Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Saturday, December 14, 2013

ONE YEAR AGO, DECEMBER 14, 2012
















This Saturday, December 14, will mark the one-year anniversary of one of the most devastating events in Connecticut history—the fatal shooting of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. 

 This unspeakably tragic event hit the University of Hartford community especially hard. Among the heroic adults who lost their lives that day was Rachel D’Avino '07, a behavioral therapist who earned a BA in psychology from the University of Hartford. Two other alumni—Jimmy Greene '97 and Nelba Marquez-Greene ’97—lost their precious 6-year-old daughter, Ana Grace. 

 On Friday, December 13, the University will be distributing green ribbons at various locations around campus in observance of this difficult anniversary. 

Green and white are the colors of Sandy Hook Elementary School, and green ribbons have come to symbolize support for the victims, their families, and the residents of Newtown. 

 I encourage all students, faculty, and staff to pick up a green ribbon and wear it on Friday—and throughout the weekend—to honor the memories of Ana Grace, Rachel, and all of the Sandy Hook victims, and to show support for their families and the Newtown community.--Walter Harrison, President, University of Hartford










 Here's A Look At All The Gun Control Laws Congress Has Passed Since Newtown:






















49 comments:

dmarks said...

Now, let's look at all the laws the nation has passed since Newtown: 109.

A definite positive sign we might both agree on is the attention to mental health.

Personally, I might get on board with some of the efforts that stalled out nationally if there was complete assurance that there would be no lasting national registry coming out of it, and there was nothing to confiscate from law-abiding, mentally sound individuals without reason.

And no, I do not count the NRA database as any sort of registry like this, since participation in theirs is entirely voluntary. I guess if inclusion in a Federal firearms database were, like the NRA one, entirely voluntary, that might be acceptable to me.

Anonymous said...

Like obamacare, the sequester, and abortion, the second amendment is the law. Abortion has killed far more children than guns yet the progressives don't want to change that. How many obamacare kills is yet to be seen.

They don't want to have voters present identification to vote yet lawful gun owners are suppose to register, how absurd.

Rational Nation USA said...

dmarks, yours is a reasonable ordered thought process on gun control. The problem with a voluntary registry is those inclined to violent use of firearms or the mentally unstable won't register.


109 laws. absurd. The problem is large enough discussion ought to center around how to establish a uniform state/national code and continue to insure second amendment rights.

Anon, the usual analogy of abortion everytime the issue of firearm violence is discussed is growing old, and it is still not relevent to the. discussion of firearm violence and how to reduce it.

dmarks said...

Anon: Though I might agree with you in general on abortion, it is an entirely unrelated issue. This time, at least, I was able to discuss the post and stay on topic.

okjimm said...

well... that didn't take too long....sheesh....

bless the children, pass me a gun.

Sid said...

When the assault weapons ban became law, there was no confiscation, no list, no registry. I can't recall any gun legislation that resulted in confiscation, a list, or a registry of current, or future gun owners/buyers. Seems that's just a scare tactic by the pro gun side.

skudrunner said...

I cannot see how registering gun owners will have any affect on gun violence. Sane people would register and mass murderers are not sane people.

The administration has an established record of lying and targeting groups they don't like. Look what they could do with a registered gun owner list.

dmarks said...

Sid: Sorry, the confiscation boasts have come from the anti gun side. Including the one I linked to above, which had absolutely nothing to do with the pro-gun side.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"America's gun control laws are the loosest in the developed world and its rate of gun-related homicide is the highest. Of the world's 23 "rich" countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22. With almost one privately owned firearm per person, America's ownership rate is the highest in the world; tribal-conflict-torn Yemen is ranked second, with a rate about half of America's."

Shaw Kenawe said...

"What is the role of guns in Japan, the developed world's least firearm-filled nation and perhaps its strictest controller? In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally."

Shaw Kenawe said...

"...the gun debate showed the limits of power when dealing with lunatics. The president might be able to use the bully pulpit to move public opinion, but he can't force a Republican to vote with him if the Republican doesn't care about defying 90% of the people.

When future historians try to understand the Obama administration, they will have to try to understand why the Republicans felt so immune from popular opinion.

The answer is not really related to the media. It's related to gerrymandered districts and the threat of primaries. Some of the Republicans who would have felt a political need to work with Obama were already gone, changed parties, or retired during the president's first term. I'm thinking of people like Jim Jeffords of Vermont and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. I'm thinking of Arlen Specter and Olympia Snowe. What was left were senators like Mark Kirk of Illinois, who seems at least as concerned with winning a primary challenge as he is about winning a general election, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, who was actually willing to help the president pass a background check bill but found no company.

