunition -- was treated much like a motor vehicle – registration, insurance, and periodic proof of ability to operate one required not only of the purchaser, but of their entire household – some of these tragedies may be alleviated in the future. If someone owns a weapon that is used in a violent crime, I believe they should be held accountable both criminally and financially, whether they pull the trigger themselves or not. And I don’t think that military grade weapons should be allowed outside of a shooting range. These are my opinions. I don’t know the answers – and you can insult me all you want. I am not opposed to guns (although I do not want one in my home). I used to enjoy skeet shooting years ago, and being a meat eater, I’m not against responsible hunting. Now, I respectfully ask what you would fix...
socrates January 17, 2013 at 04:24 PM
Ever since this event I have maintained that the proper handling of weapons is critical. I have said over and over that application permits must inquire about mental illness in homes. I think all weapon transfers should go through an FFL, including family transfers. I would like to see gun permit applications include a Hare Psycopathy screening.
socrates January 17, 2013 at 04:26 PM
Did you know that Cho was declared mentally ill by a court but was never put on the NICS prohibited list? Did you know that if Sheriff Clarence Dupnik had arrested Jared Loughner for making death threats Loughner would been found mentally ill at trial and been prohibited from buying a gun? Lanza needed to be identified long ago and psych eval in school would have raised flags on him. I don't think we can afford to wait for psycopaths to commit crimes.
Erik Musick January 17, 2013 at 04:34 PM
practicepeace, If I may, may I inquire as to your personal stance on the Second Amendment? Are you for it, against it, or ambivalent towards it? Thank you in advance for answering.
socrates January 17, 2013 at 04:36 PM
practicepeace Let me ask you a question. If Nancy Lanza didn't have a rifle and Adam killed only 13 instead of 26 because he only had handguns would you feel better?
socrates January 17, 2013 at 04:46 PM
Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the nation and it is the murder capital of the US. A Bushmaster is not a "military grade" weapon. We could begin to pay for the treatment of mental health problems by eliminating the stupid wasteful Obama green energy cronyism that has cost us literally billions over the last four years and use that money for something productive. I am waiting for your proposals. Cho did not use an assault weapon and killed 32 people. Over 500 kids have been killed in Chicago over the last few years. You seem only to care when it happens all at once.
practicepeace January 17, 2013 at 05:20 PM
It’s terrible to imply that the number of lives lost is the thing that matters most to me or anyone else. Every life is valuable and important. It’s the randomness of the senseless violence that we may be able to somewhat alleviate. We teach our children to stay away from drugs, to be responsible, to be respectful – and they get killed in their first grade classroom or in a movie theater or in a shopping mall. This is not gang on gang violence -- which is a whole issue on its own. Not that it should even be spoken, but if the weapons used were not able to fire multiple rounds, or the amount of ammunition purchased restricted, perhaps the gunmen could have been stopped before killing so many. In regard to Chicago, how much worse would it be without the strict gun laws? I also think you are now treading on a whole new set of problems -- education, poverty, etc. (which should also be a topic of discussion) The majority of these crimes are within the most impoverished neighborhoods in the country. But saying that gun laws are not needed because criminals will always find a way to get them, is like saying don't bother to lock your doors because a thief can always break in if he wants to anyway.
practicepeace January 17, 2013 at 05:21 PM
I believe we are on the same page about mental illness screening...
socrates January 17, 2013 at 05:28 PM
practicepeace You're missing the point. The point is that banning assault weapons would not have prevented what happened. You've got to address the problems. The problems are most definitely social in Chicago, but as I said before 90% of the gun murders are committed by those with a criminal record and the rest almost all by the mentally ill. By law neither group is allowed to possess guns. If you want to close loopholes, this is where you start. Illegal transfers, careless handling of weapons, mental illness. Be certain to add names to the NICS list. A national firearms ID might be a good idea. You have to be realistic. Guns are NOT going away. They are enshrined in the Constitution. You have to deal with the real problems and I've listed them for you.
socrates January 17, 2013 at 05:34 PM
"I believe we are on the same page about mental illness screening..." Highly likely! Look at these cases- James Holmes was seeing a psychiatrist. Dupnik KNEW that Loughner was nuts and he did nothing possibly because he was friends with Loughner's parents. Cho was determined to be mentally ill and everyone knew about Adam Lanza. Those who knew should have been asking about guns in her home. Adam Lanza was a bright kid. Had he not had access to guns, maybe he makes a bomb. McVeigh did. Klebold and Harris made 89 IED's. You've got to address the problems. The problem here is mental illness. I've been screaming that from about day 1.
practicepeace January 17, 2013 at 05:41 PM
Erik...of course I am for our Bill of Rights and all of its Ammendments. But with these rights comes great responsibility -- the responsibility to write laws to address the things that were irrelevent when the BOR was written. My opinion is that the BOR is the skeletal system of our free country. However, we need to add the nourishment to protect all our citizens – as well as the Ammendments themselves. A right is not a societal free-for-all -- just as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not protected by free speech. Remember, originally the Bill of Rights only protected white men. Certainly you can't believe that the Bill of Rights should trump laws written for equality and against discrimination...
socrates January 17, 2013 at 05:59 PM
PP Could you please cite the relevant portion of the BOR would indicates that only white men are to be protected?
