.

U.S. Rep. John Larson Calls For Gun Control

In a statement issued this weekend the Connecticut's First District Democrat said "politics be damned" in the wake of the Newtown shootings.

Connecticut Congressman John Larson, D-First District, called this weekend for a serious political debate on the issue of gun control following the Newtown shootings that killed 26 people, 20 of them children.

In a statement issued Saturday Larson said "politics be damned" and that it's time for the country to face the issue head-on.

"Friday was a day of mourning, but the time to act is now upon us. To do nothing in the face of continuous assaults on our children is to be complicit in those assaults. There may not be a single cure-all for the violence in our nation, however we must start the process and begin the deeper and longer conversations that need to take place. Politics be damned. Of the 12 deadliest shootings in our nation's history, half of them have happened in the last five years. And there is not a single person in America who doesn't fear it will happen again. It's time we recognize the danger and address it."

In a memorial vigil Sunday night in Newtown President Obama also touched on the subject of gun control, saying America is not doing enough to keep its children safe.

Many of Connecticut's lawmakers have been mostly silent on the politically-charged issue of gun control in the wake of the shootings. Their constituents, however, have not. Thousands of them have taken to social media and other outlets to call for gun control, and to argue against it.

Joe December 17, 2012 at 09:17 PM
I'm Ok with limits on the size of magazines moving forward such as discussed by the Senator I never agree with Diane Feinstein (and I do belong to the NRA). However, gun control like this will not and absolutely should not occur without some other changes that would be more meaningful. Things like more money for permanent beds for the mentally ill and anything that prevents the ACLU from what they have done to our mental health system on behalf of privacy and individual rights. I also want a ban on violent video games. Some of you folks want the ban on the big shiny object, and I want the ban on the cultural rot and excuse ridden ACLU that has done more to keep the crazy from care than anyone. Dont believe me, ask a DCF psychiatrist how their hands are tied when faced with someone they know could hurt others. The last thing I want in return for this gun legislation is a ban on gun free zones. Why dont we put up a neon sign announcing "unarmed helpless people inside". Even if not one teacher carries in a school then thats fine but you dont tell crazy people that they arent. Every one of these cold calculated shootings including Fort Hood cafeteria were gun free zones. These shooters are cowards. Research...Every one of them has responded in one of two ways when someone with a gun has approached. They either kill themselves or they give up. There has never been a gunfight. They dont want that so dont telegraph to them that there wont be one in this chosen location
Joe December 17, 2012 at 09:27 PM
Let me add another thing that I find just disgusting about all this assault weapon and gun ban talk. If Adam Lanza had a rifle or shotgun I guess he only kills ten kids before the police get there. Does that make you feel better? That's your logic. I want to prevent one kid from being killed. You sound like Vietnam when our military looked at things through the prism of acceptable losses. As for banning guns in circulation, even just certain type of guns, just how does that happen? Some good guys will oblige, but most bad guys and nuts wont. Do you then have government agents go door to door searching everyones home? Do they rip plaster off walls, go into crawl spaces, use a metal detector in the yard? You think that's OK? How else does it get accomplished in your fantasy utopian low information world? If this country ever had government agents or military going into homes searching for weapons, the horrible loss of 20 babies and 6 heroes would be a very small number. We would have another civil war for sure and in the end, the people with the guns will win.
Bill December 17, 2012 at 09:42 PM
Adam lanza had a rifle. It was an ordinary semi-auto rifle. It was only military in appearance. It didn't have any of the capabilities the military guns have. So your estimate of only 10 kids dying is wrong. Look at these 3 guns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Most_popular_rifles_.JPG All 3 guns have the same fire power, same mag capacity, same firing rate. The politician's only want to ban the gun on the top since it looks like the most threatening. If you want to ban one of them you have to ban them all, but most people would agree that we shouldn't ban the bottom 2 guns. I am not for any ban. I'm just pointing out politicians will say ban "assault weapons" but really mean ban the scary black guns while keeping the others regardless of how they work.
Joe December 17, 2012 at 09:51 PM