The gun debate was only the most stark example of how the Republicans went insane and no longer cared about anything but covering their right flank. It might have been avoided if the GOP leadership hadn't decided to adopt a strategy of total obstruction before the president had even been sworn in, but they demonized the president to such a degree that they couldn't work him without looking like traitors to the only voters who mattered to them."

Rational Nation USA said...

Are you saying 90% of the people are with the President, solidly behind him on this issue? Or any others for that matter? Perhaps I'm misreading this but I don't recall any such support (90%).

dmarks said...

The above quotations from Shaw appear to have come from Eric Boehlert, I am pretty sure.

They contain, as a lot of such comments do, a combination of valid points and pure partisan bias of a Democrat bashing Republicans for purely partisan reasons.

Shaw Kenawe said...

IIRC, Les, the polls showed that 90% of the American people supported background checks. Even a majority of the NRA's membership did. And the lobbyists got to the cowardly politicians in Congress to defeat this very uncontroversial law.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Yes, dmarks, that unbolded quote is from Eric Boehlert.

Here's the link to it.

dmarks said...

Thanks. I want accusing you, I figured you just left it off by mistake. You are not like that "Liberalmann" commenter at Leticia's blog who speaks mainly in the form of statements by others that he passes off as his own.

Rational Nation USA said...

Not sure how much that means, except 90% support background checks at time of polling.

The potential of the federal government developing a national firearms registry and using it as a step to confiscation of firearms is a concern for many.

It is clear something more effective than the current patchwork or laws (109 noted) needs to be done. I support background checks, cooling off periods, restrictions on high capacity magazines and drums. However. due to my inherent distrust of government bureaucrats and even many elected officials I am very uncomfortable with anything beyond what I stated. National permenant registry absolutly I am against.

Lobbyist efforts should be across the board curtailed, not just the NRA.

dmarks said...

RN said: "Not sure how much that means, except 90% support background checks at time of polling."

Exactly. And the bias inherent in the wording of the question, and the polling methods and population sampled must be taken into account.

And support for a general idea doesn't mean support for legislation labelled to cash in on that general idea... legislation often filled with poison pills, pork, and other complications.

It also doesn't necessarily mean support/trust for the legislators making these efforts: the same crew that voted for "Obamacare", which was sold mainly on the false promise that Americans could all keep the healthcare they were happy with.... legislators who sometimes even admit that they are too lazy to read when they vote to approve.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Bill Keller in the New York Times today:

"The price of our gun policy can be seen in this breathtaking statistic: More Americans have died from guns here in the United States since 1970 (nearly 1.4 million) than American soldiers have died in all the wars in our country’s history over more than 200 years (about 1.2 million)."

okjimm said...

//The potential of the federal government developing a national firearms registry and using it as a step to confiscation of firearms is a concern for many.//
gees, c'mon, Les.... confiscation is just a boogeyman that gets trucked out ANY time a DISCUSSION of TRYING to curb gun violence comes up.
"It is clear something more effective than the current patchwork or laws (109 noted) needs to be done. I support background checks, cooling off periods, restrictions on high capacity magazines and drums"

NOW that is precisely what 90% polled supported...not confiscation. At least you are willing to become part of the discussion/solution to end gun violence. kudos for that!

Dmarks 'And the bias inherent in the wording of the question, and the polling methods and population sampled must be taken into account' well, you cannot cherry pick the polls you want to accept... or you need to reject all of them. Personally? I believe Obama's approval rating is much higher than polls state....based stricly on you above statement.

Sid said...

If 90% of people want stricter background checks and Congress does not act; does that mean the Congress thinks the people are wrong, or are they influenced by other concerns? Reading pro and anti gun sites, it is the pro gun people who claim confiscation is what they fear.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Sid, I think it's the N.R.A. and the gun lobby and manufacturers who TELL the people what to fear.

There cannot be confiscation because the Constitution does not allow it. A president would have to change the constitution in order for that to happen and amendments take years and years and years to be voted on by the states and passed. Despite what the whackos on the right, or anywhere, say, this will not happen.

It is not unconstitutional, however, to pass a law that calls for background checks to determine if, y'know, the person buying the weapons is sane enough to own them.

Rational Nation USA said...