Erik Musick January 17, 2013 at 06:05 PM
practicepeace, "But with these rights comes great responsibility -- the responsibility to write laws to address the things that were irrelevent when the BOR was written." What was irrelevant about what the BOR addressed when it was written?
practicepeace January 17, 2013 at 06:28 PM
"Could you please cite the relevant portion of the BOR would indicates that only white men are to be protected?" You know as well as I do that the Bill of Rights implied the exclusion of women and all people of color. Arguing otherwise is dishonest and you know it. Or maybe the 19th Ammendment and the Civil Rights Act was just for kicks.
Sean January 17, 2013 at 10:22 PM
The shooter in Newtown illegally obtained the guns he used. He had no right to own them. If someone carjacks me, is there no crime? Your logic is the same. When someone illegally takes something from someone who lawfully possessed it, it is still illegally possessed. The problem is liberals think laws stop bad things. They do not.
Ron Hurt January 17, 2013 at 10:44 PM
Laws cannot eliminate gun violence. But, they may reduce it. If at least one child can live as a result of thoughtful regulation of guns, why wouldn't we do it?
Erik Musick January 18, 2013 at 12:38 AM
I'm wondering, or beginning to wonder, based on some of the more 'sensitive' comments, if the state of Connecticut should even be allowed to sell guns at all. I know this state went to Obama, of course. Maybe because of this, Connecticut should be disqualified from being able to own guns of any kind. It seems painfully apparent that those who voted for Obama do not have the spines nor the strength of character to handle the responsibility of any kind of firearm. Maybe Connecticut should be banned from gun sales altogether.
socrates January 18, 2013 at 12:36 PM
"You know as well as I do that the Bill of Rights implied the exclusion of women and all people of color. " Maybe you could cite proof of your assertion in the Federalist Papers, then.
Tanya K January 18, 2013 at 02:18 PM
"If someone owns a weapon that is used in a violent crime, I believe they should be held accountable both criminally and financially, whether they pull the trigger themselves or not." This IS true in the state of CT. That is why every pistol, rifle and shot gun are registered to your name. If Lanza's mother was still alive she would have been held accountable. That is why you MUST take the proper measures to secure your guns so that YOU and only you are able to access them.
Tanya K January 18, 2013 at 02:20 PM
Also, I am very impressed with the maturity of this conversation. =)
joe_m January 18, 2013 at 02:27 PM
Ron, show me where? "If at least one child can live etc." Ban cars, they kill more children than guns. Women are responsible for the deaths of more children, with or without abortion included. The Top Five Causes Of Unintentional Injury involving children: 1. Car Accidents: Kill 260,000 children a year and injure about 10 million children. They are the leading cause of death among children and a leading cause of child disability.
 2. Drowning: Kills more than 175,000 children annually. Up to 3 million children each year survive a drowning incident. Due to brain damage in some survivors, nonfatal drowning has the highest average lifetime health and economic impact of any type of child injury. 
 3. Burns: Fire-related burns kill nearly 96,000 children a year. 
 4. Falls: Nearly 47,000 children fall to their deaths every year, but hundreds of thousands more children sustain serious injuries from a fall. 
 5. Poisoning: More than 45,000 children die each year from unintended poisoning. Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2005 -- 31% were killed by fathers 29% were killed by mothers 23% were killed by male acquaintances 7% were killed by other relatives 3% were killed by strangers Guess we should just let the government raise out children, as parents are more dangerous than guns. If just one child could be saved.....

Markgm January 18, 2013 at 05:58 PM
The medical examiner claimed that the Bushmaster rifle was used to kill the children, but that rifle was in the trunk of Adam Lanza's car. (And how would a person get buzzed in through the front door with that thing?)
joe_m January 18, 2013 at 07:07 PM
The state report is not out. There is no mention whether Lanza's mother had a safe or trigger guards. So, she may have taken precautions. We just don't know. Following your train of thought, if your car is stolen and is used in a robbery or gets into an accident and an innocent bystander is killed, are you responsible? Your house get broken into an they drink all your wine and beer and get into an accident and kill someone, is it your fault for not locking up your liquor? So, we victimize the victim of a crime? Several guns were stolen in NY from a residence listed by a local paper as being pistol permit holders. They stole the whole safe to get the guns. Are the home owners responsible when those guns are used in a crime? Somehow, creating criminals out of law abiding citizens is not the answer. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible.
joe_m January 18, 2013 at 07:12 PM
Adam Lanza being buzzed in was reported to be incorrect, he shot his way into the building. There were reports of a rifle in his trunk, never fully explained. He was found with the Bushmaster and 2 or 3 pistols. He used a pistol to kill himself. There are many unanswered questions and conflicting reports including that teachers saw 2 shadows not 1, leading to speculation that there were 2 shooters.
Markgm January 19, 2013 at 01:44 PM
Yes, there are many interesting bits of evidence around the scene, Joe_m. What I fid most interestingly missing from this entire national debate over gun control is that Adam Lanza, James Holmes, the Columbine killers, the Virginia Tech guy, are all mentally ill patients, with psychiatrists, most likely taking SSRI drugs. Lanza had 4 prescription drug bottles, and nobody knew what they were. He had asperger's syndrome, a variant of Autism. But there is no public discussion about the mentally ill in any of these cases. The event is being capitalized upon by people in govt who do not mention the real problem, here. Meanwhile, US homicides dropped from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 25,000 from 1980 to 2011.
socrates January 19, 2013 at 03:03 PM
No it wasn't. He used the rifle in the school.
socrates January 19, 2013 at 03:04 PM
I suspect that the pharmceutical information is being suppressed so as not to distract from the anti-gin message.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something