Less Violence Through Major Gun Control Changes

Michael Gianfranceschi December 28, 2012 at 02:04 am

tried to stay out of this one, I'm very conflicted about the government controlling weapons but I also grieve for the little babies. However, it strikes me as extremely hypocritical that the progressives/liberals here and elsewhere would use this situation to advance thier agenda, covering it in the cloak of protecting the children, while all the while supporting abortion. Millions of children have been killed in the last 20-30 years but abortion is championed as a "right"..... can't have it both ways....think about it............

Maxx Hawke December 28, 2012 at 02:46 am

I agree Michael, actually abortion should top the list as the leading cause of death in America. But as we know, progressive/liberals never acknowledge the facts.

Steven DeVaux December 28, 2012 at 12:15 pm

There are some folks that say abortion is not a violent act against a defenseless child. Oh really?

Michael Gianfranceschi December 28, 2012 at 04:58 pm

you know Ben, i can't think of any fetus in the history of the world that was allowed to come to full term that developed into anything but a human child, can you? Also you don't know me, why would you say I have an infatuation with guns and the death penalty, you don't know my views on these subjects. what I did say is that liberal/progressives rush to push thier agenda of gun control by saying we need to protect the children, while they have no problem killing babies through thier support of abortion. if the logic escapes you try common sense.

Ryen December 28, 2012 at 07:10 pm

@ BenL: Let me get this straight: so you learned the TOTALITY in science classes?? You learned morals, ethics, religion, spirituality, the great questions of existence--you learned ALL of those answers in high school and/or college science classes, Ben??? You are joking, right?? I feel very sorry for you. Science does not answer ALL, Ben. If there are people running around thinking that they can learn all their ethics, morals, religion, sexuality, and "existence" questions in science class, Ben, we are in DEEP trouble.... ;)

Rob Gianazza December 28, 2012 at 07:29 pm

@Ben, you ask a valid question. I don't speak for anyone other than myself when I say that while I do not support abortion, I have no right to remove that option from anyone else. Whether you believe that life is created at conception or birth, it is a very personal choice that you will need to reconcile with your God. I do not appreciate your tongue-in-cheek comment about paying attention in science class. That is a slap in the face to peoples personal faith. You also make assumptions and associations that gun owners are anti-abortion and pro death penalty. Clearly this is inexplicable to you because you lack the depth of judgement to see anyone else's position other than your own. Your use of adverbs and adjectives clearly identifies your bias, yet you ask for an explanation. This is counter intuitive. If you were seeking a serious dialog, I would applaud you for that, however your comments indicate otherwise.

Ryen December 28, 2012 at 07:49 pm

@ BenL This is your comment, and I quote: "Thankfully "some folks" is actually a large swath of the population who payed attention in science class to the fact that life is defined as a self sustaining organism...." You are suggesting that "life" is implicitly, explicitly, and thoroughly "defined" (explained?) in science classes. That is baloney. Science does not have all the answers--or even most of the answers. Science says nothing about the soul, about ethics, about morals, etc--everything I listed. Science is limited to hypothesis, experiment, theorem, limited proofs, empirical evidence. Science is LIMITED. Science does not "explain" life. There is MUCH more needed by human beings than some science class definition. Like I said, if you do not comprehend what I am saying here, then I very simply feel sorry for you. We do not live and conduct our lives and make ethical decisions based on definitions from a science class. And, now, please cite your source on that science definition. Thank you.

Dina Easton December 28, 2012 at 07:52 pm

I am amazed that those who defend a woman's right to kill an innocent fetus (with its own identity, DNA, blood type) will not defend that same woman's right to defend herself against murderers and rapists like those that perpetrated the Cheshire Home Invasion.
The logic escapes me.

Ryen December 28, 2012 at 07:54 pm

@ sock puppet. Comment is inappropriate. The comment also is not grammatically correct. The proper way to write it or say it would be this: "You, sir, are a lunatic and an anachronism." Still, just calling names is not really what this is all about. Support your accusations with quotes, evidence, citations, scholarly articles, links, and opinion if need be--but not only name-calling in improper English....

Rob Gianazza December 28, 2012 at 08:01 pm

Ben, I think many of us would like to see a serious debate of ideals. But many of us grow weary of the snide comments sprinkled through your posts. I would be happy to engage in a serious dialog if we can refrain from comments like "instruments of death". What say you? A fair exchange of ideas, no demeaning or condescending comments? Any other conditions you care to add?