It is wonderful to hear you understand and recognize the second amendment right to keep and bear arms for what it says and what it is Shaw. As long as the left acknowledges this we have little to fear.

dmarks said...

Shaw: Again, the threats of confiscation are coming from Democrats, not the NRA. They must disagree on the constitutionality of it. Perhaps they are the "wackos" for threatening it. Refer again to the NJ legislator threats, and statements by Cuomo. The true source of the demand for confiscation.

dmarks said...

OKJimm: Good point comparing the vague 90% support for background checks with "approval" for Obama, also vague. But it has nothing to do with my point about the disconnect between a vague 90% support for background checks and public support for specific legislative efforts supposedly in regards to this.

"confiscation is just a boogeyman that gets trucked out ANY time a DISCUSSION of TRYING to curb gun violence comes up."

What is false is claiming that the NRA has anything to do with this bogeyman... when it is entirely created by Democratic, anti-gun leaders such as Andrew Cuomo. If you are sick and tired of this "boogeyman", you should blame those who are creating it by threatening or demanding confiscation.

dmarks said...

RN: Good point. While Andrew Cuomo might be a "wacko" for threatening confiscation, it is good that Shaw herself appears to draw the line against that.

Shaw Kenawe said...

This is why many people see gun advocates as unreasonable whackos:

"On Fox News Sunday this morning, Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America said we should imprison mentally ill Americans rather than subject them to background checks when they attempt to buy firearms."

Really, he did.

dmarks said...

Yet elsewhere, for years, I have seen people, mostly on the Left, criticize Reagan budget cuts for letting the mentality ill out of the institutions they were incarcerated in...

Shaw Kenawe said...

We're a nutty country:

"Mark Kelly, whose wife, former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), was shot in the head at a constituent event, also spoke to Wallace, who noted that of 109 new gun laws passed, two-thirds loosened restrictions. "I think you chalk it up to politics and the influence that certain organizations have."

Rational Nation USA said...

I am all for companies making money,and lots of it. I personally have known several people who worked for S&W. They were paid well and liked their jobs. Certainly no PATRIOTIC person would want to change that.

So, why would the NRA, Gun Owners Action League, or firearms manufactures worry?

Because an infinitesimal number of wackos actually want to see confiscation. In response the NRA, firearm manufactures, ans others create the "bogeyman" needed to whip up fear and walla, their you have it, the platform neede to ensure the wackos don't win.

Whatever happened to reason and responsible logical action?

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

Ahem,
I can't foresee any reason to confiscate guns from Dmarks or RN, but I can't say the same for Thudrunner who can't stand up straight without falling over or pass a basic competency exam. You see, a gun muzzle points towards the target and the gunstock is pressed against the shoulder - not the other way around.

dmarks said...

RN said: "Because an infinitesimal number of wackos actually want to see confiscation"

When one of the wackos is perhaps the top leader at the state level, and you have major parties in state legislators advocating confiscation, it is a little more than infinitesimal.

skudrunner said...

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware.

If you look at gun deaths, they are actually down but they do get more press. More deaths occur with guns that were accidental shootings and self inflicted than used against someone else. This is according to PEW studies which says they are non-biased.

I do like Obidens proposal to increase the money spent to treat mental disorders. That is a step in the right direction.

dmarks said...

Skud: Are you really terrible with guns?

skudrunner said...

Legs,

Wow that was a profane diatribe, good job.
I have no issues with gun owner registration because you have to register to legally carry a CCW.
This whole conflict about registration is way over the top. The right blames obama and the leftists blame the NRA. Blaming the NRA for the mass shootings is like blaming the NEA for our lousy government education system. Sorry bad analogy because the NEA is culpable.

Rational Nation USA said...

"When one of the wackos is perhaps the top leader at the state level, and you have major parties in state legislators advocating confiscation, it is a little more than infinitesimal."

I acknowledge your point dmarks. U just wish I could find a comprehensive list of ALL the national and individual state legislators, senators, and governors that have come out in public, on record that advocate and would support confiscation of firearms. I simply don't have the time to do the extensive research required to compile the list myself. Nor do I recall but a handful that I would put in that column from statements they have made.

Boogeymen seem to grow exponentially when the NRA and Ted
Nugent speak.

Anonymous said...

Fighting fire with fire, only results in making a bigger fire. The answer to lessening gun deaths, is not more guns, or freer access to guns. At some point gun laws will get stricter.
Gun control in the past has been effectively used to lower gun deaths and will be again.
Crime is at historic lows, but gun shot deaths are almost 33,000 a year. That does not reflect a natural gun buying spree due to fear of crime. We have a gun culture. We love our guns.
Stats show fewer people are buying guns, which means those who already own guns, are buying more.