I know Bill. I'm just trying to point out the stupidity of the argument. However, I can tell you are a fellow gun owner and we should compromise, but that means we stop and change the stupid things that the left has done to contribute to this problem. if we have the national debate and they refuse to make the changes that are beyond logical and keep blaming the guns, then hopefully more people will wake up.
Joe December 17, 2012 at 11:45 PM
Read this please and tell me the primary issue is guns. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/17/why-cant-america-care-for-mentally-ill/
Adam December 18, 2012 at 02:12 AM
Justin: Liberals always say they don’t want to take away guns. But give them an awful tragedy like the Newtown, Conn. shooting and they get bolder and more honest. MSNBC host Ed Schultz showed a rare bout of such honesty during a brief Twitter exchange Saturday. Schultz asked “Why should anyone own an assault rifle ?” and followed it up by saying “it's the confiscation of these types of weapons that counts and will have an impact.” “The Ed Show” host wasn’t done his attack on gun rights. “The NRA needs to state the case why assault weapons are needed by anyone,” he claimed. And after that, he told one poster that “a Glock pistol qualifies as an assault weapon.” That last bit is surely a surprise to both gun owners and Congress which didn’t include handguns in its previous assault weapons ban. Ultimately, Schultz talked of changing the Constitution to one person on Twitter. “We are the Constitution and we as a people can change whatever we want. Get ready Dude !” he wrote. Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor/2012/12/16/msnbc-s-ed-schultz-talks-gun-confiscation#ixzz2FMhrPb4L
Paul Bahre December 18, 2012 at 01:06 PM
Because Rep Larson is the worlds worse congressman. All he knows how to do is to introduce bad feel good liberal reactionary legislation that in the end is no good and is only self serving. CT would do good not to ever elect this idiot back in his position again.
Joe December 18, 2012 at 01:22 PM
Sometimes the simple questions net out hypocrisy and shine light on the issue. I cant take credit for this nor and I saying its the primary reason but it would be number 1a on my list behind mental illness and the ACLU's complicity in that. "Would any parent post a sign in front of their house: "Gun Free Zone"?
Paul Bahre December 18, 2012 at 01:57 PM
Joe, we have already posted such signs in front of all our schools. We have gun free zones around all schools and drug free zones around all our schools. Feel good laws mean nothing to sick people who want to live outside the law. Sick people do sick things, no guns then they just move on to other things to fulfill their sick desires.
Joe December 18, 2012 at 02:04 PM
No parent I know would put that sign in front of their home so why the heck do they think its OK to put it where their children are and they arent even there to protect them?
Paul Bahre December 18, 2012 at 02:15 PM
Joe, Liberals feel that government and more government can protect us from all evil. They feel we don't need guns to protect ourselves we have the police. I live in a small town and there are like maybe 3 police working at any one time. So while I"m getting held up by a bad guy where are the police to help me? All the police can do is to arrest people for bad behavior after the fact. The police also investigate but that again is only after the fact.
Steve Smith December 18, 2012 at 03:08 PM
This thread is a good example of the media defining the issue and all of us falling for it. They started it as "what do you think about gun control". We all expressed good ideas pro and con. But that's not the dialog we need. The question should have been "how do we intervene in the chain of events leading to this horror?" That broader question would include the mental health issue and the laws associated with that that allowed this guy to go untreated. What civil rights changes do we need to prevent this type of crime? I don't see any legislation on the table to strengthen our social services or health services. We're not even talking about it because of the successful diversion of the topic to guns. This has happened before, like every previous incident like this one. I don't have any more time to waste on this topic. I'm disgusted with our politicians and media. But what's new about that.
Joe December 18, 2012 at 03:19 PM
Steve you posed a great question "how do we intervene in the chain of events leading to this horror?" This is how the logical conservative mind thinks. Lets start from the beginning, anticipating that at each stage something may go wrong, and what can we do to prevent at each stage. When you get to the madman at the school door, or at the mall, workplace, or movies, then what is the next response? I'm listening to a guy on Jim Vicevich now. I wish all Americans could hear this. Unless my facts are wrong in an analysis of mass shootings they did, the average shooter shoots 3-4 people a minute, and the event averages 8 minutes because thats the average time how long it takes for police to arrive. The shootings stop when they arrive.
Justin December 18, 2012 at 04:12 PM