Ryen December 28, 2012 at 08:02 pm

@ BL: I am not talking about what most people believe or say--or claiming to know that. And I do not care about that. You use a "science class definition" to "define" life for all of us--legislatively or otherwise does not matter. What grade level, source, book, scientist does the definition come from, first? Second, you imply that it "defines life". That simply is not true. That is limited and one-dimensional clothed in the wrappings of "scientific claims". Science studies and analyzes and experiments on aspects of life. It does not "define" life exhaustively for any legislation. THAT is precisely why abortion is one of THE prime debates of our time. I am not speaking of the death penalty or "what most people believe" or what legislation says. Legislation in notoriously imperfect and whimsical and in fact courts change and evolve in rulings all the time. I do not need legislators or courts or a (mystery) science class or science book to tell me what life is....I took all those science classes, by the way. The answer they give is not satisfactory! Do you believe in the soul?

Ryen December 28, 2012 at 08:06 pm

@ sp: Huh??? Let us hear you elaborate on that please--because I LOVE the state's rights issues! I am not sure YOU understand them though, sp. You seem to like to come in and throw off "intellectual sounding" sound bites like that, but never stick with the debate long term. So, let me here your bullet points on states' rights in that comment please?

Ryen December 28, 2012 at 08:15 pm

We see clearly that government does not represent "us"--the time for that has actually passed. Government becomes more and more "whimsical, politically correct, populist" and less statesman-like. The Presidential election is an example of this clearly: a non-charismatic, not well-liked Republican business man was within a million or couple million votes of a charismatic, politically correct, unsuccessful candidate. When more than 110 MILLION people vote and there is only a 1% or so difference--there is NO mandate, no clear victory even. The country is more and more like this each election, it seems. Brookfield is the same way even! So, NO, the government is NOT "us".... Elections have become more and more financial, technological, popularity, empty vacuous rhetorical exercises or games.... "47%" or "48%" lose on any given issue. THAT does not portend well for the country, Howard. More proof in the fiscal cliff circus. So, no, I do not concede that government is still for the people much of the time. And polls agree with me Howard....

Ryen December 28, 2012 at 08:18 pm

That is false, Ray. Pure and simply, there is no "landslide" on this issue or many issues anymore. Many people have proven on here that they do not know anything much in terms of "facts" of what the actual different types of weapons are. And we had an assault weapons ban for several years, did we not? What did it accomplish? (I agree with regulation on assault and automatic military weapons, by the way...but I am not NAIVE enough to think that will end this sort of incident.)

Ryen December 28, 2012 at 08:20 pm

Is that a parrot in the room??? Oh, sorry...I thought I heard something being repeated over and over again in an attempt to make it "true". WHAT is gun control, Ray? You LOVE vague platitudes, don't you? Let us hear you specifically DEFINE the "gun control" that the "landslide" want please?

Ryen December 28, 2012 at 08:27 pm

And, by the way--if we have one science book "defining life" for us, I am sure we can take ALL the other science books in the world and come up with all the answers we need for legislation and abortion and Second Amendment and religion and the soul and all the moral and ethical questions--plus fix a TON of medical problems to boot! How is that working out with cancer--where many families have been devastated and at a loss for what "science" did? And that is only one small example. Perhaps if science gets far enough in the next 5 or 10 years (or does science need 30 years? 50?) then we can dispense with the courts, the government, the philosophers, the priests, etc. etc.--and science can simply lay everything out for us?? Brave New World anyone? 1984? Soylent Green? Nuclear arms? Science will fix it all....

Ryen December 28, 2012 at 08:33 pm

But in actuality the headline to this article says it all "Less violence through major gun control changes". Really? REALLY? You are kidding me right?? That is going to solve the problem??? Well, why didn't I or anyone else think of that? WE can make a perfect world! All we have to do is follow people with general ideas like this!! That is how we made our perfect schools, too, right? And this DID happen in a school, coincidentally.... It is all so simple! [SIC] ;)

Rob Gianazza December 28, 2012 at 08:42 pm

I'd like to open up this discussion point. Correct me if I am wrong, years ago, say back in the 1940's, kids played cowboys and indians and army type war games. They had metal toy guns or just their thumb and fore-finger. There on the silver screen, big as life were John Wayne, Burt Lancaster, Jimmy Stewart and many other of our beloved hero actors. Even as kids you and I watched McHales Navy, The Lone Ranger, Bonanza and Gunsmoke. What really changed? We had plastic instead of metal toy guns? We had TV while the previous generation had movie theaters? Kids today have Internet and video games instead of what we had? There has to be something more to it than just toys and entertainment.