Shaw Kenawe said...

This is the WHOLE statement by Governor Cuomo:

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D-N.Y.) during a radio interview with Albany’s WGDJ-AM said Thursday that all options, including confiscation and mandatory sales to the state, would be on the table for New York's proposed semi automatic gun ban legislation.

He did NOT propose confiscation of all firearms. And even then he said all OPTIONS are on the table.

Sid said...

The NRA seems to have millions of members and millions of dollars to persuade our politicians.
I would be ashamed to be a member of a group that has Ted Nugent as a board member. And that group has to explain why they would have such a person (on record making racist statements, a draft dodger, accused of child molestation, and more) as a board member.

Shaw Kenawe said...

And this in December of 2012 after Sandy Hook:

Mr. Cuomo, speaking on WGDJ-AM, said gun control had not recently been among the most discussed topics in the capital, so he had reached out to lawmakers to gauge where they stood before he made his proposals final.

He added that he was focusing his attention on changing state laws restricting the possession of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. The governor described the state’s existing ban on those items as having “more holes than Swiss cheese.”

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’ ” he said. At the same time, he noted that he owns a shotgun that he has used for hunting, and said, “There is a balance here — I understand the rights of gun owners; I understand the rights of hunters.”

In the interview, Mr. Cuomo did not offer specifics about the measures he might propose, but, while discussing assault weapons, he said: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”


Nothing has happened, BTW. Nothing.

Get your facts straight.

dmarks said...

I did get my facts straight. A major leader, Cuomo, spoke out in favor of confiscation. Nothing has happened... Yet. But that did not the fact that Cuomo made himself into a bogeyman with the extreme statement you helpfully quoted.

Anonymous said...

FOX news (Kelly) said Jesus was white. Laughable.
A counter to the power in office is one thing. To use lies to sway people is another. FOX news has a history of its on camera personalities making racist and false statements. The apologies are on record, for proof. Reilly's war on Christmas, is a fake. No one but he, is talking about it. FOX is not news, it is opinion, which is fine MSNBC does the same thing. The problem is the American people seem to think these opinion demagogues are news people. If you cite FOX to make your point, you already lost.

dmarks said...

Also, Anon/troll/steve is a liar: "So shaw, your "friend" dmarks thinks you're a "bootlicker enabler of fascism."

No, I went back to the conversation at Geeez: and not only did I not refer to Shaw, she wasn't even in the conversation, and no one else mentioned her either.

Anon/steve/troll, why didn't you comment instead at Geeez?

Anon/troll/steve's dishonesty is further shown by his failure to link to the actual discussion, to show the context, and that it, in fact, had nothing to do with Shaw Kenawe. Nice try at misleading...

Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks, Cuomo was speaking only of semi automatic guns, not all guns.

And I have no idea who that anon is or if it is "steve." It's gone now.

skudrunner said...

Shaw,

You do realize that the vast majority of guns sold are semi-automatic. Comeo would place a ban on well over 50% of the guns sold.

Shaw Kenawe said...


From 2004:

Politicians who had only a few years ago responded to public pressure for controls on such weapons are keeping a cautious distance. President Bush says he supports extending the assault weapons ban, but he has not aggressively worked for legislation to extend it.



We've done it before, and we can do it again. We had an assault weapons ban for 10 years, and the country didn't fall apart.

The criminals in the NRA have bought off the politicians, so it will be a long time before we do so again.

dmarks said...

Thanks, Shaw. It has tried to post on my blog, too. It might be the same troll I dubbed "Hitler Baby" on Les' blog due to its Godwin compliance and mention of Nazi breeding programs. This troll, like that one, seems quite concerned over who your "friends" are. It is Hitler Baby's M.O.

skudrunner said...

First you mention semi-automatic weapons then it is assault rifles. You still cannot buy a true assault weapon so nothing has changed. You can buy semi-automatic rifles that resemble assault rifles but in order to purchase an automatic, you need a special application.

"The criminals in the NRA have bought off the politicians"
What happened to reducing the influence of lobbyists in this administration. You have the NEA, NRA, AMA, all who corrupt the elected elite so why not outlaw lobbyists as a group. Their only function is to spread the bribes around.

Anonymous said...

Richard Dreyfus says the NRA should make decisions on guns, restrictions, etc., etc..
Now, that's laughable.