I think in this debate, too often people think that individuals such as myself cite guns as the problem. Guns are not the problem, they're not the cause, they're not responsible for killing people. Hell, I've been considering getting a gun for some time now simply for self defense. However, guns are the means by which, most often, these people choose to harm others. Certainly, if there was something else being used, I'd say we need to look at that... but the overwhelming fact remains that more often than not when looking at tragedies like this, a gun is the weapon being used. So, yes, we most definitely need to look at the causation... mental health support, movies, video games, society, etc, etc. But as other's have stated, these people don't follow gun laws.... so how can we assume they're going to utilize any services available to them. We have to assume worst case scenario. We have to assume that all else has failed and we have an individual at an establishment ready to inflict harm. Chances are very good, given the history of these events, that individual will have one or more guns on them. So at that point, when all else has failed, how can we prevent or minimize the harm this person can inflict. Surely, we cannot do away with guns, that is not the answer. I do think, however, that most law abiding gun owners would have no problem limiting the capacity of these weapons... again, because we have to assume a worst case scenario.
Joe December 18, 2012 at 04:26 PM
Thank you Justin. I too am OK with the limitation of magazine size although that wont have an impact. They can be changed out in less than two seconds. However why would I go along with some meaningless change? I would only go along with it, if it comes with other non- gun- related meaningful change.
Justin December 18, 2012 at 04:39 PM
Joe... I completely agree. We definitely need more than just new legislation on guns/ammunition. Most importantly we need a change in our way of thinking as a society. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening any time soon. We do need better mental health services, we do need better safety measures, we need a lot of changes. I do realize that smaller magazine size doesn't prevent someone from carrying a hundred rounds in the form of a dozen clips. However, my rationale behind limiting the size of these it to provide a break, if even for a second or two. You never know if that might be enough time for you to take better cover, barricade yourself, or even charge the person. It is to that end I think smaller magazines make sense, just to give someone a chance (however small that might be) to take cover or take control of the situation.
Joe December 18, 2012 at 04:59 PM
I'll take that 1-2 seconds myself as well so point well taken. If a crazy person wants to hurt people and they planned it like this SOB did, they'll hurt people. All I want for myself and my fellow citizens, and especially the children who can't protect themselves, is that last chance to protect people, when the system to that point has failed in some way. I don't live on fantasy island the way others do, but I do fantasize that I could go back in time, and greet Mr. Lanza at the end of his driveway. Then again, after dealing with that human excrement, I would still be arrested, have to incur legal fees for a lawyer to get the prosecutor to not charge me, and fight pathetic liberals who would want me hung for blowing the head off of a mentally disturbed young man who just killed his mother.
Adam December 18, 2012 at 05:22 PM
Justin: One way to think about it is to insist that the Secret Service adopt the same rules that are imposed on gun owners. If gun laws are so effective, then why does the Secret Service "need" guns to protect the President? If the rebuttal is that these laws don't go far enough, then ask yourself, if everything was banned, would the Secret Service then trade in their guns? The answer to me is no for various reasons. First, we all recognize the the existence of laws does not automatically translate into the eradication of the very vice the law is intended to address. Secondly, assuming the laws were highly enforced, everyone recognizes that the stakes are high (he is the President, after all) and guns are extremely effective at stopping any violent offender, even if he is just attempt to stab the President. Third, the President would be a sitting duck to every disgruntled terrorist in the world. But then ask yourself, if the President is that important, why are our family members not equally important? Among the various reasons described above to justify the continued carrying of a gun, which do not also apply to you or a family member given the right circumstances? Why should our elected officials, celebrities and billionaires, who can afford a cadre of bodyguards, receive special treatment? To me, this is totally repugnant to the dignity of the individual.
Joe December 18, 2012 at 05:38 PM
Adam great illustration.
Paul Bahre December 18, 2012 at 06:24 PM