Maxx Hawke December 29, 2012 at 05:38 am

Ben, this Mother's Day you may want to consider thanking your mother for not aborting you. My science book taught me that life begins at conception. Adoption is an option to destroying a life - no laws against that, yet...except now in Russia.

Steven DeVaux December 29, 2012 at 01:38 pm

So it's a Mom's right to abort but not a Dad's right to defend. Sounds like Nazism.

Steven DeVaux December 29, 2012 at 01:45 pm

This is the civil discourse he's been taught, Robin. Forgiveness is one of the hallmarks of the holiday season.

Caitlyn Elizabeth December 29, 2012 at 06:32 pm

Ms. Dores
I have a question for you. At this time when the community needs to come together, do you think that pushing a hot button issue like gun control, will help bring us together or cause divisiveness and conflict ? Thank you

Caitlyn Elizabeth December 30, 2012 at 11:55 am

Ms. Dores...In your judgement, do you think that pushing a divisive, controversial issue like gun control at this time when we all need unity, will help to bring us together as a community ?
Thank you

Caitlyn Elizabeth December 31, 2012 at 12:14 pm

Ms. Dores, I know that you really want to be Selectwoman.
I am hoping that you will be the kind of politician that listens to all the people and answers their questions.....unlike most of the politicians in Brookfield. So I will ask you again. Just when the town needs to come together in hard times, do you think your immediately jumping in and pushing a hot button issue like gun control brings unity or divisiveness ? I am hoping that you will have the courtesy to answer THIS question....that I have politely posed for 3 days now.

Carol Dores December 31, 2012 at 12:22 pm

Caitlyn Elizabeth,
I have absolutely no interest in being Selectwoman. My post was not done for any political reasons. I was purely expressing my point of view. I agree that we all need to come together with support, respect, and kindness, especially after this horrible tragedy. I also believe that if we don't address the tough issues like gun control and mental health now, we are allowing yet another tragedy like this to happen. There is no better time to come together and find solutions to prevent this from happening again.

Steven DeVaux December 31, 2012 at 04:21 pm

Caitlyn,
I read Mrs. Dores response - on on a couple of occassions this morning - but I don't see the answer to the question you poised about what her opinion was regarding pushing a hot button issue like gun control to bringing unity or divisiveness. I am curious about her thoughts about bringing unity or divisiveness during a period in which many are still grieving and the reasons she feels it is appropriate. I'm not interested in her political pursuits regarding the First Selectman's office however. That's something that belongs in political caucus at this time of year and not now during the period of mourning. I am concerned about knee jerk reactions. That is what lead thousands of American citizens to be rounded up and placed in prision camps just days after a different act of terrorism back in 1941. I would hope that we have learned from the mistakes of others in our past.

Ryen January 25, 2013 at 03:55 am

@Carol: With all due respect: Your original article really said NOTHING specific or concrete/helpful about gun control. Additionally, this isn't a gun control issue at all, but a mental health & family-school-help services issue. A poor set of decisions by a family led to a horrific accident. NO GUN LAW in the country has ever or ever will stop such a thing unless you live in a fascist state--that's a FACT. Google or Search mass gun killings & READ the root causes & situations they happened in--no gun law will help that. Some strides can be made in school security--but that will not stop it completely if someone wants to harm people badly enough. Those are FACTS--not your politically correct, sensationalistic, biased, "feel good" comments to further a certain reputation, perhaps; you didn't address the issue originally & you haven't answered any questions--you may not want to be a politician, but that's a good imitation of what many politicians do! The "reasoning power" of someone who makes a statement like this is suspect, at minimum. It proves they haven't "thought through" how & why humans ACT & what the root causes of incidents really are. And I quote Carol: "I also believe that if we don't address the tough issues like gun control...we are allowing yet another tragedy like this to happen. There is no better time to come together & find solutions to prevent this from happening again." That's a LUDICROUS and UNREASONABLE statement--totally shows lack of thought/reason!

Steven DeVaux January 25, 2013 at 01:37 pm

Ryen,
Perhaps she is more focused on helping the handicapped in homeowners association secure reasonable accomadations to their shared facilities. Kevin, did Mrs. Dores contact you in any way to advance the cause of ADA communitiy members?

Dina Easton January 25, 2013 at 09:17 pm

This is the answer to all of your questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0&list=LLAQ4ZE_Tc9J2HAc0BxNMk_g&feature=mh_lolz An by the way- I do not appreciate it when people use politically incorrect terms like Cowboys and Indians. The correct term should be " as children we played Cowboys and Native Americans.

Michael Gianfranceschi January 25, 2013 at 10:17 pm

now you are discriminating against women, it should be cowpeople and native americans. some people need to get over themselves.