The Brady bill is the law of the land. Clips are not supposed to be over 8 rounds. High capacity clips that are floating around today were manufactured before the Brady bill took affect. Now I'll tell you this: I'm not going to surrender my high capacity clips to the local law enforcement for nothing, just because some POS went out and killed a bunch of kids, who should never been allowed a weapon more dangerous than safety scissors in his hands. I"m not giving up my clips for nothing absolutely nothing.
Paul Bahre December 18, 2012 at 06:24 PM
I"m not ever going to surrender my clips for nothing, nothing !!!
Paul Bahre December 18, 2012 at 06:27 PM
The Brady Bill, that was passed limits the size of clips to 10 rounds. Grandfathered are high capacity clips over that amount manufactured before the laws passage. I"m not surrendering my high capacity clips for nothing !!!
PaulRevere December 18, 2012 at 06:28 PM
It is time for all of you to admit it. If guns be banned because of How "Fast" they shoot, Then CARS be Banned because "HOW FAST" they Go. Car "accidents" are Not really accidents, THEY ARE KILLINGS, just like Guns. Going over 90MPH or 120MPH is using a "legal vehicle" to Kill. Does a Drugged mind driving a CAR get into an Accident if he kills a family (including children) in another car? Does a Drunk person driving a CAR get into an Accident if he kills another Family with children in another car? Cars are vehicles to "use" with sound Mind. They can kill. They actually kill over 44,000+ per year. Guns used in "sound mind" DO NOT KILL people intentionally. Cars going 90 MPH is NOT what it is supposed to be used for. It is illegal! If that kills , it is NOT an accident. ACCIDENTS--- are Unavoidable happenings. Not even the Security of Seat belts can save a car occupant from an ILLEGALLY USED CAR driven at 90MPH. I might conclude that over 50% of Auto killed Victims did not result of "Accidents". Just as many illegally Fired GUNS used in Mass-killings or single-killing is NOT an Accident. Warped minds is a respectfull way to label Drunks, Potheads, and mentally Ill. They all can Kill in the Politically correct term of "ACCIDENT" So, I put AUTOS as the MOST DANGEROUS "LEGAL" WEAPON IN SOCIETY
Paul Bahre December 18, 2012 at 06:36 PM
I gota give up my care because some kid down the street smacked his care against a tree? I gotta give up my Harley because some outlaw MC's like to ride Harley's? I gotta give up eating cake because someone sent a cake to a prison with a file in it? I gotta give up my TV because someone was watching porn on their TV? I guess I have to suffer for other peoples bad behavior. Good Point Paul Revere
PaulRevere December 18, 2012 at 06:38 PM
Parents ATTN: BOYCOTT--Stop buying violent Video Games for Christmas Gifts. Stop sending your children to violence based movies. You can do that immdeiately. People kill because of "warped minds" Call it mental illness. Call it whatever you want. It is the unchallenged "evil" mind that makes our young do "crazy" things. It starts at young ages. Feeding them daily doses of violence without a dose of good (e.g. Prayer) will eventually affect the weakest minds. Schools now teach "safe Sex". Schools need to Re-Hire GOD and Prayer. Schools need to teach that viewing violence is "BAD". Schools need to teach that Violent video's should not be part of their Games at home. There is nothing safe about playing violent video games. Teach our children at their weakest stage of life. Elementary/High schools.
Andrew Ziemba December 18, 2012 at 07:23 PM
More people die each year from hitting deer than from mass shootings in America. Think about that for a moment.
Joe December 18, 2012 at 07:43 PM
Sorry guys but we may not be totally on the same page. If the response is just the size of future magazines that can be sold (limit 10 shots) and thats the only response to this, then I am with you. However, if I have to deal with only 10 shots in a magazine and we also get No Gun Zones crap lifted and teachers/or police armed in school, and more money to put crazy people away for good, then that's a small inconvenience for me and not a threat to the constitution. Yes I know that more people die from deer and drunks etc, but this was different, and it becomes much different when you play in your mind the movie of how this horror may have looked. I played that same movie for Virginia Tech, Columbine, and Aurora, and for me this one is very different. Just so I can create a digital footprint on this topic...speaking of Aurora...if I am ever in a movie theatre and someone gets up for no reason and walks out the emergency exit, I will follow you and beat you to within an inch of their lives. For me, unless we all see an emergency, thats a door that will forever be different for me.
eddie barca December 23, 2012 at 06:19 PM
has anyone noticed..every reply is from a man. sorry, but UGH..as a woman, i cannot understand your thinking....can someone do a search and find out how many women have shot, with a gun, massive amounts of people?
Adam December 23, 2012 at 09:01 PM
A picture can speak a thousand words: http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/gunsmakeuslesssafe.png
POODETWA December 29, 2012 at 02:59 PM
I AGREE W/YOU FRED. I WOULD SAY 75%.

Boards

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